Climategate--The Final Chapter
08-06-2013, 04:00 AM
#531
Rubber dogsh#t out of HKG
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Senior Seat Cushion Tester Extraordinaire
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
For perspective:
CO2 is about 0.04% of our atmosphere. It is classified as one of the trace gases. The mass of the atmosphere is in the peta ton (10^15) order of magnitude.
Human economic activity releases something like 30 giga tons (10^9) of CO2/year. The total CO2 released each year is just under 800 gigatons/year; this total includes human economic activity, animal respiration, organic decomposition, and other releases from soil, rocks, and the oceans. Thus, CO2 released by human economic activity is about 3% of total annual emissions from all sources.
Almost all (more than 98%) of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is reabsorbed each year. The CO2 left over is the source of the increasing atmospheric CO2 about which some people are concerned.
WW
CO2 is about 0.04% of our atmosphere. It is classified as one of the trace gases. The mass of the atmosphere is in the peta ton (10^15) order of magnitude.
Human economic activity releases something like 30 giga tons (10^9) of CO2/year. The total CO2 released each year is just under 800 gigatons/year; this total includes human economic activity, animal respiration, organic decomposition, and other releases from soil, rocks, and the oceans. Thus, CO2 released by human economic activity is about 3% of total annual emissions from all sources.
Almost all (more than 98%) of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is reabsorbed each year. The CO2 left over is the source of the increasing atmospheric CO2 about which some people are concerned.
WW
If you're using CO2 levels in percentages (as opposed to Parts Per Million) in order to make the effect seem insignificant, then it isn't working.
How Much CO2 Is in the Atmosphere and Can That Level Have Dramatic Effects? | Union of Concerned Scientists
As for natural absorption;
Earth still absorbing CO2 even as emissions rise, says new CU-led study | University of Colorado Boulder
08-06-2013, 04:31 AM
#532
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by Radials Rule
And the point is?
If you're using CO2 levels in percentages (as opposed to Parts Per Million) in order to make the effect seem insignificant, then it isn't working.
How Much CO2 Is in the Atmosphere and Can That Level Have Dramatic Effects? | Union of Concerned Scientists
As for natural absorption;
Earth still absorbing CO2 even as emissions rise, says new CU-led study | University of Colorado Boulder
If you're using CO2 levels in percentages (as opposed to Parts Per Million) in order to make the effect seem insignificant, then it isn't working.
How Much CO2 Is in the Atmosphere and Can That Level Have Dramatic Effects? | Union of Concerned Scientists
As for natural absorption;
Earth still absorbing CO2 even as emissions rise, says new CU-led study | University of Colorado Boulder
WW
08-06-2013, 10:49 AM
#533
Rubber dogsh#t out of HKG
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Senior Seat Cushion Tester Extraordinaire
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
The point was perspective--I hid that up near the top of my post. I put units in both big (peta tons) and small (percentages). There were facts without editorializing--very high signal:noise ratio.
WW
WW
As for facts without editorializing; Anyone can state facts. However, the selective stating of facts doesn't mean that you're immune from editorializing.
Just keeping the "S/N ratio" down from my <ahem> "perspective"
08-06-2013, 11:22 AM
#534
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
Fair enough
Originally Posted by Radials Rule
Yes Winged Wheeler, I saw that is what you said. My disregard for your use of the word perspective was only in the interest of preventing its abuse. Putting things in "perspective" is often used by those wishing to create an illusion of cold objectivity. When in fact, the word's use is quite subjective....especially in a topic such as this. i.e. In human vs animals as a source of CO2; How much of the animal side is animal agriculture and domesticated livestock? That would be a human source. Also, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas.
As for facts without editorializing; Anyone can state facts. However, the selective stating of facts doesn't mean that you're immune from editorializing.
Just keeping the "S/N ratio" down from my <ahem> "perspective"
As for facts without editorializing; Anyone can state facts. However, the selective stating of facts doesn't mean that you're immune from editorializing.
Just keeping the "S/N ratio" down from my <ahem> "perspective"
The places where I looked for that info included all human economic activity in the 3% or so of CO2 that is emitted each year, not just industrial emissions. Without looking it up, I would bet that insect respiration has more annual CO2 than all human sources--I'll cheerfully retract that hypothesis if I am shown evidence otherwise.
The goal is to keep the signal/noise ratio high, not low.
WW
08-06-2013, 11:53 AM
#535
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
CO2 levels may be something of a red herring.
