Merely stating my understanding of the topic.
Do complex systems sometimes behave in unexpected ways?
Absolutely.
Thing is though, the greenhouse effect is specifically different in how it reacts with heat, vs. direct and other indirect heating. Maybe my statement didn't make sense. I'm sure it doesn't to most. It would take a pretty lengthy posting to explain the difference.
So if complex systems sometimes behave in unexpected ways, then your 99.99999% conclusion that CO2 is not responsible for observed changes would seem to be something of an overstatement, would it not?
If you want to believe that. Remember, I am not saying CO2 does not cause warming. I am only saying it is impossible for it to cause as much warming as stated by the IPCC. For that I am that confident. I am less confident when attempting to define a level, but if you insist, I will give it about 0.5 ± 0.2 watts/meter of radiative forcing for the time being. The IPCC gives it 1.66 ± ?.
Feel free to publish a paper with data to support that thesis and give it to a peer reviewed journal. No one is stopping you.
Though methane is given a greater GWP (global warming potential) number, it's still not as potent of a greenhouse gas as CO2 is. That's because it is still in the high slope area of its warming curve.
How often have I focused on methane anyway? I am generally pointing out three things.
1) CO2 does not have the stated warming potential. It is in 3rd place as a warming contributor.
2) Solar irradiance changes are the largest factor for global warming we can see in our lifetimes.
3) Black Carbon (soot) is the second largest contribute to global warming, and the most potent cause of anthropogenic warming.
Once again, I get the distinct impression that you didn't really read something linked here.
Carrying on however, CO2, even though it has less overall warming potential than methane, lingers far longer, sustaining any gains over time. Given that it looks to double in atmospheric concentration since 1900 or so in the coming years, even a weak forcing will cause changes.
Secondly, the outgassing of very large amounts of methane from the current natural gas boom, even if this gas is much shorter lived as the linked article noted, will provide a complimentary warming effect.
You and Darrin will be forced to start quibbling over a new gas with demonstrably more warming potential. Have fun with that.
Given rising oil prices, I see a good deal of energy demand shifting to natural gas, and the new fraking technology with its attending methane outgassing, will only increase at a geometric rate.
No need to quibble. Will just keep my eye on the unremarkable change in global temps.
I know you might think I am trying to be sarcastic,funny, or insult you in some way but the truth is if this quote of yours is not a cut and paste you should seriously look into writing screenplays and movie scrips.
Nope, not a cut and paste, just added to slowly over time with multiple edits.
It is less a work of fiction than of data analysis, so the skill involved is less that of creativity, than that of recognizing and categorizing illogical statements.
I will take that as a compliment, but my skills at data analysis earn me a decent income already.
That any anything else Fox "news" tells you to think.
Ad Hominem, rinse, repeat.
More extremes for this year in the current US heat wave and perhaps the more ominus sign is the fact that Arctic Sea Ice extent is at its lowest recorded level by an astonishing 10% at this point of the year. On pace to go lower than 2007 but thats still months off and hte pace of melt could slow.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Pfft....It snowed earlier this year. That's all I need to know.
Feels like the summer of 1980
The thing that will start coming up next in the data for the Deniers to dance around will be the increases in methane emissions from fraking on the part of natural gas producers.
Deniers have danced around the CO2 levels and warming effects, and will now be forced to claim that warming effects of methane are "not that bad" to maintain their claim that the planet is not getting warmer, or that that warming is just part of natural trends.
Methane Causes Vicious Cycle In Global Warming
Carbon dioxide is the gas we most associate with global warming, but methane gas also plays an important role. For reasons that are not well understood, methane gas stopped increasing in the atmosphere in the 1990s. But now it appears to be once again on the rise. Scientists are trying to understand why — and what to do about it.
Methane gas comes from all sorts of sources including wetlands, rice paddies, cow tummies, coal mines, garbage dumps and even termites. Drew Shindell, at NASA's Goddard Ins ute in New York, says, "It's gone up by 150 percent since the pre-industrial period. So that's an enormous increase. CO2, by contrast, has gone up by something like 30 percent."
More From This Series
New Anti-Smog Restrictions Could Warm Planet
Jan. 25, 2010
Molecule for molecule, methane is much more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. And that's just part of the trouble.
I think they'll start talking about cow farts.
Deniers
Last edited by DarrinS; 07-22-2011 at 01:16 PM.
Beefcake!
Pseudoscience
Light bulb.
"the increases in methane emissions from fraking on the part of natural gas producers."
tar sands is another new, and vastly increasing source of methane.
I guess you are tired of giving me fodder for the OP?
Sure you don't want to pony up to another logical fallacy, or demonstrable intellectually dishonest argument?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
