Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 Next
Comments 77101 to 77150:
-
Tom Curtis at 13:57 PM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
For those interested in the answer to Dale's question @89, I refer you to CDIAC, and in particular to Boden et al, 1995 which explains the methodology used:"3. CO2 Emission Calculations The methods of Marland and Rotty (1984) were used to estimate the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from fossil-fuel burning, gas flaring, and cement production. This section briefly summarizes these methods and states some of the assumptions used in these methods [for a complete discussion see the copy of the Marland and Rotty (1984) paper provided in Appendix B]. As indicated earlier, the primary data used to calculate the CO2-emission estimates came from the UNSTAT Database. Fuel production data were used in generating global CO2-emission estimates because these data are more complete than energy consumption data. For regional or national emission estimates, however, one needs to know the amount of fossil fuels consumed in each region or nation, and not the amount produced, to calculate the CO2 emitted. The calculation of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is conceptually very simple (Marland and Rotty 1984). For each type of fuel, the annual CO2 emissions are the product of three terms: the amount of fuel consumed, the fraction of the fuel that becomes oxidized, and a factor for the carbon content of the fuel (Marland and Rotty 1984). That is, CO2i = (Pi) (FOi) (Ci), (1) where subscript i represents a particular fuel commodity, P represents the amount of fuel i that is consumed each year, FO is the fraction of P that is oxidized, C is the average carbon content for fuel i, and CO2 is the resulting CO2 emissions for fuel i expressed in mass of carbon. For CO2 emissions, fossil fuels can be divided into the usual groups of solid, liquid, and gas fuels. An identical procedure has been adopted by the IPCC in prescribing a methodology for countries to use in estimating and reporting greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 1995). Global total CO2-emission estimates are generated by using the above equation, where P represents production data from the UNSTAT Database for all primary solid, liquid, and gas fuels. Because secondary fuels are derived from primary fuels, they need not be included."
(My emphasis) Because fuel use data are used in the estimates of global emissions, not energy production data, Dale's expressed concern is unjustified. However, of necessity average values for the various multipliers for different fuels must be used. Along with other factors this leads to an estimated error "from 6 to 10%". That is significant, but it is nowhere near enough to suggest that Humans are not responsible for rapid rise in CO2 concentrations. -
muoncounter at 13:28 PM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale#96: "muoncounter started that train of thought" I did not speculate one way or the other; I offered the flip side of the big 'if' to demonstrate the utter pointlessness of such speculation. This a denier tactic straight out of the pages of FauxNews: the unfounded and meaningless question. Repeat it enough times and it gets picked up as if the content is true. But when all else fails and the argument still isn't going your way, start throwing the good old 'corruption' bombs. Sad, very sad. -
scaddenp at 13:01 PM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Camburn, can assume that you have seen Meehl 2003? While forcings here are somewhat dated, it should be starting point. What do you mean by "currently accepted" TSI reconstructions? TSI reconstructions are improving all the time, so any modelling is always going to be based on whatever is best published TSI at the time. That said, early 20th Century warming seems to be well within the uncertainties of net known forcings (GHG and aerosols included). Can you be specific about what you think challenges that view? -
bibasir at 12:57 PM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
You summed it up well. “The incompetence is overwhelming.” -
adelady at 12:53 PM on 17 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
"But, since a presumption was made that only climate scientists had the insight and training to understand the nuances of climate change, we can disregard the rest and thereby inflate the end result." Nobody's "disregarding" the rest, they're ranking them. If we're interested in tennis "champions" we would probably count, firstly the winners of Grand Slam events, then those people who've achieved No 1 ranking in the world. Then someone cries, what about Ermintrude Kafloops! She was ranked Number 12 in the world for 8 years straight! What about her?! Obviously, EK was a serious contender, but we're not looking for people who could have been champions. We want the real thing. Same thing for scientists who don't publish in the climate area. They may be contenders, but they don't rank for this purpose no matter how good their work may be in reptile genetics or particle physics. -
Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale - Muoncounter's quote in #90 clearly indicated that such a speculation was nonsense. 'Nuf said. -
Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale - I was attempting to give you the benefit of doubt, to work from the assumption that you were actually interested in discussing the science of climate and climate change, and in this case, critically examining a 'skeptic' argument that appears to be poorly reasoned. Your "UN" conspiracy comment just throws that out the window. If you (or for that matter anyone, in any discussion) starts with the assumption that the majority of people spending their life-work in a science field are lying, there is nowhere for the discussion to go. Personally, I now consider you someone in denial or a troll, and will treat your comments accordingly. -
Dale at 12:35 PM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
[DB] That was just an attempt to derail this thread. Please ignore it. That's it, I'm out. I thank you for the good discussion we had. I'll point out that muoncounter started that train of thought with his implication that business corrupts their emission reporting by reporting less. Yet his comment remains unmoderated. From #90: "it makes just as much sense to speculate that polluters under-report their emissions."Response:[DB] Actually, it was pretty transparent. However, should you wish to abandon the attitude & check the tone at the door and actually enter into dialogue with individuals extremely well-versed in climate science, then you will be welcomed upon your return. In and of itself, SkS is witness to some of the finest science dialogue on the intertubes, (relatively) free of insults and the usual aspersions/comspiracy theories that abound in the usual places. Ciao.
