|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 3, 2017 16:31:41 GMT
What to say? The assumed "truths", cultural "guilt" and fatalism are amazing. Do you suppose it was historically similar with other 'soon-to-be-conquered' and genetically digested pre-Indo-European or pre-Columbian peoples who looked eastward and blandly stated ... if only WE had not screwed up their part of the world, we would not now be facing this cultural apocalypse. History has not been kind to such peoples ... although in truth they were overpowered by weight of numbers, superior technology (for the time), disease packages and aggressive cultural determinism. If the following is to be the European policy position, then good luck with that. For the first 300 years we were engaged in that experiment, practically all of our migration WAS European and WE were the migrating package. Ask any Indigene how that worked out. Or ... are these new migrants more culturally "sensitive" than we were? You WILL be betting the farm (traditions, way of life, ideals) on that assumption. There is some dissent as to whether I'm in any way expressing a good Christian position. I'll admit to having doubts. We Europeans cannot allow ourselves to dream. Even as we are becoming aware of many different threats, we will need to take into our continent millions of people — people who, thanks to the combined impact of war, the failure of globalization, and climate change, will be thrown (like us, against us, or with us) into the search for a land where they and their children can live. We are going to have to live together with people who have not hitherto shared our traditions, our way of life, or our ideals, who are close to us and foreign to us — terribly close and terribly foreign.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 3, 2017 20:27:13 GMT
Euan Mearns has a blog which I would characterize as “skeptic” with respect to CAGW. In a recent post he has this paragraph…. “Separating the up months from the down months we see that the gradient through the down months is higher than the gradient up through the up months and that the magnitude of the falls is on average higher than the magnitude of the rises. Why then is CO2 rising in the atmosphere?” You can read the whole article to see the context ( euanmearns.com/record-surge-in-atmospheric-co2-seen-in-2016/#more-20029 ) but what he is asking is ‘If the CO2 emissions are not growing, then why is atmospheric CO2 steadily growing?’ I’m surprised at how many seemingly smart people don’t seem to understand the answer to this question. I’m sure all of you already know the answer, but I want to make sure. CO2 has a long life in the atmosphere. If no CO2 was added there would be only a small decline in concentration over a month’s time. If a lot of CO2 is added like is happening, the atmospheric CO2 will increase significantly whether the emissions are more or less than those of previous months. If emissions decline a little, atmospheric CO2 will still grow at a high, although slightly lowered, rate. I shudder when skeptics say things that are easy targets for the CAGW crowd.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 4, 2017 1:42:30 GMT
Euan Mearns has a blog which I would characterize as “skeptic” with respect to CAGW. In a recent post he has this paragraph…. “Separating the up months from the down months we see that the gradient through the down months is higher than the gradient up through the up months and that the magnitude of the falls is on average higher than the magnitude of the rises. Why then is CO2 rising in the atmosphere?” You can read the whole article to see the context ( euanmearns.com/record-surge-in-atmospheric-co2-seen-in-2016/#more-20029 ) but what he is asking is ‘If the CO2 emissions are not growing, then why is atmospheric CO2 steadily growing?’ I’m surprised at how many seemingly smart people don’t seem to understand the answer to this question. I’m sure all of you already know the answer, but I want to make sure. CO2 has a long life in the atmosphere. If no CO2 was added there would be only a small decline in concentration over a month’s time. If a lot of CO2 is added like is happening, the atmospheric CO2 will increase significantly whether the emissions are more or less than those of previous months. If emissions decline a little, atmospheric CO2 will still grow at a high, although slightly lowered, rate. I shudder when skeptics say things that are easy targets for the CAGW crowd. It is a matter of source capacity vs sink capacity. The assumption being made that the sink capacity is constant is false as is the assumption that human emissions are 'big' - they are less than ants and termites and a lot less than Henry's law tells us will come from the oceans when they warm. The real problem will come if the sink capacity increases and the source capacity suddenly declines which could lead to a drop in CO2 to dangerously low levels similar to those in the Little Ice Age.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 4, 2017 3:01:32 GMT
Naut: I disagree. CO2 doesn't rise nor fall with haste.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Nov 4, 2017 8:24:27 GMT
