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

username wrote:

It is quite possible to tell what percentage of CO2 increase is anthropogenic and what is not. The IPCC FAR does it. Essentially all of it isanthropogenic. Two converging lines of evidence. We know how much CO2 we produce. It's roughly twice the amount of atmospheric increase each year. About half of it is sequestered in the oceans and the earth. CO2 stays in the atmosphere on average for about a century. What's left is the increase.

The FAR has not told the percentage of manmade CO2 increase. It has not said the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 1 century. If it had, please, show the exact quote.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Do humans put out more CO2 than is observed as the increase in the atmosphere? yes or no? If no, then give us your "real science."

Indeed human has put out more CO2 than observed concentration increase. But this increase, mean value 0.5%/year (but some years, it may be half this, see graph), is largely noise compared to natural yearly fluctuations. A decrease in ocean CO2 solubility due to long term oceanic oscillation may very well explain this +0.5%/year.
For the moment, there is no way to know the origin of this +0.5%/year, neither by carbon accounting, nor by isotopic dosage, nor by CO2 lifetime since nobody knows this lifetime. So attributing this 0.5%/year increase solely to anthropogenic cause is what I called junk science.

There has been such example of climate junk science refuted by the real world. Humans are supposed to spew methane. The IPCC has predicted in 2001 methane concentration would increase 1%/year. But it has not changed over the last 10 years. And nobody knows why.

http://www.futura-sciences.com/uploads/RTEmagicC_co2-260607b.jpg.jpg

0 Replies

What you call junk science, miniTax, is what the scientific community calls well-vetted theoretically sound technique. And yes, that includes isotopic analysis. What you cite as science is very often thought of as hare-brained.

And I already cited the IPCC on anthropogenic CO2, in response to one of ican's loopier actual junk science screeds. Keep up. Or go to the FAR's FAQs at the IPCC website. It's all there. The century figure is the commonly accepted average lifespan. I didn't make it up.

0 Replies

For example, Lufthansa uses it, quoting the IPCC, 2001, which is I think the SAR. http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html/verantwortung/oeko-effizienz/faqs/index.html

0 Replies

And the point is, mini, the change in isotope ratios shows that the increased CO2 has to be coming from plant sources (change in C12/C13 ratio) and the C12/C13/C14 ratio change shows it has to be VERY OLD plant material, i.e. in large part fossil fuel. No natural sources operating prior to the industrial revolution had that combined signature change.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...
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.

You just answered your own question! But to help you understand yourself here's a quote I have included in my last post as well as in some of my other posts:

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.

I'm not responding to your other responses to my post because they are logically way too dumb to warrant my effort.

Sure so where did the other half go? Your "math" only accounts for 1/20th of the other half. And you think I am "way to dumb." Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
Do humans put out more CO2 than is observed as the increase in the atmosphere? yes or no? If no, then give us your "real science."
Indeed human has put out more CO2 than observed concentration increase. But this increase, mean value 0.5%/year (but some years, it may be half this, see graph), is largely noise compared to natural yearly fluctuations. A decrease in ocean CO2 solubility due to long term oceanic oscillation may very well explain this +0.5%/year.
For the moment, there is no way to know the origin of this +0.5%/year, neither by carbon accounting, nor by isotopic dosage, nor by CO2 lifetime since nobody knows this lifetime. So attributing this 0.5%/year increase solely to anthropogenic cause is what I called junk science.

Therein lies your problem miniTAX. If the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from the oceans then where is the CO2 produced by humans going? Without a valid possibility of where that CO2 is going we are left with Occam's razor. The simplest solution for the extra CO2 is human burning of fossil fuels.

To say the yearly flucuation is noise when we have an accumulation over 150 years is nonsense on your part. Noise would mean we would have seen the same flucuations over previous time periods yet there is no historical record in scientific sources to support your claim of "noise." There can be little doubt about the trend in the Mauna Loa readings of CO2. There is no way any thinking person could refer to that trend as "noise." But flail away all you want.

0 Replies

username wrote:

And the point is, mini, the change in isotope ratios shows that the increased CO2 has to be coming from plant sources (change in C12/C13 ratio) and the C12/C13/C14 ratio change shows it has to be VERY OLD plant material, i.e. in large part fossil fuel. No natural sources operating prior to the industrial revolution had that combined signature change.

With no number, you can demonstrate anything.
The problem is numbers of delta C13 show that human CO2 account for less than 20% of the 30% CO2 increase. Delta C14 show nothing since it is contaminated by atmospheric nuclear tests in the 50, 60s.
I've delved into the nitty gritty of numbers, Parados. And you ?

0 Replies

username wrote:

And I already cited the IPCC on anthropogenic CO2, in response to one of ican's loopier actual junk science screeds. Keep up. Or go to the FAR's FAQs at the IPCC website. It's all there. The century figure is the commonly accepted average lifespan. I didn't make it up.

