Climate change far worse than thought before
John Manning
NEW DELHI: Global alarm over climate change and its effects has risen
manifold after the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).
Since then, many of the 2,500-odd IPCC scientists have found climate
change is progressing faster than the worst-case scenario they had
predicted.
Their studies will be considered for the next IPCC report, but since
that will come out only in 2013, the University of New South Wales in
Sydney has just put together the main findings in the last three years.
Most are by previous IPCC lead authors "familiar with the rigour and
completeness required for a scientific assessment of this nature", a
university spokesperson said.
The most significant recent findings are:
* Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40
percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warming
should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed action
increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmosphere.
* To keep within the two-degree limit, global GHG emissions need to peak
between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilise climate,
near-zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived GHG should be
reached well within this century.
More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to
shrink to well under one tonne carbon dioxide by 2050. This is 80-95
percent below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
* Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19
degree Celsius per decade. The trend has continued over the last 10
years despite a decrease in radiation from the sun.
* The studies show extreme hot temperature events have increased,
extreme cold temperature events have decreased, heavy rain or snow has
become heavier, while there has been increase in drought as well.
They also show that the intensity of cyclones has increased in the past
three decades in line with rising tropical ocean temperatures.
* Satellites show recent global average sea level rise (3.4 mm/year over
the past 15 years) to be about 80 percent above IPCC predictions. This
acceleration is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting
of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice sheets.
New estimates of ocean heat uptake are 50 percent higher than previous
calculations. Global ocean surface temperature reached the warmest ever
recorded in June, July and August 2009. Ocean acidification and ocean
de-oxygenation due to global warming have been identified as potentially
devastating for large parts of the marine ecosystem.
* By 2100, global sea level is likely to rise at least twice as much as
projected by the IPCC in 2007; if emissions are unmitigated the rise may
well exceed one metre.
The sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global
temperatures have been stabilised, and several metres of sea level rise
must be expected over the next few centuries.
* A wide array of satellite and ice measurements demonstrate that both
the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting at an increasing
rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has
also accelerated since 1990.
The contribution of glaciers and ice-caps to global sea level rise has
increased from 0.8 mm per year in the 1990s to 1.2 mm per year today.
The adjustment of glaciers and ice caps to present climate alone is
expected to raise sea level by about 18 cm. Under warming conditions
they may contribute as much as around 55 cm by 2100.
The net loss of ice from the Greenland ice sheet has accelerated since
the mid-1990s and is now contributing 0.7 mm per year to sea level rise
due to both increased melting and accelerated ice flow. Antarctica is
also losing ice mass at an increasing rate, mostly from the West
Antarctic ice sheet due to increased ice flow. Antarctica is currently
contributing to sea level rise at a rate nearly equal to Greenland.
* Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the
expectations of climate models. The area of summertime sea-ice 2007-09
was about 40 percent less than the average prediction from IPCC climate
models in the 2007 report.
* The studies say avoiding tropical deforestation could prevent up to 20
percent of carbon dioxide emissions.
* New ice-core records confirm the importance of GHG (greenhouse gas)
for temperatures on earth, and show that carbon dioxide levels are
higher now than they have been during the last 800,000 years.
http://snipurl.com/tydzs [timesofindia_indiatimes_com]
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
Good, it shows that the Bible is right and we live in the last days...
Or maybe it shows that half the world does nothing being paralyzed by
religion.
Uncle Vic
[quoted from source]
> "Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40
> percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warming
> should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed action
> increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
>
> Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmosphere."
Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic eruption. I
say we need legislation to prevent further volcanism.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
John Manning
> One fine day in alt.atheism, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> [quoted from source]
>
>> "Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40
>> percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warming
>> should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed action
>> increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
>>
>> Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmosphere."
>
> Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic eruption. I
> say we need legislation to prevent further volcanism.
>
Volcanoes are also part of the extended carbon cycle. Over very long
(geological) time periods, they release carbon dioxide from the Earth's
crust and mantle, counteracting the uptake by sedimentary rocks and
other geological carbon dioxide sinks.
According to the US Geological Survey, however, estimates are that human
activities generate more than 130 times the amount of carbon dioxide
emitted by volcanoes.
Olrik
>
>
> NEW DELHI: Global alarm over climate change and its effects has risen
> manifold after the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change (IPCC).
>
> Since then, many of the 2,500-odd IPCC scientists have found climate
> change is progressing faster than the worst-case scenario they had
> predicted.
It's *always* "progressing faster than the worst-case scenario". That's
why I gave up on the subject. It's become a screeching
"end-of-the-world" political and quasi-religious pseudo-science.
Wake me up when the snow will melt.
<snip>
Budikka666
None of this is really surprising, but when you have administrations,
like the last Bush administration, deliberately classifying
photographs of retreating glaciers to hide the truth:
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/07/bush_administration_classified.php
then you have to wonder why we even dream that any real action might
get taken.