-
Camburn at 12:33 PM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
DB: Why do I ask questions? Because maybe someone can be sure and would share said knowledge. When you look at the currently accepted TSI reconstructions, (which even within those there are substantial variations), none of them show that the early 20th century warming was caused by solar. So, if not caused by solar, what was it caused by? This is important in understanding the validity of the models that are being used in current projections. An aside. If what I wrote was considered an insult, I humbly applogize, and will certainly be more careful in the future and thank you for bringing that to my attention.Response:[DB] Thank you. In the time I've known you, the majority of the time it is obvious that you take the time and care to construct a comment that adds to the discussion. Be the resource here that I know you can be is all I ask.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 12:24 PM on 17 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Tom at 29 I'm pretty sure that what you are saying is off-topic and thinly veiled ad hominem. Regardless, it appears that you do not deem the signers of the petition meaningful for whatever reasons you come up with. However, the signers of the Doran/Zimmerman survey do matter. Of course, if you look at all of the respondees to Doran, you will find that the vaunted 97% number is actually lower. A lot lower. But, since a presumption was made that only climate scientists had the insight and training to understand the nuances of climate change, we can disregard the rest and thereby inflate the end result. That is an awful condemnation of other trained, rational, logically thinking minds that arrive at a different conclusion. If only pedigreed climate scientists are capable of generating acceptable responses to questions regarding climate change, then there are not many people (if any) on this site, or any other site, that should be making any conclusions. -
skywatcher at 12:02 PM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Postma knocked? :) It's very important to have good debunkings of rubbish like this and G&T around. It's probably fair to say that relatively few people have a clear understanding of issues like radiative transfer, and so relatively many people could be fooled by material such as by Postma. Thanks to Chris for putting in the hard work here. #5 that example is a beauty!Response:[DB] Miss the rimshot?
-
Chris Colose at 11:52 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
I am wondering if it was worth the time to do this. Joseph Postma has now been pretty much laughed out of Judith Curry´s blog post on it, and with the crowd she gets, that is saying something... -
Camburn at 11:51 AM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
After doing supliment research, it appears ( -Snip- ) is Arkadiusz Semczyszak. I want to thank him for his posts of papers. There were a few that I had not read yet. The early 20th century warming is still a huge question as to cause.Response:[DB] "The early 20th century warming is still a huge question as to cause."
Why is it you post virtually the same mantra "Because we can't be SURE, therefore we can't KNOW _________" on every thread? The act gets tiresome, really.
And lay off the insults. You know better than that. You want to learn & ask questions? Fine, do so. In the meantime, straighten up:
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.
