EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:27 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:40 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 154
Surely it's not a matter of where the warming has come from but where it could go at worst.

According to the IPCC that's about 3.2(?) degrees by 2100. That would cause a less than 2 foot sea level rise.

I don't see the need for panic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:19 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20551
Location: Southeastern US
To answer the first question posed in the thread, I had to do a lot of thinking about it since I have been doing it for nearly two decades on some version of this forum.

My views have been changed by these discussions over that time. In the case of a position based on science and evidence it has more often been the change against a position with obviously slanted claims. In the positions I have researched to form a conclustion outside of the internet discussion, I have not been swayed, however, I have convinced others to change their position based on the evidence I presented.

In the discussion of both human and animal rights, economic theory, and politics the opinion is often guided more by the reasonableness of the discussion. I have learned as a moderator, that even the worst opposition to my position deserves the same considerations and when given them will institute a real discussion. I have not changed a position, but I have learned a lot about myself and others that plays a factor in the process of researching now.

I did oppose the Animal Rights movement initially because of the radical actions to support an illogical position. I supported Animal Welfare instead. That has not changed, I still oppose the more terrorist actions and the illogic of the position, but I have learned to respect some of the people involved because of the way they lived their position. I think that was a significant change we can all hope to acheive in such discussions. Tolerance is a good change in most cases.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:06 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:13 am
Posts: 25
Snowy123 wrote:
Yhe CO2 concentration from 1970-2000 increased by 18%. During this timeframe, the temperatures rose. This would give you a forcing of around 0.66 w/m^2 from Carbon Dioxide, assuming a radiative forcing per doubling of CO2 to be 3.7 w/m^2 (which is generally accepted as the value for a doubling of CO2).

Are you going (log(1.18)/log(2))*3.7 W/m² to get 0.66W/m²?

Because when I do that it gives me 0.88 W/m².

But, as you can probably recall, there is a 25-50 year lag between the increase in CO₂ and when only 60% of the warming that it will cause to have occurred. So there is a lot more warming still to come from the change in CO₂ that occurred over that time.

Snowy123 wrote:
Assuming that this was the only forcing during this timeframe that caused the temperature increase from 1970-2000, it's no wonder how one can get unimaginably high sensitivities.

True, but irrelevant, because this assumption is not made. In those papers looked at by Oreskes, and in many more since, an estimate of the natural forcings are included if the paper can be said to support directly that most of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
Snowy123 wrote:
With the sun's magnetic field over the last 100 years more than doubling, and with CO2 concentrations increasing by 30% during the 20th Century, this represents substantial forcing from both natural and anthropogenic sources

Is it possible that this claim about the sun's magnetic field is questionable?
Snowy123 wrote:
The Oreskes study that you cite is not very robust.

I don't know what you mean by that. The abstracts are there for anyone to confirm.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group