The glaciers are melting. That alone will cause disasters regardless
of what else does or doesn't happen. That alone should silence the
lying scum who deny global warming:
http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2009/12/7_glaciers_melting.php
But I have to ask why we're posting this to:
alt.religion.mormon, alt.religion, soc.culture.jewish, and
alt.bible.prophecy ?
Budikka
Sanity's Little Helper
> NEW DELHI: Global alarm over climate change and its effects has risen
> manifold after the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change (IPCC).
>
> Since then, many of the 2,500-odd IPCC scientists have found climate
> change is progressing faster than the worst-case scenario they had
> predicted.
That's because CO2 isn't the problem. It's merely an aggravating factor,
but so is the fact that the Earth has an atmosphere.
Quick science lesson: Energy is energy. Whatever we do with it, and however
we produce it, it is conserved. When we stop things moving, they get hot,
when we waste energy generating and transmitting it inefficiently, it
produces heat, and when we've finished with what we were doing with it,
most of it ends up as heat. What the gases - all of them, most of all
carbon containing gases and least of all argon - in the atmosphere do, is
absorb some of that heat by promoting electronic orbits (atomic
absorption), which makes them hotter directly, preventing some of the heat
we have produced from being radiated into space. Thus, even wind and wave
power cause global warming directly.
The fundamental cause of global warming is social mobility - the growth of
the teaming masses who expect a lifestyle that is energy hungry. It isn't
likely that there is a solution to this that is politically feasible, but
then, neither is Bangladesh going to be feasible if nothing is done, and
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets doesn't have 196 million properties.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
duity, and any response as persecution
Not authentic without this signature.
�R.L.Measures
<add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> One fine day in alt.atheism, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> [quoted from source]
>
> > "Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40
> > percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warming
> > should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed action
> > increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
> >
> > Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmosphere."
>
> Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic eruption. I
> say we need legislation to prevent further volcanism.
** Humans breathe out carbon dioxide. Maybe there are too many of us?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Duwaynea Anderson
> One fine day in alt.atheism, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> [quoted from source]
>
> > "Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40
> > percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warming
> > should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed action
> > increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
>
> > Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmosphere."
>
> Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic eruption. I
> say we need legislation to prevent further volcanism.
A moments thought by anyone who has seen the CO2 concentration data
(and is at least as smart as a fifth grader) illustrates that Uncle
Vic's assertion cannot possibly be true. The graph is smooth, with
well-defined seasonal fluctuations but *no* spikes.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
If volcanoes were belching out so much CO2 with each eruption there's
be spikes that correlate with each eruption -- but there are none.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article <Xns9CF55DE232A49vic...@216.196.97.131>, Uncle Vic
>
> <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > [quoted from source]
>
> > > "Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40
> > > percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warming
> > > should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed action
> > > increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
>
> > > Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmosphere."
>
> > Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic eruption. I
> > say we need legislation to prevent further volcanism.
>
> ** Humans breathe out carbon dioxide. Maybe there are too many of us?
As a rough rule of thumb (when burning stuff to create energy) the
amount of CO2 created is proportional to the amount of energy
generated (this depends on the type of fuel burned -- but, as I said,
this is for a rough order-of-magnitude estimate).
The amount of energy generated by each human being from burning fossil
fuels (directly, as in your car, and indirectly when you burn coal to
generate electricity) is *far* greater than the amount of energy
generated by eating cherrios.
So is the amount of CO2 generated -- much more from burning fossil
fuels than from breathing.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> A moments thought by anyone who has seen the CO2 concentration data
> (and is at least as smart as a fifth grader) illustrates that Uncle
> Vic's assertion cannot possibly be true.
Uncle Vic was playing his irony card.
Duwaynea Anderson
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > A moments thought by anyone who has seen the CO2 concentration data
> > (and is at least as smart as a fifth grader) illustrates that Uncle
> > Vic's assertion cannot possibly be true.
>
> Uncle Vic was playing his irony card.
Irony or sarcasm?
Uncle Vic
> On Jan 4, 10:52�am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Duwaynea Anderson
>> <duwayneander...@gmail.com
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > A moments thought by anyone who has seen the CO2 concentration data
>> > (and is at least as smart as a fifth grader) illustrates that Uncle
>> > Vic's assertion cannot possibly be true.
>>
>> Uncle Vic was playing his irony card.
>
> Irony or sarcasm?
>
Yes.
�R.L.Measures
<e05e28b5-018d-4e19...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:13=A0am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> > [quoted from source]
> >
> > > "Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40
> > > percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warming
> > > should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed actio=
> n
> > > increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
> >
> > > Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmosphere.=
> "
> >
> > Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic eruption. =
> =A0I
> > say we need legislation to prevent further volcanism.
