Australian Politics Forum - global cooling warming,climate change,green energy

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #30 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 1:58pm

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 12:10pm:

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 11:02am:

Your calculation is severely flawed. The 3% figure that's touted by Watts and his crooked mates comes from fluxes, not from atmospheric concentration.

Its not flawed at all why is it flawed???

- because it's concerned with atmospheric concentration. The 3% figure is about fluxes, and the year is about 1994 for 3%. Nowadays, it's closer to 5%.

Natural fluxes balance out because there is a limited capacity for the oceans and the terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Without the fossil fuel burning, it worked out around minus 11Gigatonnes. That's not flexible. That's all you've got.

Today, it's actually less than that.

What are you talking about.

The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is, as your little diagram shows.

771 giga tonnes for the ecosystems. (96.6%) Natures total emissions per annum

29 giga tonnes for man. (3.6%) mans total emissions per annum

Ok today it may be a little different maybe mans emissions are at about 32 giga tonnes per annum.

It doesn't change the fact or the bottom line that total concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are about 0.039%.

And from that total CO2 concentration (0.039%) in our atmosphere man contributes around about 3.6%.

Thats the bottom line.

Even if it is 5% its still to small to make a difference.

Especially when 95% of the greenhouse effect is because of the water vapor in the air.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 2:03pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #31 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 2:06pm

Quote:

Muso wrote;
By the way, I don't want to totally dismiss or ridicule your calculation. Bravo for having a go. You just made a couple of wrong assumptions and a minor calculation error.

Check your calculations and if you've checked everything thoroughly, in the end, the result must be correct. I'm happy to take you down that path if you want.

Its ok its there abouts with some sort of correction factor.

Thanks for taking the time.

Getting it spot on really means nothing, i'm more interested in the bottom line not by how many percentage points we might be out.

BTW the per capita statistic is one of the most useless statistics invented by economists to justify some sort of comparison between nations.......its a zero in my books and being a scientist your self i would have thought you would look on it in a similar manner.

The gum tree outside my house has x amount of leaves per capita.

The gum tree outside you house has x amount of leaves per capita.

What does this tell us about your gum tree and my gum tree what does it tell us about the leaves or the local weather in both places etc.etc.

Per capita.......meaningless jargon invented by economists.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #32 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:05pm

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 1:58pm:

What are you talking about.

The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is, as your little diagram shows.

771 giga tonnes for the ecosystems. (96.6%) Natures total emissions per annum

29 giga tonnes for man. (3.6%) mans total emissions per annum

Ok today it may be a little different maybe mans emissions are at about 32 giga tonnes per annum.

It doesn't change the fact or the bottom line that total concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are about 0.039%.

And from that total CO2 concentration (0.039%) in our atmosphere man contributes around about 3.6%.

Thats the bottom line.

Even if it is 5% its still to small to make a difference.

Especially when 95% of the greenhouse effect is because of the water vapor in the air.

Do you understand the difference between fluxes and inventory? Convince me.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #33 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:07pm

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 2:06pm:

Quote:

Muso wrote;
By the way, I don't want to totally dismiss or ridicule your calculation. Bravo for having a go. You just made a couple of wrong assumptions and a minor calculation error.

Check your calculations and if you've checked everything thoroughly, in the end, the result must be correct. I'm happy to take you down that path if you want.

Its ok its there abouts with some sort of correction factor.

Actually you are far off the mark. I'll explain further when I have the time.

What happens to the density of air when you increase the water vapour concentration? (increase the dew point)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:15pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 10982 Australia Gender:	Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy Reply #34 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:39pm muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:05pm: Do you understand the difference between fluxes and inventory? Convince me. Please explain it to me and all others that might be interested.
Back to top	1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax 2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #35 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:42pm

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:07pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 2:06pm:

Quote:

Muso wrote;
By the way, I don't want to totally dismiss or ridicule your calculation. Bravo for having a go. You just made a couple of wrong assumptions and a minor calculation error.

Check your calculations and if you've checked everything thoroughly, in the end, the result must be correct. I'm happy to take you down that path if you want.

Its ok its there abouts with some sort of correction factor.

Actually you are far off the mark. I'll explain further when I have the time.

What happens to the density of air when you increase the water vapour concentration? (increase the dew point)

Unless you have some sort of new and credible data i dont know about.

The total concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039%
and man's emissions are 3.6% of 0.039.

Even the IPCC and other alarmists agree with this figure or there abouts, i'm not really interested in minor adjustments.

So please show and tell what you know that the world doesn't???

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #36 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:55pm

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:39pm:

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:05pm:

Do you understand the difference between fluxes and inventory? Convince me.

Please explain it to me and all others that might be interested.

OK, the total atmospheric mass is 5 x 10^18 kg or 5 million Gigatonnes (you can look that up or I'll show you how to derive it if not convinced). Multiply through by the Wt% of CO2, which is 0.059% and you get 2963 Gigatonnes total atmospheric inventory. (see spreadsheet)

Can you see that is different from the positive (Biosphere to atmosphere) fluxes, and can you understand why?

Quote:

What are you talking about.

The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is, as your little diagram shows.

