71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 06:09 pm
Different day, still errors in your statement whether you deleted it or not. I didn't make up your statement. I merely quoted it and responded at a later time.



Humans are accountable for 5% of CO2 per year.

But that doesn't account for the "increase" in CO2.
1975 - 2005 is 30 years. Humans put 6 billion tons per year into the atmosphere. The oceans and plants remove more than 150 billion tons per year will putting 150 billion in per year.

That assumes that humans put 5% per year into the atmosphere.

F for a 30 year time frame is NOT figured by 6/(90+60)

You have to figure the total contributed each year and the total taken out each year by the ocean and vegetation.
Cr = the amount of CO2 removed by oceans and vegetation each year.
Cr would be about 154 billion tons based on a rough percentage of increase.

F would be (6x30)-(30x(CR-(90+60)))
180 - 120 = 40
That means that 40 billion tons have been contributed over the course of the 30 years. This is NOT 5% of the atmospheric total CO2. It is 40/156 if 156 is really the TOTAL CO2 in the atmosphere. But we don't know that for certain based on the information given since it assumes that ALL the CO2 is cycled every year. Something that isn't realistic.


But then you make the SAME error I pointed out earlier leaving out in this case 96% of human CO2. Humans cause 4-5% of the heat created by CO2. You can't multiply the increase by the % of CO2 since you haven't shown that the oceans or vegetation make up 96% of the increase. In fact we know they can NOT make up 96% of the increase since that would mean that humans only contribute .0016 of the CO2 which you just said they contributed .04. Your math is faulty and your assumptions are even worse.

In order to use the 5% of CO2 figure to show what % is contributed by humans you would have to know what % of the total temperature of the earth is caused by CO2.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 07:31 pm
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Here's the video of the founder of the Weather Channel calling for a potential lawsuit against Al Gore.


(Compliments of Boortz.)

He forgot to mention just about every scientist is on Al Gore's side.

...

Actually a minority of scientists are on Gore's side.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 07:37 pm
parados wrote:
Different day, still errors in your statement whether you deleted it or not. I didn't make up your statement. I merely quoted it and responded at a later time.
...
Early this morning, I found errors in my statement. About an hour before your post I deleted it. Earlier this evening I posted a corrected statement. I'll shall defend it. I will not defend the one I deleted.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 07:51 pm
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
Different day, still errors in your statement whether you deleted it or not. I didn't make up your statement. I merely quoted it and responded at a later time.
...
Early this morning, I found errors in my statement. About an hour before your post I deleted it. Earlier this evening I posted a corrected statement. I'll shall defend it. I will not defend the one I deleted.

My recent post is about your last math attempt.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 07:54 pm
parados wrote:
Different day, still errors in your statement whether you deleted it or not. I didn't make up your statement. I merely quoted it and responded at a later time.
...
Early this morning, I found errors in part of my post.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3128590#3128590

About an hour before your post critiquing that post, I deleted the part containing the errors I detected. Earlier this evening I posted an extensive correction of the part I deleted. I'll shall defend that correction. I will not defend what I delete.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 07:58 pm
ican,
you haven't deleted this post
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3130320#3130320

This post of mine
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3130554#3130554
deals with the math in the post you have not deleted. You make errors and I pointed them out.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 08:02 pm
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
Different day, still errors in your statement whether you deleted it or not. I didn't make up your statement. I merely quoted it and responded at a later time.
...
Early this morning, I found errors in part of my post.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3128590#3128590

About an hour before your post critiquing that post, I deleted the part containing the errors I detected. Earlier this evening I posted an extensive correction of the part I deleted.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3130320#3130320

I'll shall defend that correction. I will not defend what I delete.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 08:57 pm
parados wrote:
ican,
you haven't deleted this post
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3130320#3130320

This post of mine
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3130554#3130554
deals with the math in the post you have not deleted. You make errors and I pointed them out.


parados wrote:
Humans are accountable for 5% of CO2 per year.

But that doesn't account for the "increase" in CO2.
1975 - 2005 is 30 years. Humans put 6 billion tons per year into the atmosphere. The oceans and plants remove more than 150 billion tons per year will putting 150 billion in per year.

That assumes that humans put 5% per year into the atmosphere.

F for a 30 year time frame is NOT figured by 6/(90+60)

You have to figure the total contributed each year and the total taken out each year by the ocean and vegetation.
Cr = the amount of CO2 removed by oceans and vegetation each year.
Cr would be about 154 billion tons based on a rough percentage of increase.

