By the way, CO2 concentration is currently at 383 parts per million. If the atmosphere was a gallon, then the total C02 would be about 0.29 teaspoons. The amount of C02 produced by human activity is about 3% of that, or 0.008 teaspoons.
Given source does not outline the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by human activity.
Quote:
Because the decay curve depends on the model used and the assumptions incorporated therein, it is difficult to specify an exact atmospheric lifetime for CO2. Accepted values range around 100 years.
It can be inferred from the data however,:
Pre-1750 tropospheric concentration 283 ppm
Current tropospheric concentration 383.97 ppm
Given that we don't know exactly how much of that 100ppm increase is from natural and how much is from man-made activity from the given source, you can't really justify the statement that only 3% of the current concentration is from man-made sources.
The rate of change of concentration is unprecedented in the historical record however, and given that we haven't seen any sustained series of massive volcanological events in the last 100 years that might account for such an increase it is a reasonable assumption that a pretty high percentage of that 100ppm increase is due to burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years.
100ppm being roughly 25% of the current concentration in the atmosphere. If only 50% of that increase was due to human action, then this would imply that roughly 12% of current concentration is due to humankind's actions.
I have no real idea what the exact % is, but it would seem that 3% is probably a low-ball estimate, and given our rather recent massive spike in CO2 emissions in the last 25 years, I would guess that if we are indeed responsible for most of this increase, that we will see concentrations continue to climb markedly.
All of this depends on the ability of the planet to absorb CO2 and the complex, but little understood mechanisms for this, of course.
02-11-2009
DarrinS
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Given source does not outline the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by human activity.
According to numerous sources including the IPCC, natural sources emit 150 million tons of CO2 and human sources are almost 30 times less than that. 1/30 is roughly 3% according to my calculator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
The rate of change of concentration is unprecedented in the historical record however, ...
When I stated this exact thing earlier, you said I was "distorting the science".
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
All of this depends on the ability of the planet to absorb CO2 and the complex, but little understood mechanisms for this, of course.
I thought it was completely understood and a "settled" science.
02-11-2009
DarrinS
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
By the way, RG, no one has explained to me why temperatures cooled between 1940 and 1975, a 35-year period when there was substantial CO2 emmissions.
02-11-2009
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Please cite a source for this cost [of $300bn annual cost]
Thank you for taking the time to get this. I really do appreciate it. I was really wanting to get to the basis for this claim for some time, but have been unable to find it.
GDP in 1992 dollars in 2020, base case (no Kyoto) $11,478
GDP in 1992 dollars in 2020, Kyoto implemented: $11,245
Long-term, even this incomplete economic look gives a grand total of 2% difference in GDP after 20 years.
What was lacking in this document was any consideration of NET jobs lost/gained.
Nowhere in the document did it weigh in ANY potential benefits to the economy, such as increases in employment in the renewables sector. It did show an increase in renewable output of electricity, but didn't mention anything about their starting assumptions.
Funny that these numbers were based on (gasp) computer modeling of complex systems, in this case the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Science based on computer models that are already wrong.
How do we know that the ideological bent of the economic study's authors didn't color THEIR starting assumptions?
Hell, this study was from 1998, and gas price increases have already exceeded what they thought would happen under the Kyoto treaty restrictions, so it can be pretty easily shown that their starting assumptions for how the economy would work out were wrong, simply from the benefit of hindsight.
Sorry, but that document not only doesn't prove the costs, it actively proves that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to the claim that we would hurt our economy by limiting our CO2 emissions in some manner.
02-11-2009
DarrinS
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Science based on computer models that are already wrong.
Gee, sounds good to me. Let's spend lot of money.
You didn't pick up on my sarcasm? I don't understand why you're quoting me here.
02-11-2009
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
You didn't pick up on my sarcasm? I don't understand why you're quoting me here.
'cause I accidentally hit the post button in the middle of putting together somethign kind of complicated. I fixed it in an edit though. Sorry.
Lunch hour is up, but I will try to get back to you at some point.
Adios.
02-11-2009
Wild Cobra
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Given source does not outline the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by human activity.
It can be inferred from the data however,:
Pre-1750 tropospheric concentration 283 ppm
Current tropospheric concentration 383.97 ppm
Given that we don't know exactly how much of that 100ppm increase is from natural and how much is from man-made activity from the given source, you can't really justify the statement that only 3% of the current concentration is from man-made sources.
The values of man made CO2 in the atmosphere can be determined by the ratio of isotopes. Natural CO2 has carbon-14 in it's makeup and fossil fuels have none. Fossil fuels only have carbon-12 and carbon-13 in them since they are so old, the radioactive carbon-14 has dissipated.
I completely forgot about this aspect. I know this has been attempted to be quantified, but there is much disagreement on the results. This method shows that man-made CO2 is smaller than the subtraction of present from past levels.
I have done some searches and so far found little useful. Salmon scales seem to be one of the better proxies by how much of each isotope they contain for ocean sinking.
02-11-2009
Wild Cobra
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
According to numerous sources including the IPCC, natural sources emit 150 million tons of CO2 and human sources are almost 30 times less than that. 1/30 is roughly 3% according to my calculator.