No it's NOT there.
There IS NO demonstration for the 1 century lifetime of CO2 in the IPCC's 4ar. The century figure is just an empty claim. It has not been scientifically demonstrated, not even by an equation : the only equation you'll find in the 4AR for it would show an infinite lifetime for 20% of CO2, which is totally ludricrous. You won't even find a consistent definition of what the IPCC means by "CO2 lifetime".
If you can, please, show it to the world !

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
Do humans put out more CO2 than is observed as the increase in the atmosphere? yes or no? If no, then give us your "real science."
Indeed human has put out more CO2 than observed concentration increase. But this increase, mean value 0.5%/year (but some years, it may be half this, see graph), is largely noise compared to natural yearly fluctuations. A decrease in ocean CO2 solubility due to long term oceanic oscillation may very well explain this +0.5%/year.
For the moment, there is no way to know the origin of this +0.5%/year, neither by carbon accounting, nor by isotopic dosage, nor by CO2 lifetime since nobody knows this lifetime. So attributing this 0.5%/year increase solely to anthropogenic cause is what I called junk science.

There has been such example of climate junk science refuted by the real world. Humans are supposed to spew methane. The IPCC has predicted in 2001 methane concentration would increase 1%/year. But it has not changed over the last 10 years. And nobody knows why.

Thanks for the nice graph. I think you refer to an interesting and perhaps crucially important factor here, "noise." The steady rise in CO2 has impressed me to be the least understood factor here in the equation all along. The CO2 measurements have bugged me for a long time because they do not seem to lend themselves to any well founded explanation or at least well understood correlation to other factors.

In geology, we look for correlations with various factors to find clues to understanding how to explore for oil or any resource for that matter. We know that hidden in the noise is a factor or factors that are all important, but the noise is so poorly understood. It is evident by the graphs that icann keeps posting that the temps correlate alot better with solar activity than they do with CO2, and as your graph points out, even the rise in total CO2 in the atmosphere does not correlate well with the calculated CO2 emissions by man or by nature. It appears obvious to me that your conclusion is very correct, that we simply do not have enough data or we do not yet understand the mechanics of what is causing the CO2 rise. The cause may be hidden in the "noise" that we have not yet unraveled.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

username wrote:
And the point is, mini, the change in isotope ratios shows that the increased CO2 has to be coming from plant sources (change in C12/C13 ratio) and the C12/C13/C14 ratio change shows it has to be VERY OLD plant material, i.e. in large part fossil fuel. No natural sources operating prior to the industrial revolution had that combined signature change.

With no number, you can demonstrate anything.
The problem is numbers of delta C13 show that human CO2 account for less than 20% of the 30% CO2 increase. Delta C14 show nothing since it is contaminated by atmospheric nuclear tests in the 50, 60s.
I've delved into the nitty gritty of numbers, Parados. And you ?

So which study shows this?
And why did you not mention the C13/C12 ratio?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:

...
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.

You just answered your own question! But to help you understand yourself here's a quote I have included in my last post as well as in some of my other posts:

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.

I'm not responding to your other responses to my post because they are logically way too dumb to warrant my effort.

Sure so where did the other half go? Your "math" only accounts for 1/20th of the other half. And you think I am "way to dumb."

There you go again distorting the meaning of what I actually post. I actually posted:

Quote:

I'm not responding to your other responses to my post because they are logically way too dumb to warrant my effort.

I am claiming that what you posted is way too dumb. I am not claiming that you are way too dumb.

In the event that you are interested in clarifying your position for me, I suggest that you answer my questions.

My first question is what numbers would you substitute for my numbers in the following?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1975 to 2005
Human actions have made how much of a contribution to the increase in global temperature 1975 to 2005 {Trivial = less than 1%; Minor = 1% to less than 5%; Secondary = 5% to less than 50%; Primary = 50 to less than 100%; Exclusive = 100%}?

C1 = CO2 density 1975 = 331ppm
C2 = CO2 density 2005 = 379ppm
Ci = CO2 increase = C2-C1 = 379 - 331 = 48ppm
Ci% = CO2 %increase = 100% x 48/331 = 14.5%
Ci% = 14.5%

S = solar irradiance 1975 = 1371 w/m^2.
Si = solar irradiance increase = 1.0 w/m^2.
Si% = solar irradiance %increase = 100% x Si w/m^2 / S = 100% x 1.0 w/m^2 / 1371 w/m^2 = 0.07294%.
Si% = 0.07294%.

T = global temperature average 1901 to 2000 = 287.06 °K.
Ti = global temperature increase = 0.6046 °K + 0.0319 °K = 0.6365 °K.
Ti% = global temperature %increase = 100% x Ti / T = 100% x 0.6365 °K / 287.06 °K = 0.2217%.
Ti% = 0.2217%.

Ti% - Si% = 0.2217% - 0.07294% = 0.1488%.
Ti% - Si% = 0.1488%.