F would be (6x30)-(30x(CR-(90+60)))
180 - 120 = 40
That means that 40 billion tons have been contributed over the course of the 30 years. This is NOT 5% of the atmospheric total CO2. It is 40/156 if 156 is really the TOTAL CO2 in the atmosphere. But we don't know that for certain based on the information given since it assumes that ALL the CO2 is cycled every year. Something that isn't realistic.


But then you make the SAME error I pointed out earlier leaving out in this case 96% of human CO2. Humans cause 4-5% of the heat created by CO2. You can't multiply the increase by the % of CO2 since you haven't shown that the oceans or vegetation make up 96% of the increase. In fact we know they can NOT make up 96% of the increase since that would mean that humans only contribute .0016 of the CO2 which you just said they contributed .04. Your math is faulty and your assumptions are even worse.

In order to use the 5% of CO2 figure to show what % is contributed by humans you would have to know what % of the total temperature of the earth is caused by CO2.

If the sun's irradiance were always constant, and the density of CO2 in the oceans and global atmosphere were also constant, then it would be accurate to say that when humans added CO2 to the oceans and atmosphere, they were the sole cause of the additional CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere. But even if humans added nothing to the oceans and atmosphere, the increased heating of the oceans by the sun's increased irradiance would cause increased amounts of CO2 to leave the oceans and enter the atmosphere.

So the question to be answered scientifically is: how much of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by the sun's increased irradiance, and how much by humans' increased CO2 emissions? Humans are alleged to annually be putting into the atmosphere 1/X the amount of the annual extra amount of CO2 put there by increased warming of the oceans. What is the value of X?

For lack of a more supportable number, I have claimed X = 20. I claim X = 20, because 20 times more CO2 leaves earth's surfaces and enters the atmosphere each year than is put there by humans.

However, I know I cannot prove X = 20, by that reasoning. I don't actually know the actual ratio of human caused CO2 emissions to increased solar irradiation caused CO2 emissions. But if no one knows that ratio, then how can anyone truly know how much of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in any year is human caused? I say they cannot really know such until they really know that ratio.

Show me where I'm wrong ... if you can!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 09:31 pm
I have already shown you wrong.

Lets assume a solution X has 20 grams of a substance Y in it.

Now there is a process that acts on X and removes 19 grams of Y every hour but also returns 19 grams of Y every hour. We will call this process A.
If we monitor X and process B for 5 hours there is no increase of Y in X.

Now we introduce another process B which adds 5 grams of Y every hour and removes none of Y.

If after 5 hours we solution X has 22 grams of substance Y in it where did the extra Y come from? Process A or Process B?

If we know that Process A introduces 5 grams of Y every hour but haven't measured B during that 5 hours what is the logical assumption to make?



We know for a fact that humans introduce MORE CO2 into the atmosphere than the increase we observe. Where does that extra CO2 go? If the oceans and vegetation don't take up MORE CO2 than they put out where is that CO2?

Here is another explanation.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

and another mathematical proof here
http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/a-simple-calculation/

Humans do not put out 1/20 of the increase in CO2. They put out 2 or more times the increase in CO2.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Humans account for 32 gigatonnes per year with the 15 gigatonnes increase per year in the atmosphere.

http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html
4 lines of evidence show that humans cause CO2 increase.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 08:26 am
parados wrote:
We know for a fact that humans introduce MORE CO2 into the atmosphere than the increase we observe. Where does that extra CO2 go? If the oceans and vegetation don't take up MORE CO2 than they put out where is that CO2?

Parados, not because you keep repeating this same piece of junk science would make it better.
We don't even know why there is a carbon "missing sink" which is as high as half of total fossil fuel emissions: (see here http://www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm ).
We can't even determine carbon natural fluxes with better accuracy than 40 Gt/year CO2. So saying that the increase of 15 Gt/year is of human origin is like trying to determine a 1.5 pound weight gain with a scale with no better accuracy than 4 pounds.
Nobody can claim the current CO2 concentration increase is 100% manmade because there is simply no evidence for it. Even the IPCC can't quantify it.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 08:42 am
miniTAX wrote:
Nobody can claim the current CO2 concentration increase is 100% manmade because there is simply no evidence for it. Even the IPCC can't quantify it.
So why do they use the word anthropogenic to describe it?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 08:48 am
miniTAX wrote:
parados wrote:
We know for a fact that humans introduce MORE CO2 into the atmosphere than the increase we observe. Where does that extra CO2 go? If the oceans and vegetation don't take up MORE CO2 than they put out where is that CO2?