>
> A moments thought by anyone who has seen the CO2 concentration data
> (and is at least as smart as a fifth grader) illustrates that Uncle
> Vic's assertion cannot possibly be true. The graph is smooth, with
> well-defined seasonal fluctuations but *no* spikes.
>
** Good point Duwayne.
�R.L.Measures
<e53fc29a-2325-438d...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 7:00=A0am, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article <Xns9CF55DE232A49vic...@216.196.97.131>, Uncle Vic
> >
> > <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > > One fine day in alt.atheism, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote=
> :
> >
> > > [quoted from source]
> >
> > > > "Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40
> > > > percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warmin=
> g
> > > > should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed act=
> ion
> > > > increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
> >
> > > > Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmospher=
> e."
> >
> > > Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic eruption.=
> =A0I
> > > say we need legislation to prevent further volcanism.
> >
> > ** =A0Humans breathe out carbon dioxide. =A0Maybe there are too many of u=
> s?
>
> As a rough rule of thumb (when burning stuff to create energy) the
> amount of CO2 created is proportional to the amount of energy
> generated (this depends on the type of fuel burned -- but, as I said,
> this is for a rough order-of-magnitude estimate).
>
> The amount of energy generated by each human being from burning fossil
> fuels (directly, as in your car, and indirectly when you burn coal to
> generate electricity) is *far* greater than the amount of energy
> generated by eating cherrios.
>
> So is the amount of CO2 generated -- much more from burning fossil
> fuels than from breathing.
>
** but how nuch CO2 does the avg human exhale in a day?
Duwaynea Anderson
>
>
>
> Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 7:00=A0am, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > In article <Xns9CF55DE232A49vic...@216.196.97.131>, Uncle Vic
>
> > > <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > > > One fine day in alt.atheism, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote=
> > :
>
> > > > [quoted from source]
>
> > > > > "Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40
> > > > > percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warmin=
> > g
> > > > > should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed act=
> > ion
> > > > > increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
>
> > > > > Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmospher=
> > e."
>
> > > > Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic eruption.=
> > =A0I
> > > > say we need legislation to prevent further volcanism.
>
> > > ** =A0Humans breathe out carbon dioxide. =A0Maybe there are too many of u=
> > s?
>
> > As a rough rule of thumb (when burning stuff to create energy) the
> > amount of CO2 created is proportional to the amount of energy
> > generated (this depends on the type of fuel burned -- but, as I said,
> > this is for a rough order-of-magnitude estimate).
>
> > The amount of energy generated by each human being from burning fossil
> > fuels (directly, as in your car, and indirectly when you burn coal to
> > generate electricity) is *far* greater than the amount of energy
> > generated by eating cherrios.
>
> > So is the amount of CO2 generated -- much more from burning fossil
> > fuels than from breathing.
>
> ** but how nuch CO2 does the avg human exhale in a day?
The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces
approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual
amount depends strongly on the person’s activity level. However, this
carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not
contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in
plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not
included in greenhouse gas inventories.
In contrast, the burning of fossil fuels upsets this natural
equilibrium by adding a surplus of carbon dioxide into the system. The
carbon in fossil fuels has been stored underground for millions of
years and thus is not part of the current natural carbon cycle. When
those fuels are burned, the carbon dioxide generated is over and above
the amount circulating from natural sources.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html#q7
On average each person generates more than 100 kg of CO2 by burning
fossil fuels. That doesn't mean that each person *personally* does
that -- but that's your "share" of global production.
It's easy to calculate:
Coal is almost pure carbon, with an atomic weight of 12. CO2 has an
atomic weight of 44 (12 for carbon, 16+16 for the two oxygen atoms).
So we'd expect that burning 1 ton of coal will produce about 3.7 tons
of CO2. Indeed, that's pretty close to measured values.
Worldwide production of coal was 6195 million tons in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves
Coal is used virtually exclusively for combustion, so that 6195
million tons of coal produced 1.215*10^13 kg of CO2.
The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 2.7*10^15 km
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/
So each year the amount of coal consumed in the world is sufficient to
raise the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 0.45%
Now let's look at oil. In 2008 74.82 million barrels/day or 2,854
million barrels per year.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5395
About 60% of oil production is used for transportation (burned in
internal combustion engines)
So over 1,712 million barrels of oil are burned each year. Burning a
barrel of oil produces 317 kg of CO2
So oil yearly oil consumption produces 5.4*10^11 kg of CO2/year
(actually the number is much higher since oil used in home heating and
industry was not included)
So oil and coal burning amounts to 1.27*10^13 kg of CO2 produced
annually, which is enough to raise total atmospheric CO2 by nearly 1/2
percent per year.
Of course there are many sources of human-caused CO2 emissions into
the atmosphere. But these two largest sources of CO2 emissions are
nearly sufficient to account for the total measured amount. Since
1960 atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have increased from 313 ppm to
381 ppm (a 22 percent increase, or roughly 0.5% per year)
Detailed analysis has been performed on the many sources of CO2
entering the atmosphere, and they show without doubt that the measured
increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are predominately man-made. See
the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Yet the deniers lie and say the increases are not caused by humans.
