Global cooling!

palerider said:
OK. Finally a comittment. You say that you think that our one tenth of one percent contribution to a gas that amounts to five hundred and forty thousanths of the total atmosphere is driving climate change.

Now. If our one tenth of one percent can drive climate change, explain, if you will why the earth's own natural deviation doesn't drive climate change when it can vary by as much as 3% per year.



Clearly, my argument isn't based upon nothing more than the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. I was trying to get you to see that your belief that our one tenth of one percent contribution is insignifigant when compared to the earths own natural deviation of up to 3 percent per year. If that natural deviation of 3% isn't enough to tip the scales and cause a shift in climate, how then can our one tenth of one percent contribution have an effect. We would have to produce more than the earth's natural deviation in order to have any affect at all and we don't even come close.
Click to expand...

Clearly, it is not a tenth of a percent, but a 35% increase. This has been going on for some time, after all, and is not just a one year change.

You still didn't answer my question: Do you think that insignificant trace of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make a difference if we didn't have it at all?
 
Werbung:
Pidgey said:
Sorry... had a family emergency with the mother-in-law: pneumonia and a concurrent bad UTI. She's in her 80s and I can see that we're beginning a very rough time.
Click to expand...

I'm very sorry to hear that. My frail mother fell down the stairs and broke her arm four nights ago and has pneumonia before as well. I hope she comes out OK.
 
It appears to me that more time oughta' be spent identifying and clarifying the data first. Let's spend a little time doing some sanity-checks.

Pidgey
 
9sublime said:
I'm very sorry to hear that. My frail mother fell down the stairs and broke her arm four nights ago and has pneumonia before as well. I hope she comes out OK.
Click to expand...
Thanks, my grandmother, three years ago the shoulder and then again two years ago, the hip. She never got back up that last time, and I'm sure you know what that means. I'm sorry to hear about yours, as well.

Pidgey
 
PLC1 said:
Clearly, it is not a tenth of a percent, but a 35% increase. This has been going on for some time, after all, and is not just a one year change.
Click to expand...

You obviously aren't able to relate the numbers to the reality. Presently, our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is one tenth of one percent. Reduce that one tenth of one percent by 35% and you will see where we came from a couple of decades ago. It is an inherent dishonesty of the AGW movement. 35% seems like a big number if you just say it, but when you look at what 35% actually represents, it becomes statistically insignifigant.

PLC1 said:
You still didn't answer my question: Do you think that insignificant trace of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make a difference if we didn't have it at all?
Click to expand...

I never said that we don't need CO2. I said that our one tenth of one percent doesn't even come close to the earths own natural deviation of up to 3% from year to year.
 
palerider said:
You obviously aren't able to relate the numbers to the reality. Presently, our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is one tenth of one percent. Reduce that one tenth of one percent by 35% and you will see where we came from a couple of decades ago. It is an inherent dishonesty of the AGW movement. 35% seems like a big number if you just say it, but when you look at what 35% actually represents, it becomes statistically insignifigant.



I never said that we don't need CO2. I said that our one tenth of one percent doesn't even come close to the earths own natural deviation of up to 3% from year to year.
Click to expand...

Your argument relies on the fact that carbon dioxide makes up only a small part of the atmosphere, and, therefore, that 35% increase is very little in absolute terms, correct?

My point in asking whether you think that miniscule 1/20 of 1% of the atmosphere would be missed were it not there is that, even though the concentration is small, the effect is large.

There is virtually nothing in the apolitical scientific journals to back up your assertion that human activities don't add significantly to the total carbon dioxide concentration. Of course, you could rely on the pundits to tell you what you want to hear, but the scientific facts argue otherwise.

This source is one of many that refute your figures.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm.
Click to expand...
 
After calcs that I performed myself from scratch, I get that the total current mass of CO2 on the planet* is ~3.356E12 tons. Through fossil fuels, we're releasing ~3.0E10 tons per year, current rate. Therefore, we currently create about 0.89% (just under 1%) of the total mass of CO2 on the planet per year by burning natural gas, coal and oil, if we assume that none is turned to plastic and other compounds that don't immediately decay to CO2.

Pidgey

*Gas form, in the atmosphere
 
Pidgey said:
After calcs that I performed myself from scratch, I get that the total current mass of CO2 on the planet is ~3.356E12 tons. Through fossil fuels, we're releasing ~3.0E10 tons per year, current rate. Therefore, we currently create about 0.89% (just under 1%) of the total mass of CO2 on the planet per year by burning natural gas, coal and oil, if we assume that none is turned to plastic and other compounds that don't immediately decay to CO2.

Pidgey
Click to expand...

Taking your calculation one step further, and using the 500 billion ton figure above, 500 B is 5.0 E 11, or roughly 15% of the world's total.
 
What's the 500 billion ton number and where's it from? I haven't yet gotten around to calculating how much we've added since the industrial age. Incidentally, "they" don't believe that all of the additional CO2 comes from hydrocarbons either--only about 64% of the total. The balance is said to come from the manufacture of cement and the changes in land use. That is, when you convert wooded forest to farmland, you won't absorb as much with the farmland. If farmland is allowed to go back to forest, it creates another CO2 sink.

Pidgey
 
Pidgey said:
What's the 500 billion ton number and where's it from? I haven't yet gotten around to calculating how much we've added since the industrial age. Incidentally, "they" don't believe that all of the additional CO2 comes from hydrocarbons either--only about 64% of the total. The balance is said to come from the manufacture of cement and the changes in land use. That is, when you convert wooded forest to farmland, you won't absorb as much with the farmland. If farmland is allowed to go back to forest, it creates another CO2 sink.

Pidgey
Click to expand...

What's the 500 billion ton number and where's it from?

No, not all of the CO2 has come from the burning of hydrocarbons.

Instead of calculating the amount we've added since the industrial age, I tried doing a search. It is not easy to come up with a reliable figure, but the 500 billion ton estimate is what I found. Maybe you can find a way to calculate it yourself, but it won't be easy.
 
Oh, just have to gather enough of the raw data for coal, oil and natural gas to generate at least a three point curve and then it'd be a good estimate. I'll work on it when I get the time. It will be an exponential but I don't know if the exponential's linear to the full time period or not.

Pidgey
 
Pidgey said:
Oh, just have to gather enough of the raw data for coal, oil and natural gas to generate at least a three point curve and then it'd be a good estimate. I'll work on it when I get the time. It will be an exponential but I don't know if the exponential's linear to the full time period or not.

Pidgey
Click to expand...

Don't forget deforestation and cement manufacture. I'll be interested in your result.
 
Werbung:

Similar threads

K
Mars Melting Too
Replies
1
Views
2K
mr universe
M
invest07
Global Warming is a Fraud
2 3
Replies
43
Views
10K
Hobo1
Hobo1
asur
Global Warming ended in 1998?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Pandora
Pandora
dogtowner
Oh dear, East Anglia sez bundle up
Replies
4
Views
1K
dogtowner
dogtowner
palerider
    • Like
More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change
15 16 17
Replies
248
Views
52K
Texas_tea
Texas_tea
Back
Top