World is at its hottest since prehistory, say scientists

[KrazyHorse]

Eh.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It should be extremely troubling to anybody with half a brain.

The data is compelling, son.

If the data is so compelling, boy, then answer my question.

What percentage of total atmospheric CO2 emissions are generated by man?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


If the data is so compelling, boy, then answer my question.

What percentage of total atmospheric CO2 emissions are generated by man?

That's not the relevant question. Even if 99% of the CO2 is natural, if it's in balance, then it's OK. If the human created 1% disrupts the balance, then it's a problem. And particularly in a chaotic system, which seems likely, it's a HUGE problem.

[Straybow]

Well? WELL?!

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by joncha

"Your" is the wrong word.

Just had to say that, because I can't stand her. She needs to die and die very soon.

If Aliens come to say hello one day, and they see her, I will feel ashamed to be Human.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Straybow
Well? WELL?!

Well, what?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker

KH

We're talking tiny amounts, CO2 makes up about .04% of the atmosphere so a whopping 27% increase is insignificant.

Thanks for pulling "insignificant" out of your ass there.

This is demonstrably wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


If the data is so compelling, boy, then answer my question.

What percentage of total atmospheric CO2 emissions are generated by man?

Approximately 4%

[KrazyHorse]

Now, take a system which is in pretty good equilibrium. Start to pump out 4% more CO2 than is being sucked back in. Integrate over 150 years.

What's the answer?

Thank you. Next question please.

[KrazyHorse]

At the current rate of excess due to industrial production we are increasing the level of CO2 by 1% of its present value per annum.

This is our model.

Now we look at the evidence, and see a 10000+ year cycle just happening to peak starting during industrialisation. The chances of this happening purely randomly are at 2.5+ sigma, while conforming fairly well to our production model.

The likelihood analysis thus places the source for the recent rise in CO2 levels squarely at our doorstep.

You can continue to blather if you like. But a hypothesis based on known mechanisms which explains what would be a hell of a coincidence otherwise wins my vote every time.

But hell, that's just science.

[Straybow]

The point is, nobody can say how much effect CO2 has relative to other gasses except that it is a relatively strong greenhouse gas. Methane is stronger.

Nobody can say how much is anthropogenic. Nobody can say how much of the current warming is caused by CO2.

Like KH you're great at spinning "what-ifs" but weak on facts. Speculating that an anthropogenic 1% would unbalance a natural 99% is anything but scientific.

[Berzerker]

Thanks for pulling "insignificant" out of your ass there.

This is demonstrably wrong.

Demonstrate then

Approximately 4%

So 4% of .04% is man made? Oh the humanity...

get a grip you guys

Now we look at the evidence, and see a 10000+ year cycle just happening to peak starting during industrialisation. The chances of this happening purely randomly are at 2.5+ sigma, while conforming fairly well to our production model.

I'd say the odds of nearing the peak of a 10,000+ year long cycle, 10,000+ years after the last peak are not unusually high Notice how the graphs of past climates produce a pattern?

The likelihood analysis thus places the source for the recent rise in CO2 levels squarely at our doorstep.

Then why doesn't the graph support your conclusion? CO2 has more than doubled under industrialisation but temps have not increased by much and are well within the historic patterns.

[Datajack Franit]

There was a major warm period around 1000AD which allowed the Vikings to thrive as a people and explore right across to and settle in North America. A later cooling resulted in the extinction of those settlements

True. The whole Iceland settlement was wiped out because of a major cooling around 1200 AD

[Gangerolf]

make that greenland around 1500

and that's just one of many theories (although one of the better ones)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Straybow
Like KH you're great at spinning "what-ifs" but weak on facts. Speculating that an anthropogenic 1% would unbalance a natural 99% is anything but scientific.

a) It's 4%

b) the system was in a better balance than that previous to us starting up out industrialisation. The record of CO2 levels is there.

To avoid this you have to claim that there was another similar imbalance introduced at precisely the same time that we first started producing CO2

That's stupid.