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
Duwaynea Anderson
Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial
eruptions is carbon dioxide.[24] It is estimated that volcanoes
release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2
into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller
than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about
100 smaller than the sources from human activity. Carbon dioxide is
also produced by hot springs such as those at the Bossoleto site near
Rapolano Terme in Tuscany, Italy. Here, in a bowl-shaped depression of
about 100 m diameter, local concentrations of CO2 rise to above 75%
overnight, sufficient to kill insects and small animals, but it warms
rapidly when sunlit and the gas is dispersed by convection during the
day.[25] Locally high concentrations of CO2, produced by disturbance
of deep lake water saturated with CO2 are thought to have caused 37
fatalities at Lake Monoun, Cameroon in 1984 and 1700 casualties at
Lake Nyos, Cameroon in 1986.[26] Emissions of CO2 by human activities
are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by
volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year.[27]
Bert Hyman
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the
> atmosphere.
I thought it was water vapor.
"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere"
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Duwaynea Anderson
> Innews:ctqdnbpibZ8jB93W...@giganews.comJohn Manning
>
> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the
> > atmosphere.
>
> I thought it was water vapor.
It is.
It's worth noting, however, that the total effect from water vapor is
still somewhat controversial. Water *vapor* is a greenhouse gas, but
tiny droplets of water form clouds and clouds reflect incoming light
as well as absorb IR emissions from earth. It's not entirely clear
whether the net impact from water vapor is global warming or
cooling.
With gases like CO2 and methane, however, the effect is *all* warming,
since these gases don't significantly change the incoming flux of
solar radiation on the ground, but do absorb the IR emitted by earth.
It's also worth noting that CO2 and other greenhouse gases can act as
triggers in feedback loops. For example, CO2 might cause warming that
increases temperatures that evaporate more water into the atmosphere
-- which causes more warming, causing more evaporation, etc.
Here's an excerpt from a recent article in "Science News"
--------------------
In another major finding, scientists using AIRS data have removed most
of the uncertainty about the role of water vapor in atmospheric
models. The data are the strongest observational evidence to date for
how water vapor responds to a warming climate.
"AIRS temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated
climate model predictions that the warming of our climate produced as
carbon dioxide levels rise will be greatly exacerbated -- in fact,
more than doubled -- by water vapor," said Andrew Dessler, a climate
scientist at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Dessler explained that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide
does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from effects known as
feedbacks. Water vapor is a particularly important feedback. As the
climate warms, the atmosphere becomes more humid. Since water is a
greenhouse gas, it serves as a powerful positive feedback to the
climate system, amplifying the initial warming. AIRS measurements of
water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by
increased levels of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of AIRS data with
models and re-analyses are in excellent agreement.
"The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas
emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are
virtually certain to see Earth's climate warm by several degrees
Celsius in the next century, unless some strong negative feedback
mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth's climate system," Dessler said.
----------------------
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science
http://www.google.com/profiles/DuwayneAnderson
>
> "Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere"
>
> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
>
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN b...@iphouse.com
�R.L.Measures
<f58003a6-96df-4f3b...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2:46=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <e53fc29a-2325-438d-95e2-5a76ed9e3...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 4, 7:00=3DA0am, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article <Xns9CF55DE232A49vic...@216.196.97.131>, Uncle Vic
> >
> > > > <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > > > > One fine day in alt.atheism, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> w=
> rote=3D
> > > :
> >
> > > > > [quoted from source]
> >
> > > > > > "Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 4=
> 0
> > > > > > percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said wa=
> rmin=3D
> > > g
> > > > > > should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed=
> act=3D
> > > ion
> > > > > > increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.
> >
> > > > > > Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmos=
> pher=3D
> > > e."
> >
> > > > > Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic erupt=
> ion.=3D
> > > =A0=3DA0I
> > > > > say we need legislation to prevent further volcanism.
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0Humans breathe out carbon dioxide. =3DA0Maybe there are too m=
> any of u=3D
> > > s?
> >
> > > As a rough rule of thumb (when burning stuff to create energy) the
> > > amount of CO2 created is proportional to the amount of energy
> > > generated (this depends on the type of fuel burned -- but, as I said,
> > > this is for a rough order-of-magnitude estimate).
> >
> ----
>
> > > The amount of energy generated by each human being from burning fossil
> > > fuels (directly, as in your car, and indirectly when you burn coal to
> > > generate electricity) is *far* greater than the amount of energy
> > > generated by eating cherrios.
> >
> > > =A0So is the amount of CO2 generated -- much more from burning fossil
> > > fuels than from breathing.
> >
> > ** =A0but how nuch CO2 does the avg human exhale in a day?