Parados, not because you keep repeating this same piece of junk science would make it better.
We don't even know why there is a carbon "missing sink" which is as high as half of total fossil fuel emissions: (see here http://www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm ).
We can't even determine carbon natural fluxes with better accuracy than 40 Gt/year CO2. So saying that the increase of 15 Gt/year is of human origin is like trying to determine a 1.5 pound weight gain with a scale with no better accuracy than 4 pounds.
Nobody can claim the current CO2 concentration increase is 100% manmade because there is simply no evidence for it. Even the IPCC can't quantify it.

Sure and if someone adds stones to a pile faster than someone else removes them we can't possibly come to the conclusion that the person adding the stones is the reason there are more stones on the pile. Rolling Eyes

Or maybe just because we don't know the name of the person removing the stones we should state that the person adding them can't possibly be the cause of the increase in stones.

So.. tell us where the human carbon is going miniTAX since you think the theory that humans are the cause of the increase is wrong. Simple science here miniTAX.. Provide a better theory that accounts for the increase in CO2 and accounts for the human CO2 going somewhere else. Don't forget that atoms have a molecular weight that can be used to find the amount of carbon in a given weight of fossil fuels.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 11:44 am
parados wrote:
Sure and if someone adds stones to a pile faster than someone else removes them we can't possibly come to the conclusion that the person adding the stones is the reason there are more stones on the pile. Rolling Eyes
There is NO way to reliably count the CO2 stones, particularly the way and the rate it is removed so your parallel is nonsensical. Past climates have shown that CO2 has changed naturally and nobody, even the IPCC knows the manmade part in the CO2 increase over the past years. There is no way to know it, either by carbon accounting, sea water dosage, delta o3 or delta C13 recording... The current science doesn't even know the CO2 atmospheric lifetime. Read the IPCC report and you'll see: there is no clear definition nor quantification of it.

parados wrote:
So.. tell us where the human carbon is going miniTAX since you think the theory that humans are the cause of the increase is wrong. Simple science here miniTAX.. Provide a better theory that accounts for the increase in CO2 and accounts for the human CO2 going somewhere else. Don't forget that atoms have a molecular weight that can be used to find the amount of carbon in a given weight of fossil fuels.
I'm not saying that human carbon is not adding to the atmospheric increase. I'm saying that the IPCC doesn't know if all or part and which part of the increase is man mande. Not because you want to know means that you know.
That's a complex and largely unresolved issue (look for example at the CO2 fluxes betwen atmosphere and Earth, numbers vary from 150 GTC to 220 GTC/Y depending on the paper, that is huge uncertainties remain) so saying that we know where the manmade CO2 goes is oversimplification and exageration of the current state of knowledge.
It's not science, it's propaganda.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 11:51 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
Nobody can claim the current CO2 concentration increase is 100% manmade because there is simply no evidence for it. Even the IPCC can't quantify it.
So why do they use the word anthropogenic to describe it?

Please elaborate.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 12:00 pm
http://www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/sustain/patz.html

refer the first sentence
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 12:03 pm
Anthropos = man, genese = product.

Anthropogenic literally means "producing man". The correct term for "produced by man" would be anthropogenous.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 12:11 pm
anthropogenic (nthr-p-jnk)
Caused or influenced by humans. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is that portion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is produced directly by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, rather than by such processes as respiration and decay.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 12:17 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Anthropos = man, genese = product.

Anthropogenic literally means "producing man". The correct term for "produced by man" would be anthropogenous.


Walter - on Latin I'm happy to defer to you, but I do know ancient Greek and have to tell you your definition is incorrect.

"Produced BY man" is the correct translation from the Greek; it's certainly the usage in English scientific literature:

Quote:
Refers to something originating from humans and to the impact of human activities on nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

source: NASA Meteorology Glossary

PS for the Greek version:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 12:41 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
It doesn't say that 100% of the CO2 atmospheric increase is manmande, nor 50%, nor 2%. The science is as bad as this Surprised
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 12:42 pm
High Seas wrote:
Walter - on Latin I'm happy to defer to you, but I do know ancient Greek and have to tell you your definition is incorrect.


You're correct: I have no idea of Greek besides some basics.

And thus I looked it up Embarrassed

Quote:
Anthropogenous : A concept based on the Greek word anthropos (=Man) . An anthropogenous factor is a factor which is caused or created by Man.
source: Glossary for Environmental Science and Technology, Technical University Berlin, 1997/1999, (first published at Izmir University, 1993)

But chapeau to Foxfyre's and your Greek knowledge. (My books say that the Greek participles generally follow the formation of the tenses to which they belong; this might be wrong then, or is the above an exception?)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/08/2024 at 08:26:06