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

Engineering's greatest challenge: Our survival

As to who is right of who in Germany, I have no clue.

miniTAX wrote:

The IPCC mandate is, I cite:
"to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation".

The 4th IPCC report builds on the work of earlier reports from which it is concluded that climate change is real and that it stems from human activity.

That is akin to studying how many martians landed at Roswell, was it a hundred, or one or two? It would really be a non-starter to have to conclude that none landed there wouldn't it, after all that money spent on such a study, and all the experts receiving funding to study how many landed there? No expert wants to come to a conclusion that essentially says it was a waste of money to pay him to study it.

By the way HB, you never did answer my question. With Arctic ice returning with a vengeance this winter, did your lake freeze over this winter?

Yet a few posts back you were saying even the IPCC cant quantify the magnitude of CO2 change and whether it was human induced or not.

Nobody denies that there is anthropogenic climate change.

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.

[No! I have already shown you are wrong.

Let's assume mixture A has 100 grams of C in it.

Now there is a process that adds 50 grams of C and removes 50 grams of C from mixture A every hour. We will call this process E-P.

If we monitor A and process E-P for 5 hours we learn that there is no increase or decrease of C in mixture A.

Now we introduce another process H which adds 4 grams of C to mixture A and removes 2 grams from mixture A every hour.

After 5 hours we observe that mixture A has 110 grams of C in it.

Now we introduce another process S which adds 12 grams of C to mixture A and removes 4 grams from mixture A every hour.

After 5 hours we observe that mixture A has 150 grams of C in it.

Obviously S has introduced 40 more grams of C into mixture A.

Let:
A = the atmosphere;
C = CO2;
E-P = the process of evaporation of CO2 out of its surface sink into A and the precipitation of CO2 out of A into its surface sink.
H-E-P = the human process of addiing CO2 into A and the E-P process of removal of 50% of these additions.
S = the process caused by the increase in solar irradiance that increases the temperature of both A and the CO2 surface sink.

CO2 in the atmosphere:
1975 = 330ppm
2005 = 385ppm


FOR THE PERIOD 1975 TO 2005:
%increase in CO2 in the atmosphere = 100% x (385-330)/330 = 16.7%

%increase in average global temperature not caused by solar irradiance increase = 0.1488%.

Ratio of CO2 increase to the average global temperature increase that is not caused by solar irradiance increase = 16.67% / 0.1488% = 112

Looks like average global temperature is relatively insensitive to CO2 content of the atmosphere.

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.

ican711nm wrote:

[No! I have already shown you are wrong.

Let's assume mixture A has 100 grams of C in it.

Now there is a process that adds 50 grams of C and removes 50 grams of C from mixture A every hour. We will call this process E-P.

If we monitor A and process E-P for 5 hours we learn that there is no increase or decrease of C in mixture A.

Now we introduce another process H which adds 4 grams of C to mixture A and removes 2 grams from mixture A every hour.

After 5 hours we observe that mixture A has 110 grams of C in it.

Now we introduce another process S which adds 12 grams of C to mixture A and removes 4 grams from mixture A every hour.

After 5 hours we observe that mixture A has 150 grams of C in it.

Obviously S has introduced 40 more grams of C into mixture A.

Let:
A = the atmosphere;
C = CO2;
E-P = the process of evaporation of CO2 out of its surface sink into A and the precipitation of CO2 out of A into its surface sink.
H-E-P = the human process of addiing CO2 into A and the E-P process of removal of 50% of these additions.
S = the process caused by the increase in solar irradiance that increases the temperature of both A and the CO2 surface sink.

your analogy makes no sense.
1. You have no evidence of humans removing CO2 from the atmosphere in quantities similar to your analogy. In fact there is no evidence of humans removing CO2 in any quantity that would be considered substantial.
2. The solar radiation is not a NEW process so can't suddenly be introduced after humans have started pumping CO2 into the air. Solar variation has occurred for billions of years.
3. Solar radiation doesn't create CO2 in the atmosphere so your attempt to use it is completely bogus.