>
> The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces
> approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual
> amount depends strongly on the person=92s activity level. However, this
** did you mean to write kg?
>
> http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-t=
> he-atmosphere/
>
> So each year the amount of coal consumed in the world is sufficient to
> raise the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 0.45%
** ok, but during the Jurassic Period there were higher levels of CO2 than
what we now have.
>
> Now let's look at oil. In 2008 74.82 million barrels/day or 2,854
> million barrels per year.
>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5395
>
> About 60% of oil production is used for transportation (burned in
> internal combustion engines)
>
> http://cadlab6.mit.edu/2.009.wiki/anchor/index.php?title=3DPercent_of_world=
> _oil_consumption_used_for_transportation
>
> So over 1,712 million barrels of oil are burned each year.
** California alone burns 45-million barrels per day.
> Burning a barrel of oil produces 317 kg of CO2
>
> http://numero57.net/?p=3D255
>
> So oil yearly oil consumption produces 5.4*10^11 kg of CO2/year
> (actually the number is much higher since oil used in home heating and
> industry was not included)
>
> So oil and coal burning amounts to 1.27*10^13 kg of CO2 produced
> annually, which is enough to raise total atmospheric CO2 by nearly 1/2
> percent per year.
>
> Of course there are many sources of human-caused CO2 emissions into
> the atmosphere. But these two largest sources of CO2 emissions are
> nearly sufficient to account for the total measured amount. Since
> 1960 atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have increased from 313 ppm to
> 381 ppm (a 22 percent increase, or roughly 0.5% per year)
>
> Detailed analysis has been performed on the many sources of CO2
> entering the atmosphere, and they show without doubt that the measured
> increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are predominately man-made. See
> the link below:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
>
> Yet the deniers lie and say the increases are not caused by humans.
>
** denier dudes are not unlike conspiracy theorists in that they are both
99% full of bovine feces.
thanks for the information Duwayne.
Duwaynea Anderson
> > he-atmosphere/
>
-----
> > So each year the amount of coal consumed in the world is sufficient to
> > raise the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 0.45%
>
> ** ok, but during the Jurassic Period there were higher levels of CO2 than
> what we now have.
And?
The GW deniers employ a multitude of arguments.
First they will deny that the world is warming up at all. They'll
even lie about the data, saying it's all concocted and "cherry
picked."
If that doesn't work they'll try arguing that the increase isn't man
made. They'll try to blame it on volcanoes or some such nonsense.
If that doesn't work they'll try arguing that global warming isn't
such a bad thing at all -- pointing out (correctly) that there was
more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than there is today.
Each of these objections is fallacious.
First, the world *is* warming up. The temperature data make this
clear, so do changing migration patterns in animals, rising sea
levels, and shrinking glaciers.
Second, the problem is clearly due in large part to human causes --
including the addition of massive amounts of CO2 into the
atmosphere.
As for past history, the deniers ignore a number of critical points.
Most importantly they ignore the fact that there were no human cities
in flood planes during the Jurassic, nor do they remember that crop
failures due to changing weather patterns during the Jurassic couldn't
result in mass starvation.
Now, if killing people is no more important to you than killing
dinosaurs, then GW isn't a problem. Apparently that's the case for
the big polluters and their Anti-Christ supporters (like Logan
Sacket).
Another important point is that there were no *ice* ages during the
Jurassic. You might ask why ice ages have anything to do with GW.
Interestingly enough the earth has had a troubled relationship with
ice ages. There was a time in earth's history when it was frozen
solid, pole to pole. That happened many hundreds of millions of years
ago (another point that the young-earth, anti-evolution GW deniers
will take offense at). More recently (during the last tens of
millions of years) earth started having quasi-regular ice ages. The
planet didn't freeze pole-to-pole during these ice ages, but it did
get cooler,and the ice caps expanded.
There's been a lot of speculation about the cause. The periodicity
correlates statistically with the Milankovitch cycles, but the
variation in sunlight doesn't seem to be sufficient for the observed
change in temperature. It's possible (likely) that other causes, such
as CO2 concentration, amplify the effect. At any rate, warm inter-
glacier periods end more abruptly than the cooler glacier periods, and
one possible reason is that warm weather melts the glaciers, which
change the concentration of salt in polar waters, affecting sea
currents, shutting down critical currents that warm the polar regions,
and setting the stage for the next ice age.
There's some reason to believe that the movement of continents (which
affects heat transport from ocean currents) has a lot to do with this,
and is the reason that the quasi-periodic ice ages are a relatively
new phenomenon (they started when the continents moved into roughly
their current configuration).
Anyway, the simple-minded argument that CO2 levels were higher a
hundred million years ago is fundamentally flawed. We aren't talking
about the death of the planet here. You don't have to *kill* the
planet to greatly disrupt human and other animal life.