R = the ratio of Ci% to Ti% = 14.5% / 0.1488%. = 97.45
R = 97.45

TnotS = Temperature increase not caused directly by solar irradiance increase = 0.1488% x 287.06 °K / 100%.
TnotS = 0.4271 °K.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 Replies

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

Looks like pretty conservative stuff to me Hamburger. You do know the the NSF is a U.S. government agency with the director appointed by the President? It provides seed money for research and development in science and engineering.

can i refer from your comment that you agree that dealing with those challenges (as stated by the NSF) is a most important task and that those challenges should be agressively and speedily dealt with ?
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foxfire wrote :

Quote:
Looks like pretty conservative stuff to me Hamburger. You do know the the NSF is a U.S. government agency with the director appointed by the President? It provides seed money for research and development in science and engineering.

can i refer from your comment that you agree that dealing with those challenges (as stated by the NSF) is a most important task and that those challenges should be agressively and speedily dealt with ?
hbg

No. You can infer from my comment that I support new ideas, innovation, pursuit of excellence, and better mousetraps in all things and applaud those with the wherewithall to fund and/or provide incentives for such to be accomplished in the private sector. All or most of those things on the list I consider to be worthy goals. If CO2, for instance, should become a serious problem--I am not convinced that it is at this time--a practical process to confine it would be a good things to have and if there are groups out there willing to work on it, I have no objection to them doing so. You will note that the NSF isn't suggesting that the government do or mandate these things. I think other things on the list are more worthy of initial investments of time and treasure if funding and resources require some prioritizing.

0 Replies

CO2 in the atmosphere has been caused by at least four emission sources:
1. human caused emissions;
2. evaporation from oceans;
3. evaporation from some other surface waters;
4. plant caused emissions.

During the period 1975 to 20005, CO2ppm has been increasing in the atmosphere according to the following equation:

CinA = total CO2 increase in the atmosphere = 331 + ((379-331)/30)Y = 331 + 1.6Y, where Y = years since 1975.
CinA = 331 + 1.6Y

Not presently known is what part of the CinA is from human caused CO2 emissions and what part is from natural caused CO2 emissions.

Also not presently known is what amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase of average global temperature of 1°K in addition to the increase caused by solar irradiance.

GUESSING!
From my previous post,
TnotS = Temperature increase not caused directly by the solar irradiance increase 1975 to 2005 = 0.4271 °K.

If we were to assume 100% of TnotS is caused by the CO2 increase in the atmosphere 1975 to 2005, that would imply TnotS was caused by a 48ppm increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over 30 years.

Ci = CO2ppm increase 1975 to 2005 = 331 to 379 = 48ppm
CipTnotS = Ci per TnotS = 48 / 0.4271) = 112.4ppm per °K.
CipTnotS = 112.4ppm per °K

If we were to assume that CO2ppm will continue to increase in the atmosphere at a constant rate of 48ppm per 30 years or 1.6ppm per year, then that would require a total of 112.4/1.6 = 70 years from 1975, or until 2045, for that part of the global temperature increase, not caused by solar irradiance, to increase 1°K.

But what if only half of TnotS were caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere, and the rest caused by other presently undetermined natural causes like a non-linear effect of solar irradiance on global warming?

Ci = CO2ppm increase 1975 to 2005 = 331 to 379 = 48ppm
CipTnotS = Ci per TnotS = 48 / 0.4271 / 2) = 112.4 x 2 = 224.8 ppm per °K.
CipTnotS = 224.8 ppm per °K

If we were to assume that CO2ppm will continue to increase in the atmosphere at a constant rate of 48ppm per 30 years or 1.6ppm per year, then that would require a total of 224.8/1.6 = 140 years from 1975, or until 2115, for that part of the global temperature increase, not caused by solar irradiance and other natural causes, to increase 1°K.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sure so where did the other half go? Your "math" only accounts for 1/20th of the other half

0 Replies

For heavens' sake, Parados............
Stop those inane discussions on anything quantitative until and unless you work on that grade-school equivalence exam (specifically, fractions) for a while.... the thread will be grateful Smile

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Sure so where did the other half go? Your "math" only accounts for 1/20th of the other half

100*(1/2)=50

50*(1/20)=2.5

That means, Parados, that your math accounts for only 2.5 instead of the missing 50. What you've missed, therefore, is

50-2.5=47.5

That's almost half of the original total, and that's the point the other poster was making. Please work this out for yourself if you doubt these advanced (!) mathematics. Use matchsticks, or whatever, just don't use this thread...and please also drop the giant fonts and bold colors - maybe that's what's confusing you Smile

0 Replies

Follow-up on the New York conference (links posted earlier this week on thread):

Quote:

He likens global-warming alarmism to communism, which he experienced first-hand in Cold War Czechoslovakia, then a Soviet satellite.
.......................................
The world, he argues, is full of risks, and the risk of catastrophic climate change is just one of them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120494352520121491.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Quote:
He likens global-warming alarmism to communism, which he experienced first-hand in Cold War Czechoslovakia, then a Soviet satellite.
.......................................
The world, he argues, is full of risks, and the risk of catastrophic climate change is just one of them.

Well, dagmar certainly can say more about him by personal knowledge.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know