We know that humans pump out more CO2 than the yearly increase. You have provided no other viable source for the increase in CO2. You have provided no viable place for the human CO2 to go so it is NOT the cause of the increase. You have provided no refutation of the KIND of carbon atoms that make up the inrease. Carbon atoms that are most likely to have come from fossil fuels in the quantities observed. You have provided no evidence of any change other than humans for the increase in CO2.

http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm
About half of the recent emissions are not accumulating in the atmosphere, but are going into the ocean and, to a lesser extent, into soils. These are considered "sinks" in the global carbon budget because they take up atmospheric CO2.

ican711nm wrote:

CO2 in the atmosphere:
1975 = 330ppm
2005 = 385ppm


FOR THE PERIOD 1975 TO 2005:
%increase in CO2 in the atmosphere = 100% x (385-330)/330 = 16.7%

%increase in average global temperature not caused by solar irradiance increase = 0.1488%.

Ratio of CO2 increase to the average global temperature increase that is not caused by solar irradiance increase = 16.67% / 0.1488% = 112

Looks like average global temperature is relatively insensitive to CO2 content of the atmosphere.

No one ever said it was the total reason for the earth's temperature or that increasing it by 50% would increase the earth's temperature by 50% or even 10%.

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

[No! I have already shown you are wrong.

Let's assume mixture A has 100 grams of C in it.

Now there is a process that adds 50 grams of C and removes 50 grams of C from mixture A every hour. We will call this process E-P.

If we monitor A and process E-P for 5 hours we learn that there is no increase or decrease of C in mixture A.

Now we introduce another process H which adds 4 grams of C to mixture A and removes 2 grams from mixture A every hour.

After 5 hours we observe that mixture A has 110 grams of C in it.

Now we introduce another process S which adds 12 grams of C to mixture A and removes 4 grams from mixture A every hour.

After 5 hours we observe that mixture A has 150 grams of C in it.

Obviously S has introduced 40 more grams of C into mixture A.

Let:
A = the atmosphere;
C = CO2;
E-P = the process of evaporation of CO2 out of its surface sink into A and the precipitation of CO2 out of A into its surface sink.
H-E-P = the human process of addiing CO2 into A and the E-P process of removal of 50% of these additions.
S = the process caused by the increase in solar irradiance that increases the temperature of both A and the CO2 surface sink.

your analogy makes no sense.
1. You have no evidence of humans removing CO2 from the atmosphere in quantities similar to your analogy. In fact there is no evidence of humans removing CO2 in any quantity that would be considered substantial.
2. The solar radiation is not a NEW process so can't suddenly be introduced after humans have started pumping CO2 into the air. Solar variation has occurred for billions of years.
3. Solar radiation doesn't create CO2 in the atmosphere so your attempt to use it is completely bogus.

We know that humans pump out more CO2 than the yearly increase. You have provided no other viable source for the increase in CO2. You have provided no viable place for the human CO2 to go so it is NOT the cause of the increase. You have provided no refutation of the KIND of carbon atoms that make up the inrease. Carbon atoms that are most likely to have come from fossil fuels in the quantities observed. You have provided no evidence of any change other than humans for the increase in CO2.

YOUR INTERPRETATION OF MY POST MAKES ZERO SENSE.
1. I did not claim humans removed CO2 from the atmosphere.

Quote:

http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm
About half of the recent emissions are not accumulating in the atmosphere, but are going into the ocean and, to a lesser extent, into soils. These are considered "sinks" in the global carbon budget because they take up atmospheric CO2.

2. The solar irradiation process is a changing process. Sometimes it's level of irradiation is relatively low; sometimes it is average; sometimes it is relatively high. During 1975-2005 it increased to relatively high.

3. Solar radiation heats the surface of the globe. When solar radiation intensity increases, it heats up the surface of the globe more. Our globe's surface, especially the oceans, are CO2 sinks. When they are heated more, they emit more CO2 into the atmosphere. When the atmosphere is warmer, it can retain more CO2 than when it is cooler. Therefore, when solar irradiation increases, it causes more CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere from surface CO2 sinks, and it causes more CO2 to be retained in the atmosphere.

I have identified an additional source of CO2 in the atmosphere besides humans. That additional source is the natural land and ocean surfaces of the earth.

By the way, most of the CO2 in the oceans arrived their over thousands of years before 1975, even before 1901, even before 1850, even before George Washington allegedly chopped down a cherry tree when a youngster. Wise up! ... if you can ...

...
So where does the human released CO2 go? We know that humans release more than twice the amount of CO2 that is newly retained in the atmosphere. Where does it go? You have never answered that question which is required if you want to claim the source is other than human. I have posted repeated scientific references that show the ocean absorbs more than it releases.

http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm
About half of the recent emissions are not accumulating in the atmosphere, but are going into the ocean and, to a lesser extent, into soils. These are considered "sinks" in the global carbon budget because they take up atmospheric CO2.