Long term there is no such thing. No scientist would ever claim otherwise.
Short term, in the span of 50-200, is a lot easier to get to estimate rough equilibriums.
Sorry Cosmored, saying it repeatedly doesn't make the bad arguments any better.
Reference: Every thread about evolution that has ever taken place on this message board.To summarize the main empirical findings,
this study shows that public trust in science has
not declined since the 1970s except among
conservatives and those who frequently attend
church.
Long term there is no such thing. No scientist would ever claim otherwise.
Short term, in the span of 50-200, is a lot easier to get to estimate rough equilibriums.
Sorry Cosmored, saying it repeatedly doesn't make the bad arguments any better.
Not at all. Coming out of the last glacial max (LGM) we have historically been warming for quite some time now. We would have continued to warm had there been a human on earth or not. AGW theory does not ever say that the only cause of warming is GHG emissions and other human factors.
What the science does say is that we're now going to see far more warming than we would have otherwise and the current natural warming will be amplified.
As for the carbon, it does not take much of a surplus (or deficit) for a system to be thrown wildly out of balance. If you take a financial budget - as an example - for an organization that does trillions of dollars in transactions on a yearly basis that is perfectly balanced, and add a surplus that is a small fraction of the entire budget then you will see that organizations bank account grow each year.
The earth's carbon cycle is the same. There is an incredible amount of carbon being moved through the entire system but prior to the industrial revolution this system was in balance. The amount of carbon we've been putting in - although small in comparison to the entire carbon cycle - is a surplus and as such remains in the atmosphere.
Quite often. More often than not, in fact.
The dangers of googling your way through a debate instead of actually understanding what you're saying is that the pages you go to often have views at odds with other things you say.
IE
From your most recent post.The human disturbance, which is significant, as we summarized in our article
In any event, abrupt changes happen throughout the climate history. Why? Because a system that may or may have not been in equilibrium was changed in some form and it seeks out new balance.
The Earth's climate of the past 1 million years - where we go through cycles of glaciation and interracials - is one of equilibrium. You see changes but the system is (was) in balance.
That squares. Thx dude.
Got it....thanks Manny. Between you and RG, I have a better understanding of the context behind the name.
Ice ages and interglacials, all without Cadillac Escalades.
Glad to help.Got it....thanks Manny. Between you and RG, I have a better understanding of the context behind the name.
How much of a fraction are we talking about...? Has anyone published such figures? [honest question]
Of that portion [if known, or estimated], ranging over the past 500 years or so, how much of a CO2 inbalance has been introduced into the system simply on account of the population differences between that era and the present time...??? When Earth's population booned from several hundred million peeps to about 6.5 billion...??? Obviously, I understand that there is probably a 3 order magnitude difference [at least] between the CO2 output of a car and that of the average human being... [curious... again just another honest question] I wonder if the "Earth is crowed beyond sustainability" crowd is on to something...
Lastly, how much CO2 do our corporal bodies trap and bind (as organic carbons) when we die and are subsequently buried...? I figure most of it is released slowly by scavengers / bacteria / exposure to the elements... unless the bodies are burned / cremated and all the CO2 is released instantly... But over the millenia, I would suspect that the total amount of dead humans have managed to trap some miniscule, nanotrace percentage of the total CO2 theoretically available in the pie, no? [again, curious]
If you think that one is good wait until I tell you about the guy with an engineering degree and a job all without logic.
Well, you further prove that you only pay lip service to appreciating what BEST does. You don't know about signal analysis so i will dumb it down so its easy to understand what they are claiming.
You once again prove to be a dissembling, deceptive piece of but I digress.
A sine function is a simple periodic function that oscillates between two poles. When it goes through the first 90 degrees of arch it increases but the differential goes to zero. At 90 degrees there should be no change as the rate of change zeroes out. As it moves through the 90 to 180 degrees of arc the value decreases. If you are in this portion of the graph you expect the value to diminish.
If instead it increases or stays the same what does that say about forces outside of the natural cycle? Are there none, are they negative or do they drive upwards?