This is very true Random. Go to any Carbon Cycle model, and look for yourself. The first one has a total of 6.3 GTons from fossil fuels and concrete sources and 201.6 from natural sources. The second one has 5.5 vs. 221.6. That means that less than 3% of the increased atmospheric CO2 is man made. If we take 380 - 280 for a 100 ppm difference, man is responsible for only a 3 ppm increase! Even if you include land use because we change the landscape, the numbers don't rise very much.
This is why I say you can often find good data in the IPCC report, just that they they ignore certain facts that don't fit their agenda.
Remember that the carbon cycle and everything involved is dynamic. Not static. Theo things immediately come to mind to account for increased CO2 levels:
1) As the ocean temperature rises, they are not capable of holding as much CO2. Consider the idea that the majority of the warming could be solar and soot driven. Just like a cold beer retains its CO2, and a warm one is flat, the same thing happens here. The warmer the water, the less CO2 it reatains, increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels.
2) The oceans are acidifying. The alarmist like to blame it on CO2, but the known equations show that higher acidity reduces CO2 absorption.
Both the two items reduce how much CO2 the oceans can sink as a ratio.
02-12-2009
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
This is very true Random. Go to any Carbon Cycle model, and look for yourself. The first one has a total of 6.3 GTons from fossil fuels and concrete sources and 201.6 from natural sources. The second one has 5.5 vs. 221.6. That means that less than 3% of the increased atmospheric CO2 is man made. If we take 380 - 280 for a 100 ppm difference, man is responsible for only a 3 ppm increase! Even if you include land use because we change the landscape, the numbers don't rise very much.
This is why I say you can often find good data in the IPCC report, just that they they ignore certain facts that don't fit their agenda.
Remember that the carbon cycle and everything involved is dynamic. Not static. Theo things immediately come to mind to account for increased CO2 levels:
1) As the ocean temperature rises, they are not capable of holding as much CO2. Consider the idea that the majority of the warming could be solar and soot driven. Just like a cold beer retains its CO2, and a warm one is flat, the same thing happens here. The warmer the water, the less CO2 it reatains, increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels.
2) The oceans are acidifying. The alarmist like to blame it on CO2, but the known equations show that higher acidity reduces CO2 absorption.
Both the two items reduce how much CO2 the oceans can sink as a ratio.
All of which is highly irrelevant, because doing something along the lines of the Kyoto treaty would end up helping our economy, Global Warming or not.
Checkmate.
02-12-2009
DarrinS
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
All of which is highly irrelevant, because doing something along the lines of the Kyoto treaty would end up helping our economy, Global Warming or not.
Checkmate.
Since you're such a stickler for sources, can you provide a source to back up your assertion?
02-12-2009
doobs
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Since you're such a stickler for sources, can you provide a source to back up your assertion?
I wouldn't expect anything persuasive if I were you.
02-12-2009
Wild Cobra
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
All of which is highly irrelevant, because doing something along the lines of the Kyoto treaty would end up helping our economy, Global Warming or not.
Checkmate.
WTF...
What have you been smoking. May I have some please?
"In comparison to water in all of its forms, the effect of the
carbon dioxide increase over the last century on the
temperature of the earth is about as significant as a few farts in
a hurricane!”
There's also a very good graph that shows the potential warming effect of CO2 as a function of CO2 concentration. It's a decaying exponential, essentially the same logrithmic graph that WC presented, but flipped about the horiztonal axis.
02-13-2009
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Since you're such a stickler for sources, can you provide a source to back up your assertion?
That deserves its own thread.
Thanks for the idea, and yes, I can provide sources. Bit of a research project, but I think I can make a pretty decent case.
Give me a bit of time, and remind me in case my absent-mindedness gets the better of me.
02-15-2009
Wild Cobra
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
The alarmists here like to cite RealClimate dot ORG. Suggest you read this:
The Southwest proves AGW is happening; the Northeast is natural fluctuations and prove nothing.
10-13-2009
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Since you're such a stickler for sources, can you provide a source to back up your assertion?
whoot.
10-13-2009
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
The Southwest proves AGW is happening; the Northeast is natural fluctuations and prove nothing.
Because as we all know, one' years data proves/disproves everything. :rolleyes
10-13-2009
DarrinS
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Because as we all know, one' years data proves/disproves everything. :rolleyes
How about 10 years?
10-13-2009
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
How about 10 years?
50-500 years would be better. What are the trends over that period of time?
One would want to focus mostly on the industrial revolution, as that is one very obvious variable introduced into the rather complex system of our climate.
10-13-2009
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
10 minutes to put the whole debate in perspective.
I am all about risk management.
10-13-2009
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Besides lowering CO2 emissions would create a lot of jobs and improve the economy.
Why do the deniers hate the US and want to see us in economic ruin?
10-13-2009
DarrinS
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
One would want to focus mostly on the industrial revolution, as that is one very obvious variable introduced into the rather complex system of our climate.
If one looks even further back and sees a period that is as warm as today, wouldn't our current "warming" seem unremarkable?
