However I suggest you start here:
From 2007, Notable source (Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Let me know if this is the type of informatioon you are looking for.
you can choose to view it online or as PDF. Hope this helps.
The EIA cites global energy consumption at 421 quadrillion Btu in 2003.
I think VENS numbers above are what you are asking for. Is that right?
A random process consisting of a sequence of discrete steps of fixed length. The random thermal perturbations in a liquid are responsible for a random walk phenomenon known as Brownian motion, and the collisions of molecules in a gas are a random walk responsible for diffusion. Random walks have interesting mathematical properties that vary greatly depending on the dimension in which the walk occurs and whether it is confined to a lattice.
Rosborne979's claim of a "natural pattern of warming" can be argued as false if used as predictive, unless one can show empirical causation.
As rough as my numbers are, they seem to suggest to me that human activity(energy consumption, not CO2 release) is more than just a factor, but the tipping factor that has put our environment into a warming cycle.
Chumly wrote:Rosborne979's claim of a "natural pattern of warming" can be argued as false if used as predictive, unless one can show empirical causation.
See Graph at top of thread. That seems like a VERY strong pattern to me.
Based on the last 450k years, do you have any doubt that we are about to hit the top of the most recent spike, and then slide rapidly down into another cold patch? Unless someone can show that the data in the graph (and others like it) are false, then I doubt there's any amount of warming humans can induce which will prevent a repeat of the pattern. I suspect that global forces are far more powerful than human forces, but that is why I asked the question.
The other reason I asked the question is to point out why the political push for acceptance of human-induced global warming is having such a hard time getting traction. If nobody (and no public scientific material available on the web) can answer a simple question like the one I asked, then there will never be consensus on how we should respond (especially when a response will have an affect on economic systems).
I am not inherently arguing against your views, but for fun I will on some points, if you don't mind.