Sig, apart from the word "suddenly", do you disagree with Naut’s analysis?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 4, 2017 9:24:56 GMT
Naut: I disagree. CO2 doesn't rise nor fall with haste. Sig it does. Watch CO2 ppm during the seasons where source becomes overwhelmed by sink then vice versa Now imagine whatever causes those seasonal drops, probably a mix of Henry's law and plant life, carries on doing so as the sink stays at a high level and the source stays low. A year without a summer effect perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 4, 2017 11:57:09 GMT
Sig, apart from the word "suddenly", do you disagree with Naut’s analysis? Yes. Earth, at present, has approx 400ppmv in the atmosphere. There is a normal flux during seasons. Burning FF adds to the overall level. To have a sudden large change in CO2 levels would require a black swan event of extreme magnitude. The 400ppmv will be around for awhile, which is very beneficial for mankind. If the Yellowstone Caldera blows, all bets are off. It would require that type of event to change atmospheric CO2 levels in a short time period.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 4, 2017 17:01:51 GMT
Sig, apart from the word "suddenly", do you disagree with Naut’s analysis? Yes. Earth, at present, has approx 400ppmv in the atmosphere. There is a normal flux during seasons. Burning FF adds to the overall level. To have a sudden large change in CO2 levels would require a black swan event of extreme magnitude. The 400ppmv will be around for awhile, which is very beneficial for mankind. If the Yellowstone Caldera blows, all bets are off. It would require that type of event to change atmospheric CO2 levels in a short time period. I have a problem with the Anthropogenic addition being even out of the noise in the measurement error...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 4, 2017 21:13:44 GMT
I don't. I apply 1/4 ounce of chemical per acre to control certain weeds. That small amount can be measurements in a lab if spray drift occurred.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is NOT all from human sources. The AGW folks want you to think it is. It isn't.
The idea that 400ppmv is new is not the result of logic. Diffusion, lack of resolution makes 400ppmv possible in the past. We just don't know!
Humans add to CO2 levels
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Nov 4, 2017 21:30:35 GMT
Sig, apart from the word "suddenly", do you disagree with Naut’s analysis? Yes. Earth, at present, has approx 400ppmv in the atmosphere. There is a normal flux during seasons. Burning FF adds to the overall level. To have a sudden large change in CO2 levels would require a black swan event of extreme magnitude. The 400ppmv will be around for awhile, which is very beneficial for mankind. If the Yellowstone Caldera blows, all bets are off. It would require that type of event to change atmospheric CO2 levels in a short time period. Sorry, apart from "sudden". That was the question
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 6, 2017 15:38:41 GMT
Sorry, apart from "sudden". That was the question Moneoman, you've shown some interest in Nautonnier's posts on CO2 emissions. We are a pretty friendly group here and I'd be interested in your reaction to what I've written below concerning the significance of the human effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. There are a lot of factors which affect CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 absorbed and released by the oceans over a year's time isn’t that easy to estimate. Likewise, the amount of CO2 absorbed by plants and released when they decay isn’t that easy to estimate. On the other hand it is possible to measure the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere to a decent accuracy. And from that it is then possible to make a reasonable estimate of the average tons of CO2 present in the atmosphere for a certain year. Also, the amount of fossil fuels burned in the world over the course of a year is known to a reasonable accuracy. From the chemistry of fossil fuel burning it is possible to estimate the amount of CO2 produced from the burning of the various fossil fuels. And then it is possible to estimate the CO2 added to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning with a reasonable accuracy for a given year. And the amount of cement produced in the world for a given year can be reasonably estimated and from that a fairly good estimate of the resultant CO2 emissions can be made. So we can make a fairly good estimate of the increase in atmospheric CO2 for a year and the amount of CO2 added through burning of fossil fuels and production of cement for that year. If it turned out that the amount of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning plus cement production for a year was 1.5 times the amount of the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the course of that year would you conclude that fossil fuel emissions plus cement production emissions were probably not a significant contributor to atmospheric CO2? This is false 'logic' - So