Reply With Quote
So, your answer is that man is responsible for 100% of the CO2 increases since pre-industrialization sampling and that 28.3% of the current inventory is man-contributed?
Just testing my understanding.
Seriously, I have so much fun in this thread its just not right.
So, your answer is that man is responsible for 100% of the CO2 increases since pre-industrialization sampling and that 28.3% of the current inventory is man-contributed?
Just testing my understanding.
Seriously, Yoni? C'mon man.
LOL....
Don't you get it?
The CO2 percentage of absorption in sea water changes by a specific percentage from one temperature to another. No matter how many other variables you throw at it that are in a normal seawater mix, that percentage changes very very little. The "α" variable, determined by temperature and salinity, applies with or without your wind factors, pH, etc. It remains a multiplier throughout all this, with the same magnitude of influence as your "k" variable.
You really are maniacal, aren't you. PopTech was completely correct about you, and I thought he was just playing you.
You hold a person to your assumed idea of what they say, and no matter how much they clarify or change a perspective, even admit a flaw and corrected it, you hold them to you idiotic assumption of what you want their words to mean.
Don't you have a clue as to what you are doing?
Did I or did I not change my point of octane when I read the newer literature on it? What I knew from the past, was changed because the reformulated gas is more consistent in hydrocarbon types from what it used to be. My statement was factual before they changed the formulation. I'm sure you saw that admission of being incorrect, yet here you are, once again, claiming I am stupid over something so ing trivial.
Why are you so ing re ed that you cannot accept when a person changes their mind? Why do you still use it as a reason to say "you are dumb" when it is so ing obvious to other, it is your stupidity?
Wow...
You are really stupid for saying that.
These guys will simply not acknowledge that ocean warming changes the CO2 exchange sinking and sourcing flux.
Of course it's his answer that 100% of the increase is man made.
I am saying man is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre industrial levels to the levels we see today but that doesn't mean the entirety of the inventory comes directly from anthropogenic sources. The carbon cycle takes up as much of the CO2 as it can and some of that CO2 is anthropogenic in nature but it does not distinguish between sources (well - it does actually but I digress).
No one suggested you claimed man was responsible for the entirety of the CO2 inventory.
Building on your simple math problem, I calculate that you believe man is responsible for 28.3% of the inventory. Is that your assertion?
Nope. As I said, the entirety of the increase is due to man but that does not mean the entirety "extra" CO2 in the atmosphere is from an anthropogenic source. If I deposit 100 dollars at an ATM that does not mean that when I go back and get 100 dollars from the ATM the next week that 100 dollars will be the same I deposited. The fact remains that the bank does have 100 dollars more than it would have after my deposit, however.
So, apparently, the math wasn't that simple and your chart didn't answer the question.
What percentage of the current greenhouse gas inventory is anthropogenic and how much does the total inventory of greenhouse gases vary from year to year.
The amount they vary from year to year is available from the link I provided you. As far as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is directly from anthropogenic sources I don't know. What I do know and what has been shown is that the increase is due to the CO2 that is emitted by humans. The math was that simple, because unless CO2 molecules that come from non anthropogenic sources act differently than those that do, all that matters is the increase and not the source of each individual molecule.
I'll admit the chart did not answer that question quite readily. I don't suppose you want to show why your question is relevant?
Is it as simple as the math in that first link?
Well, according to you, since industrialization began, that's about 28.3%
And, after your withdrawal, the bank is back where it started.
But, if we're not withdrawing CO2 from the atmosphere -- after the total of our deposits over the past century+ comprises 100% of the measured increase -- you're saying 28.3% of the current inventory is of anthropogenic sources.
Cool. We agree for the most part on that. Just not that all is mans responsibilty
Now...
If the oceans were cooler than they are today, would you say that CO2 levels would be less, more, or the same?
I take it by your statement, you either agree with Fuzzy that changes in ocean temperature has had no effect of atmospheric levels, or that you disagree that the oceans have warmed since preindustrial times.
Actually with a little bit of reading you don't even need to do the math because someone has done it for you.
Jesus you're dense. The increase is because of man. Not every CO2 molecule above the 280 count is anthropogenic because CO2 is going in and out of the system. It IS being withdrawn from the atmosphere. I can't simplify this anymore for you. If you can't understand the concept then I don't know what to tell you but I can't overcome your limitations for you.
Fuzzy doesn't think what you say he does but you're too stupid to keep up with the conversation.
He ignores the fact that I am talking long term changes. When I say the AGW crowd doesn't calculate in the long term ocean temperature variations, he says I'm wrong by showing me seasonal assessments. One of his links showed only three different years of measurements, and they were far from complete.
You didn't answer my question. You are hiding around other arguments like Fuzzy does, that have no direct effect on my question.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...67064508004311
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5682/367.abstract
What do those papers tell you, WC?
They tell me that Fuzzy is much smarter than you. Much.
Partial ing pressure. Learn about it.
Interesting. The fact that you and Fuzzy time and time again, reply with links, and not quoting the relevant material tells me one thing.
You don't understand.
I understand what you're saying but, it's illogical.
Using your explanation, if there were no manmade CO2 in the atmosphere, it would still be going in and out of the system (at a rate determined by nature) but, would remain unchanged IF, as you say, the increase, over the past 250 years, is completely due to anthropogenic sources.
It doesn't matter which CO2 molecules are being deposited and withdrawn, if man is responsible for 100% of the increase in the static inventory of CO2, since industrialization, then you're claiming man is responsible for 28.3% of the CO2 in the current inventory. It doesn't have to be the same CO2 we contributed to be attributable to man.
If a banks starts with $280.00 and, over the course of 150 years, you deposit $110.50 and withdraw nothing while others make deposits and take withdrawals; if the bank ends up with $390.50, you are responsible for the entire increase -- EVEN IF IT ISN'T THE $110.50 CURRENCY INSTRUMENTS YOU DEPOSITED.
Your assertion that man is responsible for the entire 110.5 ppm increase since industrialization is the same as saying man is responsible for 28.3% of the existing inventory of atmospheric CO2.
Man is responsible for the entire 110.5 ppm increase since industrialization. The surplus is due to man. I've said it several times now.
Yoni, his argument makes sense. He just isn't attributing any of the extra CO2 to be from increased natural sourcing, or decreased natural sinking. Which global warming will do as the surface temperature of the ocean warms.
And, that's 28.3% of the current inventory.
And I disagree. I say if the oceans haven't warmed, they would have absorbed more in man's addition to the atmosphere, and atmospheric levels would be less. An extension of that becomes if man had never emitted CO2, the atmospheric levels would still be higher than in the past, because the solubility constant of CO2 in the water has decreased as temperature increased.
What I find so funny about my statement, is it is absolute fact. If you wish to argue that temperature of the oceans have no effect, then you are a denier. The argument should be over how much the effect is. Not if the effect is real or not.
Then, man isn't responsible for 100% of the increase.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
