The Keeling Curve

[bindeweede]

This article shows how the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from about 320 ppm to 380 ppm. Is this increase statistically significant?

I'm not a scientist or mathematician, but I wonder if there is a bit of "jumping on the bandwagon" regarding climate change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7120770.stm

[ZERO]

As seen here, it is a tiny change when looked at from a geologic timescale.

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/9/793

[bindeweede]

As seen here, it is a tiny change when looked at from a geologic timescale.

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/9/793


Zero,

I think you are pulling my u-know.;D

[ZERO]

The article you linked to, describes the Keeling curve in the same terms as E=MC2 and the DNA helix. Yet look at the tiny fraction of time the graph covers.
Over the billions of years of earths history there has been massive atmospere changes. (see my link)
The rise is not statisticly significant if looked at from this perspective.

I'm not deliberately pulling anything. Maybe I've missed the point again?:-[

[bindeweede]

The article you linked to, describes the Keeling curve in the same terms as E=MC2 and the DNA helix. Yet look at the tiny fraction of time the graph covers.
Over the billions of years of earths history there has been massive atmospere changes. (see my link)
The rise is not statisticly significant if looked at from this perspective.

I'm not deliberately pulling anything. Maybe I've missed the point again?:-[

Zero

I must admit that I couldn't see how this increase could be statistically significant, especially over the millions of years the info in your link presented. But the CO2 emissions business does seem to have taken over in the "climate change" concerns. Do you think there is a lot of hype here? I believe methane is another "greenhouse" gas, but the media rarely mention it.

Do you know of any research which has quantified what proportion of global warming has been caused by rising CO2 emissions, if that is even possible to do?

[I though at first with your link, you were trying to blind me with science - easy to do:smiley:]

[Cuddles]

Statistical significance is not a relevant term here. Statistical significance is a measure of how likely the difference between two (preferably large) groups is to be due to chance. Presumably what you mean to ask is whether the observed rise in CO2 is large enough to alter the climate. Zero's answer is a non-sequitur. Sure, the level has changed by more than it has now, but the climate has changed a hell of a lot as well.

There are some utterly irrefutable facts. Climate changes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are releasing carbon into the atmosphere that has been buried for millions of years, during which the climate has changed significantly. The average global temperature is rising. Average sea levels are rising. It is impossible to argue with any of that.

Now there can be debate about how much difference the carbon we're releasing can make. Is the temperature rise actually a long-term trend or simply a short term variation? Same for sea level. Will a small change in average temperature actually make a significant difference to the climate? Will a small rise in sea level actually cause any problems? Can humans be blamed for any of it? Can we stop it? If not, can we cope with it? These are all valid topics for argument. Questioning whether we are releasing a greenhouse gas or whether temperatures are rising are not valid topics of argument because they are simple facts, and it makes no more sense to deny them than to deny we went to the Moon (maybe not us personally).

However, while there are valid arguments to be made, most of them are rather old arguments, and they've pretty much been settled. The vast majority of climate scientists, the people who's job it is to actually understand these things, agree that yes, temperature is increasing long-term, as are sea levels. Yes, a small rise in sea level is a serious problem. Yes, human greenhouse gas emissions are at least partially to blame. No, we probably can't stop it but we can almost certainly prepare and cope with things fairly easily as long as we actually start now instead of waiting until problems really start happening.

It's important to understand that climate science is not actually a political subject. It often gets politicised, and both sides engage in far too much hyperbole and dishonesty. However, as with most science, if you ignore all the various political and commercial agendas and misinformation, you can see what the evidence actually says. And what it says is that there are almost certainly going to be problems, but we aren't sure whether it will be as little as needing slightly higher flood walls, whole countries disappearing under water or, most likely, somewhere in between.

[Cuddles]

Until recently, this (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/), the IPCC Third Assessment Report, was the most comprehensive look at the Earth's climate. The Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_ Change_results) does a good job of summarising it. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm) was released a couple of weeks ago, and is summarised on another Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report) page. I haven't had much of a chance to look at the new report, but as far as I know there are no major changes to it's conclusions, only in the details.

[bindeweede]

Cuddles,

Thank you for the clarifications.

[ZERO]

[I though at first with your link, you were trying to blind me with science - easy to do:smiley:]
There are quite a few members here who could wipe me out if I tried that stunt.
It was the first link I could find that used ppm and covered a long time frame.

Statistical significance is not a relevant term here. Statistical significance is a measure of how likely the difference between two (preferably large) groups is to be due to chance. Presumably what you mean to ask is whether the observed rise in CO2 is large enough to alter the climate. Zero's answer is a non-sequitur. Sure, the level has changed by more than it has now, but the climate has changed a hell of a lot as well.
I can't see the fallacy in my posts?

There are some utterly irrefutable facts. Climate changes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are releasing carbon into the atmosphere that has been buried for millions of years, during which the climate has changed significantly. The average global temperature is rising. Average sea levels are rising. It is impossible to argue with any of that.
I didn't deny these facts.

Now there can be debate about how much difference the carbon we're releasing can make. Is the temperature rise actually a long-term trend or simply a short term variation? Same for sea level. Will a small change in average temperature actually make a significant difference to the climate? Will a small rise in sea level actually cause any problems? Can humans be blamed for any of it? Can we stop it? If not, can we cope with it? These are all valid topics for argument. Questioning whether we are releasing a greenhouse gas or whether temperatures are rising are not valid topics of argument because they are simple facts, and it makes no more sense to deny them than to deny we went to the Moon (maybe not us personally).

However, while there are valid arguments to be made, most of them are rather old arguments, and they've pretty much been settled. The vast majority of climate scientists, the people who's job it is to actually understand these things, agree that yes, temperature is increasing long-term, as are sea levels. Yes, a small rise in sea level is a serious problem. Yes, human greenhouse gas emissions are at least partially to blame. No, we probably can't stop it but we can almost certainly prepare and cope with things fairly easily as long as we actually start now instead of waiting until problems really start happening.

It's important to understand that climate science is not actually a political subject. It often gets politicised, and both sides engage in far too much hyperbole and dishonesty. However, as with most science, if you ignore all the various political and commercial agendas and misinformation, you can see what the evidence actually says. And what it says is that there are almost certainly going to be problems, but we aren't sure whether it will be as little as needing slightly higher flood walls, whole countries disappearing under water or, most likely, somewhere in between.
I really don't understand where I went wrong.
All I did was say that the changes in the OP are small when looked at over eons of time. I didn't say anything about the human contribution, for or against.
Please show me the error of my ways.

[Cuddles]

I really don't understand where I went wrong.
All I did was say that the changes in the OP are small when looked at over eons of time. I didn't say anything about the human contribution, for or against.
Please show me the error of my ways.

Basically, it's irrelevant, hence non-sequitur. It doesn't matter how little the change is compared to what's happened before, all that matters is if the current change is big enough to matter. Yes, it's interesting, and useful, to know what has happened before, but when it comes to questions like Bindeweed's about if the current situation is significant and are scientists all jumping on a bandwagon, it just doesn't matter. It's like asking if a 20% oxygen level is important for us to breathe, and then pointing out that the level was about 0% in the past. True, interesting, but irrelevant.

[ZERO]

Thanks Cuddles.
Yes, I see how the OP was aimed at current climate and if the rise was statistcally significant due to human action and my post was irrelevant in that context. (sorry bindeweede I did miss the point)