It really boils down to one's sense of ethics. The Anti-Christ
movement (led by mega corporations and their apologists, like Logan
Sacket) think it's perfectly okay to conduct uncontrolled experiments
in atmospheric physics where the likely victims mostly live in third-
world countries. Since they oppose everything that Jesus taught about
love of fellow man and rejection of wealth, they are perfectly fine
with making hundreds of billions of dollars while putting other people
at risk. That's because they hate Jesus.
But some of us have a different sense of ethics, and that sense of
ethics says it's fundamentally wrong to trash the planet and put other
people's livelihoods at risk simply so wealthy multinational companies
can continue making a buck.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
http://www.google.com/profiles/DuwayneAnderson
>
>
>
> > Now let's look at oil. In 2008 74.82 million barrels/day or 2,854
> > million barrels per year.
>
> >http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5395
>
> > About 60% of oil production is used for transportation (burned in
> > internal combustion engines)
>
> >http://cadlab6.mit.edu/2.009.wiki/anchor/index.php?title=3DPercent_of...
sully
snip
One of the oddest ones I hear from the denialists is that man is
incapable
of affecting the climate. Yet, I grew up in a period of time where
the
air in some parts of the country was unbreathable through pollution
such that
elderly people were dying, and we killed entire rivers of wildlife and
set lakes on
fire. This was changed with pollution laws. I live in a region
that has 4 times
the population than when I was a teenager, but I well remember as a
teenage
track athlete having workout days where my lungs burned from pollution
and my
eyes stung. pollution laws fixed this, such that air quality is
good now.
Denialists simply ignore this.
Duwaynea Anderson
It's probably worth noting for them that all the atmospheric oxygen
(pretty much every damned molecule) comes from living things -- mostly
bacteria and plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen
Scroll down and read the section on "Build-up in the atmosphere."
If such "lowly" lifeforms as bacteria can be responsible for nearly
1/3 of the atmosphere, it seems pretty disingenuous to argue that
people can't make a significant impact.
Logan Sacket
Ethics?
I don't see how in the world you can support AGW and be ethical. AGW
is your religion Duwayne.
Maybe you should read something on AGW ethics for alarmists.
sully
I'll hand it to Rutan that he admits he's ignorant of Climate Science
and admits he's biased against AGW because of his fear of government
expansion.
Ignorance and bias is no impediment to opinions, though, are they
Logan?
Duwaynea Anderson
> >It really boils down to one's sense of ethics. The Anti-Christ
> >movement (led by mega corporations and their apologists, like Logan
> >Sacket) think it's perfectly okay to conduct uncontrolled experiments
> >in atmospheric physics where the likely victims mostly live in third-
> >world countries. Since they oppose everything that Jesus taught about
> >love of fellow man and rejection of wealth, they are perfectly fine
> >with making hundreds of billions of dollars while putting other people
> >at risk. That's because they hate Jesus.
>
> >But some of us have a different sense of ethics, and that sense of
> >ethics says it's fundamentally wrong to trash the planet and put other
> >people's livelihoods at risk simply so wealthy multinational companies
> >can continue making a buck.
>
> >Duwayne Anderson
> >Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> >science"
> >http://www.google.com/profiles/DuwayneAnderson
>
> Ethics?
Yeah. Ethics.
>
> I don't see how in the world you can support AGW and be ethical.
I don't think anyone is surprised by your sentiments.
> AGW
> is your religion Duwayne.
I find it amusing when religious fanatics try to insult science by
painting it as "religion."
> Maybe you should read something on AGW ethics for alarmists.
>
> http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
As I said, It really boils down to one's sense of ethics. The Anti-
Christ movement (led by mega corporations and their apologists, like
Logan Sacket) think it's perfectly okay to conduct uncontrolled
experiments in atmospheric physics where the likely victims mostly
live in third-world countries. Since they oppose everything that
�R.L.Measures
<4d4722b2-051f-4fbc...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 10:32=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <f58003a6-96df-4f3b-b8a0-64453d402...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 5, 2:46=3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <e53fc29a-2325-438d-95e2-5a76ed9e3...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 4, 7:00=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > > > In article <Xns9CF55DE232A49vic...@216.196.97.131>, Uncle Vic
> >
> > > > > > <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > One fine day in alt.atheism, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.b=
> r> w=3D
> > > rote=3D3D
> > > > > :
> >
> > > > > > > [quoted from source]
> >
> > > > > > > > "Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 we=
> re 4=3D
> > > 0
> > > > > > > > percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord sai=
> d wa=3D
> > > rmin=3D3D
> > > > > g
> > > > > > > > should be contained within two degrees, but every year of del=
> ayed=3D
> > > =A0act=3D3D
> > > > > ion
> > > > > > > > increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mar=
> k.
> >
> > > > > > > > Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the a=
> tmos=3D
> > > pher=3D3D
> > > > > e."