the sources of CO2 are apparently running at above the increase in CO2. However, satellite measurements show that the higher concentrations of CO2 are not coming from industry or conurbations but come from established rainforest and tropical oceans. The effect of CO2 on the open atmosphere is also apparently zero - as the pause showed. Unless some natural cooling occurred that balanced precisely the claimed increase in heat content from CO2 for nearly 20 years - and that argument fails the Occam's razor test. The step changes in temperatures seem to be linked to ocean SST oscillations which they follow - both the PDO and AMO. There is no evidence in the real world that the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has any measurable effect. ICAN developed the 'standard atmosphere' that is used for aviation purely based on standard wet and dry lapse rates without any 'CO2 radiation levels and hot spots' and the 'standard atmosphere' has been shown to be close to reality, by continual and repeated use. Same for balloon sondes not showing evidence for 'CO2 forcing causing heating'. What has been shown to be true is the 'greening of the planet' even NASA admits that and that is almost certainly due to the higher levels of CO2 rising from a close to plant fatal 200ppm or less to 400ppm or so today, plants would prefer levels of the order of 5000ppm or higher. There are times in the historic record when Earth dropped into an ice age with CO2 concentrations in the 2000ppm + range so it does not appear to be the 'control knob' that people are concerned with. Summary there was never a time when Source and Sink of CO2 matched. Heating the oceans will increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere (Cf Henry's law) and that increase will dwarf anything humans can put out as ants and termites create more than humanity now. CO2 has not been demonstrated to cause any change in heat content of the atmosphere by any experiment. If it had there would not be the repeated return to the discredited experiments of Arrhenius with CO2 in a closed tube. Just pray that the level of CO2 does not drop back to the 1750AD value, as plants will become less resilient and crops will start to fail, at 150ppm many plants will die. Humanity was close to extinction - pray for more CO2.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Nov 6, 2017 20:57:48 GMT
Wot e said.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 7, 2017 1:56:34 GMT
Duwayne, are we missing your reply?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 7, 2017 2:49:54 GMT
Moneoman, you've shown some interest in Nautonnier's posts on CO2 emissions. We are a pretty friendly group here and I'd be interested in your reaction to what I've written below concerning the significance of the human effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. There are a lot of factors which affect CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 absorbed and released by the oceans over a year's time isn’t that easy to estimate. Likewise, the amount of CO2 absorbed by plants and released when they decay isn’t that easy to estimate. On the other hand it is possible to measure the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere to a decent accuracy. And from that it is then possible to make a reasonable estimate of the average tons of CO2 present in the atmosphere for a certain year. Also, the amount of fossil fuels burned in the world over the course of a year is known to a reasonable accuracy. From the chemistry of fossil fuel burning it is possible to estimate the amount of CO2 produced from the burning of the various fossil fuels. And then it is possible to estimate the CO2 added to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning with a reasonable accuracy for a given year. And the amount of cement produced in the world for a given year can be reasonably estimated and from that a fairly good estimate of the resultant CO2 emissions can be made. So we can make a fairly good estimate of the increase in atmospheric CO2 for a year and the amount of CO2 added through burning of fossil fuels and production of cement for that year. If it turned out that the amount of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning plus cement production for a year was 1.5 times the amount of the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the course of that year would you conclude that fossil fuel emissions plus cement production emissions were probably not a significant contributor to atmospheric CO2? This is false 'logic' - So the sources of CO2 are apparently running at above the increase in CO2. However, satellite measurements show that the higher concentrations of CO2 are not coming from industry or conurbations but come from established rainforest and tropical oceans. The effect of CO2 on the open atmosphere is also apparently zero - as the pause showed. Unless some natural cooling occurred that balanced precisely the claimed increase in heat content from CO2 for nearly 20 years - and that argument fails the Occam's razor test. The step changes in temperatures seem to be linked to ocean SST oscillations