Here is the now famous ice core temperature graphs. If this is analogous to a sin graph where would you say in the degrees of arc that we are at now?
You know the answer because the above is a dumbed down version of what BEST did. You either know this because you read it and are lying because you are a dissembling, deceptive piece of , did not read it and are the same thing or you are too stupid to understand what they are getting at and lied about it anyway which still makes you the same thing.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 04-10-2012 at 06:51 PM.
I don't have them with me but I can provide you with links to papers talking about human interaction with the carbon cycle. It (our CO2 influx) does not follow human population growth as you would expect much greater growth in the 20th century if it did.How much of a fraction are we talking about...? Has anyone published such figures? [honest question]
Of that portion [if known, or estimated], ranging over the past 500 years or so, how much of a CO2 inbalance has been introduced into the system simply on account of the population differences between that era and the present time...??? When Earth's population booned from several hundred million peeps to about 6.5 billion...??? Obviously, I understand that there is probably a 3 order magnitude difference [at least] between the CO2 output of a car and that of the average human being... [curious... again just another honest question] I wonder if the "Earth is crowed beyond sustainability" crowd is on to something...
Lastly, how much CO2 do our corporal bodies trap and bind (as organic carbons) when we die and are subsequently buried...? I figure most of it is released slowly by scavengers / bacteria / exposure to the elements... unless the bodies are burned / cremated and all the CO2 is released instantly... But over the millenia, I would suspect that the total amount of dead humans have managed to trap some miniscule, nanotrace percentage of the total CO2 theoretically available in the pie, no? [again, curious]
As for the 2nd half of your post, I've never thought about it in those terms, but I would imagine that humans make up such a tiny percentage of the biomass on earth that I do not believe the carbon trapped in our bodies to be ultimately significant.
In the meantime, this link will probably provide you with the information you seek:
http://skepticalscience.com/human-co...-emissions.htm
Bear in mind that the majority of all humans who have ever existed are alive today, right now.How much of a fraction are we talking about...? Has anyone published such figures? [honest question]
Of that portion [if known, or estimated], ranging over the past 500 years or so, how much of a CO2 inbalance has been introduced into the system simply on account of the population differences between that era and the present time...??? When Earth's population booned from several hundred million peeps to about 6.5 billion...??? Obviously, I understand that there is probably a 3 order magnitude difference [at least] between the CO2 output of a car and that of the average human being... [curious... again just another honest question] I wonder if the "Earth is crowed beyond sustainability" crowd is on to something...
Lastly, how much CO2 do our corporal bodies trap and bind (as organic carbons) when we die and are subsequently buried...? I figure most of it is released slowly by scavengers / bacteria / exposure to the elements... unless the bodies are burned / cremated and all the CO2 is released instantly... But over the millenia, I would suspect that the total amount of dead humans have managed to trap some miniscule, nanotrace percentage of the total CO2 theoretically available in the pie, no? [again, curious]
(as an aside that is what makes things like reincarnation, where everybody is supposed to have multiple past lives, mathmatically impossible)
The amount of carbon in phyical bodies pales in comparison to the amount that has to be released by burning fossil fuels to keep carbon in that human form.
It takes a lot of energy to sustain your average Westerner.
You could argue that animals have souls and all the ones we are killing off are now manifesting as human.
Heh, if you want to be really technical, there are more bacterial cells in and around our bodies than actual human cells that comprise our bodies, by a factor of ten. The amount of genetic material those bacteria represent is actually a hundred times greater than our own.
(loooves me those TED talks)
You could argue that, I guess.
If, of course, you can prove souls exist in the first place. Haven't seen one yet.
This is not even close to being true. If that makes me a "piece of " (as Fuzzy likes to say), then so be it.
I never just call you a piece of . i call you a dissembling, deceptive piece of . Now you are dissembling. Your previous point has been trashed and exposed you once again so i suppose its red herring time.
So you think that the majority of all humans who have ever existed are alive today, right now?
As for your petty insults, it says more about you than me. At least Whinehole does it with style.
I'm not taking the red herring, head.
Charming. I can see why you're so persuasive.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