-
mullumhillbilly at 11:45 AM on 17 August 2011It's waste heat
I couldnt get the full version of Flanner 2009, so I cant see how he concluded that waste heat is so small relative to GHG forcing. I have a “burning” question. I lit a small pile of logs under last night’s moon, enjoying the fire’s warmth and watching sparks and smoke convecting towards the cosmos. Amongst the smoke was some of that awful carbon pollution, and I wondered about the heat that could be added to the planet from CO2 if it had a residence time of say 1000 years. How did the GHG forcing energy compare to the energy released by the simple exothermic oxidation of the photosynthesized ligno-cellulosics (aka fire) ? I made my own calculations about this (below), and then looked around the web until I found the topic thread here about waste heat vs GHG forcings. I’ve read through this thread and Flanners 2009 abstract (couldn’t access the full paper) which says that waste heat is small (1%) compared to GHG forcing.... quite the opposite of where I got to. So have I calculated wrongly ? Why are my conclusions so different to Flanner? Here is my reasoning.... Assumptions 1.A tonne of burnt coal (78% carbon) releases 2.86 tonnes of CO2; the energy content of coal is about 24MJ/kg 2. About half of CO2 from current annual hydrocarbon burning ends up back into the biosphere and the oceans, the other half stays in the atmosphere. 3. Atmospheric CO2 has a residence time in the order of centuries 4. Doubling CO2 is like adding the equivalent of 3.7W/m2 warming energy, around the clock. 5. If atmospheric CO2 is doubled, eg from 290 to 580ppmv (ppmv * ~1.5 = ppm by mass) , then atmospheric mass of CO2 goes from 2350 to 4700 Gt ( 10^9 tonnes). (nb. Annual hydrocarbon-derived CO2 emissions are presently about 30Gt/yr, historically we have released about 1200 Gt hydrocarbon-derived CO2 since 1850 (of which 400Gt since 1990) , and atmospheric mass of CO2 has increased by about 800Gt since 1850 (current mass 3150 Gt). I thought it would be easier to deal with some human-scale measures here, so converted as follows: If we allocate CO2 mass evenly across the surface of the Earth (5.1×10^8 km2), that means that the atmospheric column above each square metre contained about 4.6 kg CO2 in yr 1850 (290ppm). Doubling CO2 thus means adding another 4.6kg/m2, so at the ratio of gas:solid of 2.86:1 and with only about half of the CO2 staying in the atmosphere, doubling CO2 from 1850 concs would require burning about 3.2 kg of coal-equivalent for every square metre on the planet. From point 4 above, the additional 4.6kg of CO2 produced by burning 3.2kg of coal leads to 3.7W x 24 hours x 365 days = 32.4Wh per year. Watts and Joules can be converted as follows...a Watt is a unit of power which measures how fast energy (measured in Joules) is converted, 1.0W = 1.0 J/sec, so 3.6kJ = 1.0 Wh. So; from 1. above, Burning 3.2kg of coal liberates 77 MJ of energy (3.2 x 24) , and from 4. above, the energy “forced” into the climate system by adding 4.6kg CO2 which stays there for 660 years , is 32.4Wh/yr x 3.6kJ/Wh x 660yrs =77 MJ. In other words, the energy from burning a piece of coal (“waste heat”) is equal to the GHG forcing energy of the CO2 created by burning, if and only if the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 660 years. It seems that greenhouse warming in the short-term (eg decades) is therefore only a miniscule fraction of the actual combustion energy released. To me this conclusion begs the question, if it takes 660 years for the greenhouse heating energy to be the same as the energy released by burning, how come we aren’t already more than toasted by the simple act of combustion itself? And where is all that heat from the fires going? In one year, it’s 660 times as much as the GHG forcing energy, quite the opposite of what Flanner 2009 said. If the waste heat from combustion is not staying in the atmosphere (or oceans), why would the early-evening near-ground greenhouse warming be any different? -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:03 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Why is it valid to speculate that the UN might be inflating the numbers? This is a nonsensical statement. The UN has nothing to gain from doing this. The more "controversy" there is about climate, the more funding these corrupt bodies will get. Spreading doubt would be actually good for them. The moment the science is totally "settled" there will be no reason to keep up much of an IPCC. You are showing your true intentions with that kind of poorly veiled accusations, and the attempt at disguising it with a tepid self correction. "We should focus on the science" indeed, so why throw that inane corruption remark in the first place? Your response in #92 seems to reinforce my point. Whatever difference could be there is so small that it does not matter. A working estimate can de berived from simple extraction and sales of FF figures from year to year, since there is no significantly increasing storage of unused fossil fuel from year to year. This is a rather pointless argument, little more than splitting hairs. Not very interesting.Response:[DB] "Why is it valid to speculate that the UN might be inflating the numbers?"
That was just an attempt to derail this thread. Please ignore it.
