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

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

High Seas wrote:

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

High Seas, thanks for the article. He has it figured out pretty good. I agree with the man. Communism is one example of a much bigger threat than global warming, and as I have posted a few times, global warming is merely a trojan horse for socialists to justify increased government powers over capitalism / free enterprise / freedom. In fact, since the Soviet Union failed, as did other socialist states, socialists or communists don't have much to use as an argument for their agenda anymore, so the environment / global warming is one of the few cards they can play that might work.

Recognition of the above is very important in understanding the global warming debate, that it is driven more by politics than science.

VALUABLE COMMODITY. Now, consider that Europe has also embraced a carbon-trading scheme as part of its climate-change strategy. That means the right to emit certain amounts of carbon can be bought and sold. So let's say a country is required to reduce emissions by 1 million tons of carbon. If its steps are so strong that it ends up cutting emissions by 2 million tons, then it can sell the 1 million tons of "excess" cuts to a country that wasn't able to make such large reductions.

Economists favor emissions trading because it results in the lowest-cost emissions. A company or a country has the choice to make cuts itself. But it can purchase them if it's less expensive to buy emissions credits from a nation that can cut more cheaply.

That's why the collapse of Russia's economy left the country with a valuable commodity -- its large emissions reductions. In a global emissions-trading system that includes the U.S., the value of those Russian reductions could be as high as $3 billion, by some estimates. Without the U.S. participating, however, the value drops to several hundred million dollars.

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

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.

There is also an economic aspect to all of this that, while illustrating the idiocy of trading carbon credits for a substance that is supposed to be destroying the planet, is a major factor in the mix. From a 2004 article:

High Seas wrote:

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

I see. So you agree with ican's math then?

i.......................

If you want to argue about the math High Seas you should at least argue about the math then instead of cherry picking statements out of context and pretending they have no basis from ican's statements.

By the way High Seas, if you had been following the conversation ican and I have been having you would realize ican has been claiming that total output of CO2 from human activity each year only equals 5% of the the atmospheric accumulation of CO2 per year.

I pointed out that human CO2 output is more than twice what the accumulation is. That means when ican does his math to try to show that 95% of the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 each year is coming from natural sources he is failing to show where the human CO2 is being sinked or how it can be sinked other than by natural causes. This would mean that the net effect of natural causes is to sink about half the human output assuming a 2 to 1 ratio in output to accumulation of CO2.

Parados,
To get your facts and calculations straight, study this:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar, 2008 11:29 am Post: 3133651 -
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3133651#3133651
Then tell me which numbers in that post that you disagree with.
Then tell me what you think those numbers you disagree with should be and why you think so.

I have additional questions for you that I'll ask next.

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%}?

ican711nm wrote:

Parados,
To get your facts and calculations straight, study this:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar, 2008 11:29 am Post: 3133651 -
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3133651#3133651
Then tell me which numbers in that post that you disagree with.
Then tell me what you think those numbers you disagree with should be and why you think so.

I have additional questions for you that I'll ask next.

Your math never answers the original question.

Quote:

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%}?

Let's figure how much of a contribution Jim made to the increase of marbles.

We have 3000 marbles to begin with.
Jim donates 3 marbles that means the increase was 3.
What is the % of increase donated by Jim?
The fact that Jim's donation is .1% of the total isn't relevant to the question and doesn't help in answering it.
Jim donated 100% of the increase. 100% X 3/3 = 100%

Now lets assume we have 3000 marbles
Jim donates 3 marbles and John donates 3 marbles.
We now have 3006 marbles but again the .2% increase from the original number of marbles is irrelevant.
6 marbles total were donated so the increase was 3 marbles. Jim donated 3
100% x 3/6 = 50%.
So Jim donated 50% of the increase.

parados wrote:

By the way High Seas, if you had been following the conversation ican and I have been having you would realize ican has been claiming that total output of CO2 from human activity each year only equals 5% of the the atmospheric accumulation of CO2 per year.

I pointed out that human CO2 output is more than twice what the accumulation is. That means when ican does his math to try to show that 95% of the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 each year is coming from natural sources he is failing to show where the human CO2 is being sinked or how it can be sinked other than by natural causes. This would mean that the net effect of natural causes is to sink about half the human output assuming a 2 to 1 ratio in output to accumulation of CO2.

I have largely been ignoring this argument, figuring that icann was holding his own, and I have not tried to figure out the math being done here. But I have a question, does natural CO2 have an inside track to being absorbed by the sink, if not, then most of the CO2 not being absorbed would of course be natural CO2, would it not? But that argument seems fairly mute in my way of thinking since there is about 20 times more water vapor in the atmosphere that largely constitutes the greenhouse effect, for which we have very very scant data. At least I haven't seen much.

This brings up a question, if you only have a gas gauge that measures 1/20 of the gas tank, how can you claim the gauge is giving you any readings that tell you much of anything? Here we are arguing over, and scientists are feverishly studying, and coming out with all kinds of grand conclusions about how much gas is in the tank by measuring only 1/20 of the tank and ignoring the rest of it.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
He [Essenhigh] cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.
Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

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.

Perhaps part of your logical fallacy is that you don't have 3000 marbles to begin with. Each new period of time injects 3000 new marbles only as an average, and 3 new marbles. The 3000 marbles are probably not constantly the same in terms of each new period. Perhaps sometimes it is 2950 new marbles plus 3 marbles and sometimes 3050 marbles plus 3 marbles, or 2984 marbles plus 3 marbles, etc. So sometimes the 3 marbles don't contribute 50% of the increase, so you therefore have to consider all of the marbles?

But the argument seems to miss the point in my opinion. You don't know that the increase in observed atmospheric CO2 is entirely due to the 3 marbles, in fact you have very little evidence that it is because there are so many other variables in play here that have not been quantified.

I computed the % of the global temperature increase caused by human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere to be quite small, assuming that "5%" figure were to remain constant.