771 giga tonnes for the ecosystems. (96.6%) Natures total emissions per annum

29 giga tonnes for man. (3.6%) mans total emissions per annum

(That comes to 800 Gigatonnes.)

That's a false statement. Have a think about it.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 4:05pm by muso »

snapshot1_001.jpg (61 KB | 55 )

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #37 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 4:01pm

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:42pm:

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:07pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 2:06pm:

Quote:

Muso wrote;
By the way, I don't want to totally dismiss or ridicule your calculation. Bravo for having a go. You just made a couple of wrong assumptions and a minor calculation error.

Check your calculations and if you've checked everything thoroughly, in the end, the result must be correct. I'm happy to take you down that path if you want.

Its ok its there abouts with some sort of correction factor.

Actually you are far off the mark. I'll explain further when I have the time.

What happens to the density of air when you increase the water vapour concentration? (increase the dew point)

Unless you have some sort of new and credible data i dont know about.

The total concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039%
and man's emissions are 3.6% of 0.039.

Even the IPCC and other alarmists agree with this figure or there abouts, i'm not really interested in minor adjustments.

So please show and tell what you know that the world doesn't???

You're totally wrong on both counts. The IPCC doesn't agree with that figure. See if you can work out the difference between inventory and flux and it should come to you.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #38 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 5:02pm

In 1958, the Atmospheric CO2 inventory was about 2300 Gigatonnes (315ppmv/463ppmw). Today, the atmospheric CO2 inventory is about 2960 Gigatonnes.

The difference is about 640 Gigatonnes, or about 11 Gigatonnes per year on average.

Make sense?

Think of it like a big water tank. There is a hose running into the bucket and water running from from the bottom. The volume of that tank represents the total atmospheric inventory. The in and out represent the fluxes. The natural fluxes from the terrestrial and oceanic biospheres can be represented by a paddle wheel.

The flow rate of the hose is about 3.7% of the water returning from the paddle wheel, but the result is that the total inventory is rising a little bit each year..

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #39 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 5:10pm

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 9:07am:

Quote:

[quote]What? Pull the other one. Cooler than the last few glaciations? Maybe if we ignore the last few million years.

Hhhhmmmmm.....so are you saying that TODAY its hotter than ever before??

I'm saying that your original statement that the temperatures today are cooler than we have had in the past is clearly incorrect. The glaciations were obviously cooler.

By the way, the "Little Ice Age" is hardly in the same league as an Ice Age/ glaciation.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 137572
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #40 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 11:28am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 11:12am:

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 6:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

About the same probability that the global mean temperature is actually minus 18 degrees and that there is no greenhouse effect, and that the sea off Sydney is actually frozen but we perceive it to be in liquid form.

Now don't be lazy, and read the explanation that backs up the opening remark, and tell me where you actually disagree.

As simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's required.

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

So ... ?

Greggary - you can join in the calculation too if you like. See what you get. There might be a prize. Wink

You're starting to look like a (closed-minded) coward now.

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

'yes' or 'no'? A very simple question.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #41 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 8:08pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 11:28am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 11:12am:

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 6:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

About the same probability that the global mean temperature is actually minus 18 degrees and that there is no greenhouse effect, and that the sea off Sydney is actually frozen but we perceive it to be in liquid form.

Now don't be lazy, and read the explanation that backs up the opening remark, and tell me where you actually disagree.

As simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's required.

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

So ... ?

Greggary - you can join in the calculation too if you like. See what you get. There might be a prize. Wink

You're starting to look like a (closed-minded) coward now.

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

'yes' or 'no'? A very simple question.

Greggery. A hypotheses are falsifiable. By definition.

We are still waiting for you to actually tell us what this "AGW hypothesis" you are referring to actually is, so we can tell you whether or not it has been falsified.

Now, we both know that your grasp on this subject is very tenuous indeed - so it really would be a good idea if you could spell out for us what this hypothesis you keep referring to actually is.

Could you do that?

Or are you just repeating something you heard Jonesy say?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #42 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 8:15pm

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 9:07am:

To anyone reading this post just google global cooling in the 1970's.

...and you will come up with references to 2 articles in the popular media by journalists about global cooling.

If you however search the scientific literature of the 1970s, you will find that even then the majority atmospheric physicists and chemists writing on the subject were concerned about warming due to anthropogenic emissions

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #43 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 8:57pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

You're starting to look like a (closed-minded) coward now.

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

'yes' or 'no'? A very simple question.

Bah Popperism. I'm not going there.

http://educationalphilosophy.blogspot.com.au/2008/05/poverty-of-popperism.html

Read my lips - Observational Science.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 137572
Gender: male

Re: global cooling warming,climate change,green energy
Reply #44 - Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 9:31pm

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 8:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

You're starting to look like a (closed-minded) coward now.

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

'yes' or 'no'? A very simple question.

Bah Popperism. I'm not going there.

http://educationalphilosophy.blogspot.com.au/2008/05/poverty-of-popperism.html

Read my lips - Observational Science.

Closed-minded, unscientific cult member (who puts his faith in blogs) it is then.

I thought as much.

You can no longer be taken seriously.

Back to top

IP Logged