|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 27, 2014 1:22:17 GMT
Posted this on the politics thread but really think it deserves it's own thread.
CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 27, 2014 4:17:46 GMT
Will have to think about her presentation. I do know her numbers are scewed.
|
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Oct 27, 2014 13:30:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 27, 2014 19:35:55 GMT
Will have to think about her presentation. I do know her numbers are scewed. Hmmmm, how do you figure Sigurdur? Literally speaking she is correct. CO2 from human emissions make up 4% of the carbon dioxide in the air. That has been identified scientifically. AGW theory claims that most of the 100 parts per million increase in CO2 over the industrial revolution comes from warming the oceans via the input of a very small amount from human emissions. Henry's law provides an equation for how much gas a liquid will absorb if you increase the amount of gas in the air at a constant temperature. So when you emit CO2 into the air almost all of it will be absorbed by the oceans. The change in the amount of CO2 in the air is almost entirely attributable to changing temperature. CAGW educators usually leave that tidbit out as it is considered to be obfuscating. They would consider this video to be obfuscating as well even though technically it is accurate. Of course people use this information specifically to obfuscate. After all you get two things from bewilderment, they either walk away not wanting to take the time to think about it or they think about it. The CAGW folks do not want either of those outcomes and most skeptics want one or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 28, 2014 0:35:59 GMT
Will have to think about her presentation. I do know her numbers are scewed. Hmmmm, how do you figure Sigurdur? Literally speaking she is correct. CO2 from human emissions make up 4% of the carbon dioxide in the air. That has been identified scientifically. AGW theory claims that most of the 100 parts per million increase in CO2 over the industrial revolution comes from warming the oceans via the input of a very small amount from human emissions. Henry's law provides an equation for how much gas a liquid will absorb if you increase the amount of gas in the air at a constant temperature. So when you emit CO2 into the air almost all of it will be absorbed by the oceans. The change in the amount of CO2 in the air is almost entirely attributable to changing temperature. CAGW educators usually leave that tidbit out as it is considered to be obfuscating. They would consider this video to be obfuscating as well even though technically it is accurate. Of course people use this information specifically to obfuscate. After all you get two things from bewilderment, they either walk away not wanting to take the time to think about it or they think about it. The CAGW folks do not want either of those outcomes and most skeptics want one or the other. Icefisher: Actual CO2 attributed to fossil fuel burning is higher than 4% of the total CO2 presently in the atmosphere. The actual change in Ocean Temperature is very minor, in regards to outgassing. In fact, since 2003 with better equipment, there has been virtually no change. Last paper I read, using isotopes as identifiers, human induced CO2 was about 19% of the current value. That is why I stated her numbers were scewed. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 28, 2014 5:56:35 GMT
Icefisher: Actual CO2 attributed to fossil fuel burning is higher than 4% of the total CO2 presently in the atmosphere. The actual change in Ocean Temperature is very minor, in regards to outgassing. In fact, since 2003 with better equipment, there has been virtually no change. Last paper I read, using isotopes as identifiers, human induced CO2 was about 19% of the current value. That is why I stated her numbers were scewed. Ferdinand Engelbeen www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 28, 2014 6:09:48 GMT
Icefisher: Actual CO2 attributed to fossil fuel burning is higher than 4% of the total CO2 presently in the atmosphere. The actual change in Ocean Temperature is very minor, in regards to outgassing. In fact, since 2003 with better equipment, there has been virtually no change. Last paper I read, using isotopes as identifiers, human induced CO2 was about 19% of the current value. That is why I stated her numbers were scewed. Indeed Sigurdur, CAGW advocates "attribute" all additions of CO2 to fossil fuel burning! Just as they attribute all additions to CO2 to anthropogenic causes. Do you have a reference for the study you are talking about so we might have a look to see if this paper stays well clear of fantasy? In 2000 the Department of Energy released data that showed that ~3.3% of CO2 in the atmosphere ~ had a human source and ~19% was attributable to natural effects. These were built on papers I have references to and were built on isotope analysis. Since the video has a range of 11 to 15 parts per million and 3.3% of current CO2 levels computes to 13 parts per million, the video's figures agrees both with science papers and science that was accepted by the DOE in the year 2000. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 28, 2014 12:44:47 GMT
I will look for the numbers in the near future. Little short of time for a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 29, 2014 7:00:14 GMT
Using the estimated 7 years for the average time a CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere before being reabsorbed by the surface one would calculate that emissions would be responsible for 11.2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Just guessing it might be lower due to the fact that CO2 is heavier than air, CO2 is mostly emitted on the land near the surface, plants favor the absorption of the light carbon that comes from CO2 fossil fuel emissions. Smog tends to hug the ground. . . .traveling along fertilizing the plants and choking the residents. Air pollution standards have apparently made the smog transparent and less choking while probably its gotten denser.
|
|
|
|
Post by drkstrong on Oct 30, 2014 10:27:20 GMT
Her numbers are completely screwed up! How does she get 4%. Here's how ... it is scam.
If you look at the carbon cycle: human CO2 emissions are 29 GT whereas the land emits 439 GT and the Oceans 332 GT annually.
29 / (439 + 332) = 4% ... QED, right? WRONG!
What is missing from the equation? The amount absorbed by the oceans and land. The land absorbs 450 GT and the oceans 338 GT. Humans absorb 0 GT.