which they follow - both the PDO and AMO. There is no evidence in the real world that the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has any measurable effect. ICAN developed the 'standard atmosphere' that is used for aviation purely based on standard wet and dry lapse rates without any 'CO2 radiation levels and hot spots' and the 'standard atmosphere' has been shown to be close to reality, by continual and repeated use. Same for balloon sondes not showing evidence for 'CO2 forcing causing heating'. What has been shown to be true is the 'greening of the planet' even NASA admits that and that is almost certainly due to the higher levels of CO2 rising from a close to plant fatal 200ppm or less to 400ppm or so today, plants would prefer levels of the order of 5000ppm or higher. There are times in the historic record when Earth dropped into an ice age with CO2 concentrations in the 2000ppm + range so it does not appear to be the 'control knob' that people are concerned with. Summary there was never a time when Source and Sink of CO2 matched. Heating the oceans will increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere (Cf Henry's law) and that increase will dwarf anything humans can put out as ants and termites create more than humanity now. CO2 has not been demonstrated to cause any change in heat content of the atmosphere by any experiment. If it had there would not be the repeated return to the discredited experiments of Arrhenius with CO2 in a closed tube. Just pray that the level of CO2 does not drop back to the 1750AD value, as plants will become less resilient and crops will start to fail, at 150ppm many plants will die. Humanity was close to extinction - pray for more CO2. Nautonnier, when someone insists that the annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are insignificant even though the emissions are much greater than the annual growth in atmospheric CO2 levels, I am smart enough to know that it’s a waste of time to try to reason with the person.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 7, 2017 7:52:51 GMT
This is false 'logic' - So the sources of CO2 are apparently running at above the increase in CO2. However, satellite measurements show that the higher concentrations of CO2 are not coming from industry or conurbations but come from established rainforest and tropical oceans. The effect of CO2 on the open atmosphere is also apparently zero - as the pause showed. Unless some natural cooling occurred that balanced precisely the claimed increase in heat content from CO2 for nearly 20 years - and that argument fails the Occam's razor test. The step changes in temperatures seem to be linked to ocean SST oscillations which they follow - both the PDO and AMO. There is no evidence in the real world that the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has any measurable effect. ICAN developed the 'standard atmosphere' that is used for aviation purely based on standard wet and dry lapse rates without any 'CO2 radiation levels and hot spots' and the 'standard atmosphere' has been shown to be close to reality, by continual and repeated use. Same for balloon sondes not showing evidence for 'CO2 forcing causing heating'. What has been shown to be true is the 'greening of the planet' even NASA admits that and that is almost certainly due to the higher levels of CO2 rising from a close to plant fatal 200ppm or less to 400ppm or so today, plants would prefer levels of the order of 5000ppm or higher. There are times in the historic record when Earth dropped into an ice age with CO2 concentrations in the 2000ppm + range so it does not appear to be the 'control knob' that people are concerned with. Summary there was never a time when Source and Sink of CO2 matched. Heating the oceans will increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere (Cf Henry's law) and that increase will dwarf anything humans can put out as ants and termites create more than humanity now. CO2 has not been demonstrated to cause any change in heat content of the atmosphere by any experiment. If it had there would not be the repeated return to the discredited experiments of Arrhenius with CO2 in a closed tube. Just pray that the level of CO2 does not drop back to the 1750AD value, as plants will become less resilient and crops will start to fail, at 150ppm many plants will die. Humanity was close to extinction - pray for more CO2. Nautonnier, when someone insists that the annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are insignificant even though the emissions are much greater than the annual growth in atmospheric CO2 levels, I am smart enough to know that it’s a waste of time to try to reason with the person. I am not 'arguing' stating a fact that 3.4% CO2 is claimed to be from 'human activity' - you call that significant? In any other discussion it would be called insignificant. 'Green house gases'-------2% of atmosphere CO2 ------------------------3.6% of that 2% CO2 from Human activity-3.4% of the 3.6% of the 2% As I have said before people just do not realize how big the world is and how puny the human race is in comparison to Nature.
|
|