> >
> > > > > > > Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic e=
> rupt=3D
> > > ion.=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0=3D3DA0I
> > > > > > > say we need legislation to prevent further volcanism.
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0Humans breathe out carbon dioxide. =3D3DA0Maybe there a=
> re too m=3D
> > > any of u=3D3D
> > > > > s?
> >
> > > > > As a rough rule of thumb (when burning stuff to create energy) the
> > > > > amount of CO2 created is proportional to the amount of energy
> > > > > generated (this depends on the type of fuel burned -- but, as I sai=
> d,
> > > > > this is for a rough order-of-magnitude estimate).
> >
> > > ----
> >
> > > > > The amount of energy generated by each human being from burning fos=
> sil
> > > > > fuels (directly, as in your car, and indirectly when you burn coal =
> to
> > > > > generate electricity) is *far* greater than the amount of energy
> > > > > generated by eating cherrios.
> >
> > > > > =3DA0So is the amount of CO2 generated -- much more from burning fo=
> ssil
> > > > > fuels than from breathing.
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0but how nuch CO2 does the avg human exhale in a day?
> >
> > > The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces
> > > approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual
> > > amount depends strongly on the person=3D92s activity level. However, th=
> is
> > > carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not
> > > contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
> > > Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in
> > > plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in
> > > the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not
> > > included in greenhouse gas inventories.
> >
> > > In contrast, the burning of fossil fuels upsets this natural
> > > equilibrium by adding a surplus of carbon dioxide into the system. The
> > > carbon in fossil fuels has been stored underground for millions of
> > > years and thus is not part of the current natural carbon cycle. When
> > > those fuels are burned, the carbon dioxide generated is over and above
> > > the amount circulating from natural sources.
> >
> > >http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html#q7
> >
> > > =A0On average each person generates more than 100 kg of CO2 by burning
> > > fossil fuels. =A0That doesn't mean that each person *personally* does
> > > that -- but that's your "share" of global production.
> >
> > > It's easy to calculate:
> >
> > > Coal is almost pure carbon, with an atomic weight of 12. =A0CO2 has an
> > > atomic weight of 44 (12 for carbon, 16+16 for the two oxygen atoms).
> > > So we'd expect that burning 1 ton of coal will produce about 3.7 tons
> > > of CO2. =A0Indeed, that's pretty close to measured values.
> >
> > > Worldwide production of coal was 6195 million tons in 2006.
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves
> >
> > > Coal is used virtually exclusively for combustion, so that 6195
> > > million tons of coal produced 1.215*10^13 kg of CO2.
> >
> > > The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 2.7*10^15 km
> >
> > ** =A0did you mean to write kg?
> >
> >
> >
> > >http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weigh...
> > > he-atmosphere/
> >
>
> -----
>
> > > So each year the amount of coal consumed in the world is sufficient to
> > > raise the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 0.45%
> >
> > ** ok, but during the Jurassic Period there were higher levels of CO2 tha=
> n
> > what we now have.
>
> And?
** the planet survived intact..
** As I understand it, almost, but not quite.
** or maybe they just love money.
>
> But some of us have a different sense of ethics, and that sense of
> ethics says it's fundamentally wrong to trash the planet and put other
> people's livelihoods at risk simply so wealthy multinational companies
> can continue making a buck.
>
> Duwayne Anderson
> Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science"
> http://www.google.com/profiles/DuwayneAnderson
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Now let's look at oil. =A0In 2008 74.82 million barrels/day or 2,854
> > > million barrels per year.
> >
> > >http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5395
> >
> > > About 60% of oil production is used for transportation (burned in
> > > internal combustion engines)
> >
> > >http://cadlab6.mit.edu/2.009.wiki/anchor/index.php?title=3D3DPercent_of.=
> ..
> > > _oil_consumption_used_for_transportation
> >
> > > So over 1,712 million barrels of oil are burned each year. =A0
> >
> > ** =A0California alone burns 45-million barrels per day.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Burning a barrel of oil produces 317 kg of CO2
> >
> > >http://numero57.net/?p=3D3D255
> >
> > > So oil yearly oil consumption produces 5.4*10^11 kg of CO2/year
> > > (actually the number is much higher since oil used in home heating and
> > > industry was not included)
> >
> > > So oil and coal burning amounts to 1.27*10^13 kg of CO2 produced
> > > annually, which is enough to raise total atmospheric CO2 by nearly 1/2
> > > percent per year.
> >
> > > Of course there are many sources of human-caused CO2 emissions into
> > > the atmosphere. =A0But these two largest sources of CO2 emissions are
> > > nearly sufficient to account for the total measured amount. =A0Since
> > > 1960 atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have increased from 313 ppm to
> > > 381 ppm (a 22 percent increase, or roughly 0.5% per year)
> >
> > > Detailed analysis has been performed on the many sources of CO2
> > > entering the atmosphere, and they show without doubt that the measured
> > > increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are predominately man-made. =A0See
> > > the link below:
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
> >
> > > Yet the deniers lie and say the increases are not caused by humans.