No model based purely on CO2 levels has been able to show or predict future global temperatures, it would be nice if it were that simple.
CO2 levels varied greatly long before man entered the picture.
What caused that?
Many articles on the subject start with the premise that CO2 levels are the primary influence on global temperature. This has proven to be a false but popular theory. CO2 sometimes lags and sometimes leads temperature change.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/1...n-et-al-paper/
No model based purely on CO2 levels has been able to show or predict future global temperatures, it would be nice if it were that simple.
CO2 levels varied greatly long before man entered the picture.
What caused that?
Many articles on the subject start with the premise that CO2 levels are the primary influence on global temperature. This has proven to be a false but popular theory. CO2 sometimes lags and sometimes leads temperature change.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/1...n-et-al-paper/
Last edited by jungle; 08-06-2013 at 02:23 PM.
08-06-2013, 06:22 PM
#536
Retired
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
A trip down memory lane on the damage that environmental distortions ie lies can do -
Malaria Victims: How Environmentalist Ban on DDT Caused 50 Million Deaths - Discover the Networks
Malaria Victims: How Environmentalist Ban on DDT Caused 50 Million Deaths - Discover the Networks
09-10-2013, 09:32 AM
#537
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,026
Resurrecting this never ending thread
Interesting editorial from Investors’ Business Daily
United Nations' Panel Admits Global Cooling? Posted 09/09/2013 06:37 PM ET
Global Cooling: The United Nations won't give up its hard-line position that global warming is occurring and man is to blame. But at some point it's going to have to deal with the reality of the world around it.
The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is 95% sure that human activity — the burning of fossil fuel for energy — is causing our planet to warm.
So on what, we wonder, will the IPCC blame the coming cooling period?
Because one is coming. At least that's what the IPCC itself reportedly is saying.
The London Telegraph wrote Sunday that a leaked IPCC report "has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century."
And why not? As the Telegraph has noted, "There has been a 60% increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles."
Yes, that's right. The dire predictions of an iceless Arctic made in 2007 were wrong, just as the fearful projections of an increase in global-warming-caused disastrous storms have also been off the mark in a missed-by-the-width-of-the-universe sort of way.
Whether Earth cools or not is a question that won't be answered until a few more years or decades pass.
But this we do know: Earth has not warmed in at least 16 years, maybe more. Data from Britain's Met Office, that nation's arbiter of all things climate, shows global temperatures have been flat since the late 1990s.
If Earth indeed cools in the coming decades, how will the IPCC react?
Will it carry on as if nothing has changed, spreading alarm where there should be none?
Or will it admit there is cooling — and then blame that, too, on man's fossil-fuel burning ways?
What we do know for sure is that the IPCC won't just go away, even though it will have no purpose and in fact has yet to actually have one anyway.
The bureaucrats who run it will find some way to keep it going, though it's of no use. It will happen in much the same way the International Monetary Fund has been able to perpetuate its existence long after it should have been shut down.
In other words, the IPCC will deal with the reality as it always has, which is to say it will continue denying it.
Interesting editorial from Investors’ Business Daily
United Nations' Panel Admits Global Cooling? Posted 09/09/2013 06:37 PM ET
Global Cooling: The United Nations won't give up its hard-line position that global warming is occurring and man is to blame. But at some point it's going to have to deal with the reality of the world around it.
The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is 95% sure that human activity — the burning of fossil fuel for energy — is causing our planet to warm.
So on what, we wonder, will the IPCC blame the coming cooling period?
Because one is coming. At least that's what the IPCC itself reportedly is saying.
The London Telegraph wrote Sunday that a leaked IPCC report "has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century."
And why not? As the Telegraph has noted, "There has been a 60% increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles."
Yes, that's right. The dire predictions of an iceless Arctic made in 2007 were wrong, just as the fearful projections of an increase in global-warming-caused disastrous storms have also been off the mark in a missed-by-the-width-of-the-universe sort of way.
Whether Earth cools or not is a question that won't be answered until a few more years or decades pass.
But this we do know: Earth has not warmed in at least 16 years, maybe more. Data from Britain's Met Office, that nation's arbiter of all things climate, shows global temperatures have been flat since the late 1990s.
If Earth indeed cools in the coming decades, how will the IPCC react?
Will it carry on as if nothing has changed, spreading alarm where there should be none?
Or will it admit there is cooling — and then blame that, too, on man's fossil-fuel burning ways?