-
muoncounter at 10:58 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale#93: "I still ask, " Look it up. Posing a variety of questions just to give the impression that there is doubt is a FauxNews tactic. That wouldn't be skeptical. And do not suggest corruption; that violates the CP. -
Ken E at 10:49 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
Briefly glancing over the paper, i am reminded of a pasty fat nerdy-looking boy i once worked with who's parents likened him to the next Einstein. He had a remarkable gift for stringing together esoteric verbiage in his observations that dumbfounded a lot of the doctors in the facility. When they decided to test the child's actual aptitude they were surprised to find he scored quite low. And not to be a jerk but i saw that coming a mile away. The poor child was trying to use a false image of intellect to compensate for what had to be a horrible self-image in all other respects. The gimmick was people's verbal comprehension couldn't follow the onslaught of vocabulary words to recognize that he was really just spouting gibberish. His words could be strung together in a verb-follows-noun grammatical sense but they were never actually articulating any sort of logical point. He'd just kind of spout nonsense and act like he was operating at a level of sophistication mere mortals couldn't ever hope to understand and no one was the wiser. But ask him to solve a simple logic or math problem and he wasn't going to get anywhere. Point is, this guy MIGHT just be pulling a similar stunt. He jumps on known approximations for being flawed because well, they're approximations, then sticks in other concepts that seem so esoteric but don't actually apply, all the while throwing dense technical words together that don't actually add up to anything then foams at the mouth about violating laws of thermal dynamics. The guy is a [-snip-] trying to pass himself off as an emerging world authority who's exposed that everyone else is wrong. -
Dale at 10:48 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
muoncounter,Its also valid to speculate that the UN might be inflating the numbers too, but we should focus on the science and not potential corruption in those two bodies.I still ask, is a single value used to represent all power stations, or do they use all stations reported emissions?Response:[DB] "Its also valid to speculate that the UN might be inflating the numbers too"
Not here, not on this blog, not by you or anywho; not on my watch. Not gonna happen. Next time comment goesa bye-bye. Capiche?
Cf. Comments Policeeya.
-
Dale at 10:44 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Phillipe, I didn't include Loy Yangs CCS in the 500 GT/GW/year calculation, I based it on the full 1.1 GT/year figure. And yes Toms point that E_a offsets U_n which leaves some of natural CO2 in the air. -
owl905 at 10:29 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
The pro-pollutionist camp produces an endless supply of fractured science arguments. Co-incidentally with Postma squeezing strawman and quadratic equations into one package, the Galileo Group is running a parallel diversion. They've revived the nonsense about 'CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas'. That got Sciam's attention: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas Ever notice how Science wins every battle, and still loses the war?Moderator Response: [Sph] Converted inline link. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:22 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale's last argument is feeble. CO2 CRC shows only 4 operational captures and 1 operational storage in Australia. My guess is that this number is likely to be even lower in China and India. The chance that it makes a substantial difference is close enough to zero to be ignored. I also think Tom Curtis has a good point in post #81 above. -
owl905 at 10:20 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
He should write peace treaties.Response:[DB] Because this Postma doesn't deliver...?
-
Tor B at 10:12 AM on 17 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
A few weeks ago I was asking about the CCD - Carbonate Compensation Depth. A website (thanks Google) connects this discussion (OA not OK #16) of CaCO3 solubility in the water column with the response of calcarious remains settling towards the bottom. Shells start to dissolve wherever Ω drops below 1 (the “lysocline”), and at a certain undersaturation (Ω =~.65 & .75 - Atlantic & Pacific) virtually all CaCO3 tests will actually dissolve (the CCD). Deposits of shells or coral on the ocean floor will begin to dissolve when the lysocline and CCD moves upward (due to OA) as long as the deposits are not protected from undersaturated fluids. From the link above: "the ocean's ability to take up atmospheric pCO2 is influenced by the balance of production and dissolution of calcium carbonate, and lifting or lowering the CCD has important consequences on the short and long term variations of CO2 in the atmosphere." Ominous - OA is definitely not OK! -
muoncounter at 10:09 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale#89: "complexity of the carbon cycle is not that simple in reality," Makes no difference: Look at the seasonal range of atmospheric CO2; at MLO, it's a range of about 6ppm from peak to trough. This hasn't changed much:
That's your natural cycle. Nothing in that cycle explains the increase from ~310 ppm to more than 390 ppm in under 50 years. If there were only natural cycles at work, we would see the seasonal and not the trend.
"if the actual human emissions are less than the estimated amount,"
You're speculating once again; you really don't produce any evidence that this is a significant concern. There are people who do this for a living; have you looked into their work? It will take a lot more than a generic 'if' -- it makes just as much sense to speculate that polluters under-report their emissions.