So the net emissions of CO2 = (29 - 0) + (439 - 450) + (332 - 338) = +12 GT annually
We are contributing 12 GTs of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, and that builds up over time. Such that CO2 has gone from a pre industrial revolution figure of no more than 280 ppm to now over 400 ppm. A 43% increase.
The same for the other GHGs.
She is also incorrect about water vapour, it varies from 0 to 4% (not 1-4%) depending on the height in the atmosphere and location on the planet. Once you get above a few thousand meters the WV freezes and ice is not a GHG. Over deserts and in very cold places the WV content drops to near zero. Very few places is the concentration 4% ... only in very hot environments when it is raining.
The last scam in this video is that showing of the million rice grains to show how small the amount of CO2 is in comparison to N2, O2, and Ar. They are irrelevant as they are not GHGs. The only thing that matters in the radiative transfer / energy budget of the Earth is how many GHG molecules are between the surface of the earth and space. That is best expressed by the mean free path of IR in our atmosphere (the distance an IR photon will travel before it is absorbed and remitted). That distance is now below 50 meters. It used to be nearly 100 meters. Thus more heat is trapped for longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 30, 2014 11:55:15 GMT
Her numbers are completely screwed up! How does she get 4%. Here's how ... it is scam. If you look at the carbon cycle: human CO2 emissions are 29 GT whereas the land emits 439 GT and the Oceans 332 GT annually. 29 / (439 + 332) = 4% ... QED, right? WRONG! What is missing from the equation? The amount absorbed by the oceans and land. The land absorbs 450 GT and the oceans 338 GT. Humans absorb 0 GT. So the net emissions of CO2 = (29 - 0) + (439 - 450) + (332 - 338) = +12 GT annually We are contributing 12 GTs of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, and that builds up over time. Such that CO2 has gone from a pre industrial revolution figure of no more than 280 ppm to now over 400 ppm. A 43% increase. The same for the other GHGs. She is also incorrect about water vapour, it varies from 0 to 4% (not 1-4%) depending on the height in the atmosphere and location on the planet. Once you get above a few thousand meters the WV freezes and ice is not a GHG. Over deserts and in very cold places the WV content drops to near zero. Very few places is the concentration 4% ... only in very hot environments when it is raining. The last scam in this video is that showing of the million rice grains to show how small the amount of CO2 is in comparison to N2, O2, and Ar. They are irrelevant as they are not GHGs. The only thing that matters in the radiative transfer / energy budget of the Earth is how many GHG molecules are between the surface of the earth and space. That is best expressed by the mean free path of IR in our atmosphere (the distance an IR photon will travel before it is absorbed and remitted). That distance is now below 50 meters. It used to be nearly 100 meters. Thus more heat is trapped for longer.News to me. Is that your reckoning or scientifically established? I'm thinking you must have something to back up the 100% increase? |
|
|
|
Post by drkstrong on Oct 31, 2014 0:28:46 GMT
"News to me" that is the problem. Whatever is said should be checked, including what I say. These numbers are readily available ... look up the "carbon cycle" and the numbers in various forms (carbon, carbon dioxide equivalent, etc.) and you will this person is using downright deception to make her erroneous point to fool the gullible and conform the biases of those who do not want to hear the facts.
This video is several years old and has been debunked by many.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 31, 2014 0:55:03 GMT
Her numbers are completely screwed up! How does she get 4%. Here's how ... it is scam. If you look at the carbon cycle: human CO2 emissions are 29 GT whereas the land emits 439 GT and the Oceans 332 GT annually. 29 / (439 + 332) = 4% ... QED, right? WRONG! What is missing from the equation? The amount absorbed by the oceans and land. The land absorbs 450 GT and the oceans 338 GT. Humans absorb 0 GT. So the net emissions of CO2 = (29 - 0) + (439 - 450) + (332 - 338) = +12 GT annually We are contributing 12 GTs of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, and that builds up over time. Such that CO2 has gone from a pre industrial revolution figure of no more than 280 ppm to now over 400 ppm. A 43% increase. The same for the other GHGs. She is also incorrect about water vapour, it varies from 0 to 4% (not 1-4%) depending on the height in the atmosphere and location on the planet. Once you get above a few thousand meters the WV freezes and ice is not a GHG. Over deserts and in very cold places the WV content drops to near zero. Very few places is the concentration 4% ... only in very hot environments when it is raining. The last scam in this video is that showing of the million rice grains to show how small the amount of CO2 is in comparison to N2, O2, and Ar. They are irrelevant as they are not GHGs. The only thing that matters in the radiative transfer / energy budget of the Earth is how many GHG molecules are between the surface of the earth and space. That is best expressed by the mean free path of IR in our atmosphere (the distance an IR photon will travel before it is absorbed and remitted). That distance is now below 50 meters. It used to be nearly 100 meters. Thus more heat is trapped for longer. dk: I agreed with your math etc till you stated 100 meters to 50 meters. I read a lot, and I have never come across that number/statement. Can you back that one up please? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 31, 2014 0:56:08 GMT
As far as the video, that is why I stated her numbers were skewed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 31, 2014 23:33:26 GMT
"News to me" that is the problem. Whatever is said should be checked, including what I say. These numbers are readily available ... look up the "carbon cycle" and the numbers in various forms (carbon, carbon dioxide equivalent, etc.) and you will this person is using downright deception to make her erroneous point to fool the gullible and conform the biases of those who do not want to hear the facts. This video is several years old and has been debunked by many. I'm more interested in the 100 down to 50 meter bit, not concentrations as demonstrated in the video. DK, Can you point me to some research on that matter? |
|