What we do know for sure is that the IPCC won't just go away, even though it will have no purpose and in fact has yet to actually have one anyway.
The bureaucrats who run it will find some way to keep it going, though it's of no use. It will happen in much the same way the International Monetary Fund has been able to perpetuate its existence long after it should have been shut down.
In other words, the IPCC will deal with the reality as it always has, which is to say it will continue denying it.
09-13-2013, 04:44 PM
#538
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by RhinoPherret
Resurrecting this never ending thread
Interesting editorial from Investors’ Business Daily
United Nations' Panel Admits Global Cooling? Posted 09/09/2013 06:37 PM ET
Global Cooling: The United Nations won't give up its hard-line position that global warming is occurring and man is to blame. But at some point it's going to have to deal with the reality of the world around it.
The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is 95% sure that human activity — the burning of fossil fuel for energy — is causing our planet to warm.
So on what, we wonder, will the IPCC blame the coming cooling period?
Because one is coming. At least that's what the IPCC itself reportedly is saying.
The London Telegraph wrote Sunday that a leaked IPCC report "has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century."
And why not? As the Telegraph has noted, "There has been a 60% increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles."
Yes, that's right. The dire predictions of an iceless Arctic made in 2007 were wrong, just as the fearful projections of an increase in global-warming-caused disastrous storms have also been off the mark in a missed-by-the-width-of-the-universe sort of way.
Whether Earth cools or not is a question that won't be answered until a few more years or decades pass.
But this we do know: Earth has not warmed in at least 16 years, maybe more. Data from Britain's Met Office, that nation's arbiter of all things climate, shows global temperatures have been flat since the late 1990s.
If Earth indeed cools in the coming decades, how will the IPCC react?
Will it carry on as if nothing has changed, spreading alarm where there should be none?
Or will it admit there is cooling — and then blame that, too, on man's fossil-fuel burning ways?
What we do know for sure is that the IPCC won't just go away, even though it will have no purpose and in fact has yet to actually have one anyway.
The bureaucrats who run it will find some way to keep it going, though it's of no use. It will happen in much the same way the International Monetary Fund has been able to perpetuate its existence long after it should have been shut down.
In other words, the IPCC will deal with the reality as it always has, which is to say it will continue denying it.
Interesting editorial from Investors’ Business Daily
United Nations' Panel Admits Global Cooling? Posted 09/09/2013 06:37 PM ET
Global Cooling: The United Nations won't give up its hard-line position that global warming is occurring and man is to blame. But at some point it's going to have to deal with the reality of the world around it.
The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is 95% sure that human activity — the burning of fossil fuel for energy — is causing our planet to warm.
So on what, we wonder, will the IPCC blame the coming cooling period?
Because one is coming. At least that's what the IPCC itself reportedly is saying.
The London Telegraph wrote Sunday that a leaked IPCC report "has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century."
And why not? As the Telegraph has noted, "There has been a 60% increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles."
Yes, that's right. The dire predictions of an iceless Arctic made in 2007 were wrong, just as the fearful projections of an increase in global-warming-caused disastrous storms have also been off the mark in a missed-by-the-width-of-the-universe sort of way.
Whether Earth cools or not is a question that won't be answered until a few more years or decades pass.
But this we do know: Earth has not warmed in at least 16 years, maybe more. Data from Britain's Met Office, that nation's arbiter of all things climate, shows global temperatures have been flat since the late 1990s.
If Earth indeed cools in the coming decades, how will the IPCC react?
Will it carry on as if nothing has changed, spreading alarm where there should be none?
Or will it admit there is cooling — and then blame that, too, on man's fossil-fuel burning ways?
What we do know for sure is that the IPCC won't just go away, even though it will have no purpose and in fact has yet to actually have one anyway.
The bureaucrats who run it will find some way to keep it going, though it's of no use. It will happen in much the same way the International Monetary Fund has been able to perpetuate its existence long after it should have been shut down.
In other words, the IPCC will deal with the reality as it always has, which is to say it will continue denying it.
WW
09-20-2013, 06:01 AM
#540
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
The Rats
are deserting the ship:
"Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner [Connie Hedegaard] has said."
EU policy on climate change is right even if science was wrong, says commissioner - Telegraph
I think that is a remarkable, and telling, admission.
WW
"Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner [Connie Hedegaard] has said."
EU policy on climate change is right even if science was wrong, says commissioner - Telegraph
I think that is a remarkable, and telling, admission.
WW
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