-
Dale at 09:43 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
In terms of the evidence presented in this thread, the cause is human emissions. But I do proviso that statement with "in terms of the evidence in this thread". The complexity of the carbon cycle is not that simple in reality, and the calculation methods of levels of emission and intake do raise some questions. For instance, how are human emissions calculated? In the link you provided above they state that they use UN energy reports. I ask what values they use to calculate emissions, because every coal plant is different in emission amount by a huge variance. As an example, two of my local power stations (near Melbourne) produce 1.4 GT/year in a 1600GW plant and 1.1 GT/year in a 2200GW plant. Obviously, emissions per GW is hugely different between these plants. Also, does the calculation take into consideration any CCS deployed at the plants? The 2200GW plant (Loy Yang A) uses algae CCS technology to reduce the 1.1 GT/year by around half (though admittedly the technology is still in testing and only operates about half the year for the last ten years). But you can see my point. If for example the calculation puts an arbitrary 875 GT/GW/year (the Hazelwood value) it does not represent at all the Loy Yang A calculation which ends up at 500 GT/GW/year. Does the human emission calculation take these things into consideration, or is it a calculation based on some arbitrary universal figure? This is important, because if the actual human emissions are less than the estimated amount, it throws a lot of other calculations out of whack, such as human impact on climate, temperature change, etc. Which also brings questions on how the natural in and out figures are calculated. How accurate to reality are they? -
Alexandre at 09:32 AM on 17 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Hey, there's a cool prediction from Bastardi on this Climate Denial Crock of the Week video that could make a fine addition to the Lessons from Predictions series. It starts around 6:30 min into the video. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:54 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale I think my use of "responsible for" is reasonable, as it would be reasonable to say that "my wife spends more than I earn and is responsible for the increase in our debts" (happily not actually true ;o). Your use of "responsible" however is not reasonable, as illustrated by the apparent paradox in your position highlighted by my last question. So the question is, given that the natural environment is known to have taken in more carbon dioxide than it emitted every year for the last fifty years, in what way is it the cause of the observed rise over that period? Common sense says that it isn't the cause, it has opposed the observed rise. -
Dale at 08:54 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
KR, Agreed that total amount is more important than source. My point really was that its untrue to say nature sinks all of its own and only half of human emissions. The ratios are irrelevant when the total weight is out of sync. -
Dale at 08:48 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Sorry I said less than above when I meant more than. -
Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale If that was an honest question, my sincere apologies. You have indeed been quite involved and reasonable in a discussion that 'skeptics' tend to avoid. I have repeatedly, however, seen the Ship of Theseus question (which molecule is which) inappropriately invoked up in mass balance discussions, on multiple threads and blogs. Since in regards to climate we're concerned about CO2 concentration, not the origin of individual molecules, claiming (as some have) that we aren't raising atmospheric concentrations based on the ancestry of those molecules is simply an incorrect view. Isotopic analysis is quite useful for determining the rates at which CO2 moves from one climate compartment (air, water, soil, plants, rocks) to another. But again, the relevant quantities for climate change are total CO2 concentrations and amounts, not origins. -
Dale at 08:46 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dikran, I think both of us used the word "responsible" incorrectly above. Nature did not cause an increase in my example. The total weight of emissions being less than the intake is the cause of the rise. If E_n had dropped by 15, then the rise would be zero. Again the total weight of emissions is the cause of no rise. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:38 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale You appear to have missed my last question, which cannot be adequately answered "yes nature has taken out more than put in." My last question is repeated below.
Dale wrote: "Nature is responsible in ratio between E_n and E_a, so in the example above, 70% whilst humans are responsible for 30%." So you are saying that in that year the natural environment caused 70% of the rise of 15 units of atmospheric CO2 that happened that year, even though it took 15 units of CO2 out of the atmosphere more than it put in? Hint: The natural environment is responsible for 100% of the uptake and we are responsible for (essentially) 0% of it. -
Dale at 08:37 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
If I'm going to be continuosly called a troll, I will just simply leave.Moderator Response: [Albatross] Please do not leave just yet. You are making progress on this matter. Dikran may well convince you yet. Everyone, please exercise maximum patience with Dale. And Dale, people would not get so frustrated with you if you a) Listened and b) Stopped making stuff up. -
Tom Curtis at 08:36 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale @71, in your example, you would agree that the presence of E_a is causing natural processes to absorb 10.5 units less of E_n than it otherwise would have. In other words, even in your pedantic example, human emissions are responsible for 100% of the increase, 15% by directly increasing the atmospheric concentration, and 85% by substituting for natural emissions that otherwise would have been removed.Moderator Response: [Albatross] Fixed bold tag -
Tom Curtis at 08:28 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Daly @78, I get rather [ -snip- ] just making things up on this forum. For example:"If we want to look at isotopes, is it correct to say that human emissions contain a higher ratio of C12 to C13? Since in fossil fuels C14 and C13 breakdown over time to combinations of methane, nitrogen and C12."
In fact C14 decays into N14, and electron and an antineutrino. As protons (ie, hydrogen ions) are not a decay product, there is no possibility of forming methane from the decay of C14. C13, in contrast, is stable and does not decay. Consequently C12 is not the decay product of any Carbon isotope. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:12 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
My personal favorite collection of arrogant jumbled words from Postma's latest diatribe:This, as opposed to the illogical direct comparison of said physically unique (i.e., different) metrics without qualification and the consequent arrangement of tautologies built up to superficially sustain and promote that original deception. Thus, there is absolutely no allowance nor justification for a back-radiative GHE whatsoever, in the reference frame of logic and Natural Philosophy. We will return to this ahead.
It doesn't get any clearer than that. -
Dale at 08:07 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
I apologise if my comment was taken as trolling but since I had been corrected for precision in the past I thought that was the culture here. And the meaning of "all natural emissions" is pretty clear. Please continue your lesson. To answer your last question, yes nature has taken out more than put in. -
Alexandre at 08:06 AM on 17 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
That first part about us being responsible for 3% of the atmospheric CO2 yearly increase is just incredible... How far does the scientific skills of Mr. "chief meteorologist" go? Addition and subtraction? Maybe not that far? -
Dale at 07:36 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Excuse me, but being precise is trolling? I've had other people in this very thread "correct" me as I wasn't precise, yet when a "sceptic" does it it's trolling? If we want to look at isotopes, is it correct to say that human emissions contain a higher ratio of C12 to C13? Since in fossil fuels C14 and C13 breakdown over time to combinations of methane, nitrogen and C12. Is it also fair to say that around 85% of plant life "prefers" the lighter isotope of C12 over C13 (it's well documented that the ratio of C13 in these plants is lower than atmospheric ratio of C13). Thus even though the C12/C13 ratio of human emissions is different to the natural C12/C13 ratio, the increased amount of C12 would be "preferred" by these plants. So that would imply that these plants "eat" human CO2 at a faster rate. Of course, this has been observed with the faster growth of C3 plants over C4 and CAM plants.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Precision ought to be tempered by common sense. Common sense should have told you that I didn't mean natural uptake took up the same molecules of CO2 that had been released that year by natural sources. I suggest we leave the isotpic arguments until later. Pedantry is often used by trolls to avoid addressing the substantive issues and obuscate the discussion. It is a good idea to ask if the meaning is not clear so that honest precision is not confused for trolling (it also facilitates the discussion of the substantive issues). -
Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale - As he has noted, Dikran is well aware that what remains in the air is not just anthropogenic CO2, but rather a mix of CO2 from anthropogenic, biological, and natural chemical sources. Again, though, it's the amount of CO2 in the increase, in ppm - that's what is important. You are making semantic/rhetorical points of no scientific import. If you claim it's an error that invalidates the mass balance discussion, I would consider you to be either sadly misdirected or deliberately disingenuous. If it makes you comfortable, insert the phrase "an amount equal to" before every CO2 amount, as in: Dikran - "That "bit more" has averaged about half of an amount equal to anthropogenic emissions" -- Dikran - There are some differences, in that isotopic uptake of plants differs between various carbon weights, and anthropogenic carbon has a different isotopic mix than stuff in the biological side of the carbon cycle. That's useful for tracking purposes. But yes, Dale is either quite confused or trolling.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Yes, the point about the isotptic differences is correct (but I didn't want to overly complicate things). I am interested to see how Dale will answer my most recent question. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:53 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale wrote: "Nature is responsible in ratio between E_n and E_a, so in the example above, 70% whilst humans are responsible for 30%." So you are saying that in that year the natural environment caused 70% of the rise of 15 units of atmospheric CO2 that happened that year, even though it took 15 units of CO2 out of the atmosphere more than it put in? Hint: The natural environment is responsible for 100% of the uptake and we are responsible for (essentially) 0% of it. -
Dale at 06:43 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
KR, Dikran stated that ALL natural emission are removed and half of human emissions remain, which is just simply not true. Unless you are claiming that natural sinks can discern between natural and human carbon in the air and prioritise natural carbon over human carbon.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] It should have been obvious that I was talking about amounts of CO2, not the molecules themselves, that would be absurd. There is no mechanism by which the sinks differentiate between anthropogenic CO2 and natural CO2, nor is there a mechanism to differntiate between natural CO2 emitted last year and this, which would also be required under your misinterpretation! -
Dale at 06:41 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Nature is responsible in ratio between E_n and E_a, so in the example above, 70% whilst humans are responsible for 30%. -
Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale - You are making the classic Ship of Theseus error, confusing components with structure, or in this case amounts. An amount of CO2 equal to about half of anthropogenic emissions remains in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter whether those are all anthropogenically produced molecules, decayed plant matter, exchanges with the ocean, etc. - it's the amount that matters when discussing climate. To quote Heroclitus - "Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers." Yet you still get just as wet... -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:35 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale So how much of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the natural environment responsible for in your example? -
Dale at 06:26 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Okay let's look at it via numbers. Say for argument, E_n is 70 and E_a is 30. This makes a total of 100 E. Thus since we know on average ~50% of E_a is taken up, U_n must be 85 (E_n + (0.5 * E_a)). However due to mixture E_n and E_a are removed in ratio, unless you claim U_n is intelligent enough to discern the difference and remove all of E_n first. Thus by the numbers above, 85% of E_a is removed, and 85% of E_n is removed, which leaves total remaining E of 15 (0.85 * (70 + 30)) made up of 10.5 E_n and 4.5 E_a. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:08 AM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
I should hold my tongue, but I put a lot of effort going through Postma's first paper (this is his second) and arguing with him on a denial site. It sounds like this paper is much like the first. That first spent page after page teaching standard climate science as if he had developed and derived it himself, while also constantly adding the words "thermodynamics," because that was his main contention, that simple thermodynamics explained everything without the greenhouse effect. Of course, the first funny thing was that for all he used the word "thermodynamics" over and over, he never actually applied much thermodynamics. He just started sentences with the phrase "Thermodynamics says that" followed by whatever point he wanted to a priori declare to be an unassailable truth. What was really amazing, though, was that all of those pages really watered down to two paragraphs where he "developed" the equation for an adiabatic lapse rate using gravity. He then substituted the actual observed lapse rate and tried to work downwards from the altitude with an average atmospheric temperature of 255K to the surface, which was magically (Ta da!) 288K, which "proved" that gravity caused all warming, not the greenhouse effect. The flaws in this are legion, but the main flaw was the bit of sleight of hand which allowed him to effectively prove that 2 + 2 = 4, and therefore 4 - 2 = 2, and therefore the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. All he did was to take observations of the temperatures at the surface and 5,000 ft, apply a linear equation created based on those observations, and then declare that since the equation computed the proper temperature of the surface by plugging in the temperature at 5,000 feet, then the greenhouse effect does not exist because the equation (and gravity!) explained all. It was simple insanity wrapped in a huge, complicated bow of "thermodynamics" and basic climate theory that had been developed by other people, but helped to make his presentation look brilliant and scientific. I can't bring myself to read his latest travesty. I'll let Chris do so, and laugh at the denial twits who think they're onto something. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:07 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale wrote "I'll come back to that at the end of the steps. ;)" No, we had better deal with it now. If you disagree with that statement it means you must have misunderstood a previous step. If U_n > E_n it means that natural uptake was sufficient to take up all of the natural emissions for that year, as well as a bit more. That "bit more" has averaged about half of anthropogenic emissions. If you disagree with that, you need to explain your position. -
muoncounter at 06:06 AM on 17 August 2011Climate's changed before
That's one heck of a 'natural cycle!' And for those who accept that increasing temperature is necessary for increasing CO2 (the Salby effect), the 'its cooling' meme is blown. -
Dale at 05:58 AM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
@rustneversleeps, Unfortunately, Dale does. ;) @Dikran "U_n > E_n means that the natural uptake removes ALL of the natural emissions as well as ~50% of human emissions." I'll come back to that at the end of the steps. ;) But yes, sinks have removed more than the natural cycle puts in.
Prev 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 Next