> >
> > ** =A0denier dudes are not unlike conspiracy theorists in that they are b=
> oth
> > 99% full of bovine feces.
> >
> > thanks for the information Duwayne.
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > -----
>
> > > > So each year the amount of coal consumed in the world is sufficient to
> > > > raise the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 0.45%
>
> > > ** ok, but during the Jurassic Period there were higher levels of CO2 tha=
> > n
> > > what we now have.
>
> > And?
>
> ** the planet survived intact..
The planet's survival has never been in question. Neither is the
"survival" of the human race. "Survival" is a strawman argument.
<snip>
> > Another important point is that there were no *ice* ages during the
> > Jurassic. You might ask why ice ages have anything to do with GW.
> > Interestingly enough the earth has had a troubled relationship with
> > ice ages. There was a time in earth's history when it was frozen
> > solid, pole to pole.
>
> ** As I understand it, almost, but not quite.
http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/snowballearth/articles/Snowballearthpast99.pdf
<snip>
> > It really boils down to one's sense of ethics. The Anti-Christ
> > movement (led by mega corporations and their apologists, like Logan
> > Sacket) think it's perfectly okay to conduct uncontrolled experiments
> > in atmospheric physics where the likely victims mostly live in third-
> > world countries. Since they oppose everything that Jesus taught about
> > love of fellow man and rejection of wealth, they are perfectly fine
> > with making hundreds of billions of dollars while putting other people
> > at risk. That's because they hate Jesus.
>
> ** or maybe they just love money.
According to Jesus a person that loves money hates god. Here is what
the great philosopher said on the subject:
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and
love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the
other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." [Jesus -- quoted in Matthew
6:24, KJV]
As I said, the Christopublicans are really Anti-Christs. They are the
spokespeople for corporate fascism and are perfectly willing -- even
eager -- to put other people's lives and livelihoods at risk for their
corporate masters.
<snip to end>
�R.L.Measures
<df568de0-0212-4370...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 7:01=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > -----
> >
> > > > > So each year the amount of coal consumed in the world is sufficient=
> to
> > > > > raise the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 0.45%
> >
> > > > ** ok, but during the Jurassic Period there were higher levels of CO2=
> tha=3D
> > > n
> > > > what we now have.
> >
> > > And?
> >
> > ** =A0the planet survived intact..
>
> The planet's survival has never been in question. Neither is the
> "survival" of the human race. "Survival" is a strawman argument.
>
> <snip>
> > > Another important point is that there were no *ice* ages during the
> > > Jurassic. =A0You might ask why ice ages have anything to do with GW.
> > > Interestingly enough the earth has had a troubled relationship with
> > > ice ages. =A0There was a time in earth's history when it was frozen
> > > solid, pole to pole. =A0
> >
> > ** As I understand it, almost, =A0but not quite. =A0
>
> http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/snowballearth/articles/Snowballearthp=
> ast99.pdf
>
> <snip>
> > > It really boils down to one's sense of ethics. =A0The Anti-Christ
> > > movement (led by mega corporations and their apologists, like Logan
> > > Sacket) think it's perfectly okay to conduct uncontrolled experiments
> > > in atmospheric physics where the likely victims mostly live in third-
> > > world countries. =A0Since they oppose everything that Jesus taught abou=
> t
> > > love of fellow man and rejection of wealth, they are perfectly fine
> > > with making hundreds of billions of dollars while putting other people
> > > at risk. =A0That's because they hate Jesus.
> >
> > ** =A0or maybe they just love money.
>
> According to Jesus a person that loves money hates god. Here is what
> the great philosopher said on the subject:
>
> "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and
> love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the
> other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." [Jesus -- quoted in Matthew
> 6:24, KJV]
� I am familiar with this quote.
>
> As I said, the Christopublicans are really Anti-Christs. They are the
> spokespeople for corporate fascism and are perfectly willing -- even
> eager -- to put other people's lives and livelihoods at risk for their
> corporate masters.
� yea verily
Logan Sacket
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:09:17 -0800 (PST), sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
<snip>
> >I'll hand it to Rutan that he admits he's ignorant of Climate Science
> >and admits he's biased against AGW because of his fear of government
> >expansion.
>
> >Ignorance and bias is no impediment to opinions, though, are they
> >Logan?
>
> That's for sure.
Logan, Rutan is a GW denier. And, as Sully pointed out, "he's
ignorant of Climate Science."
On the other hand, the science of Global Warming has been developed by
some of the most respected scientists and institutions in the world.
As with other aspects of science that you disparage (geology and
biology being two examples) this is a situation where anti-science
ignoramuses are stacked up against the scientific community.
Logan Sacket
Duwayne,
As I have said, everyone needs to back away from the details since no
longer can any one of us have faith in the reliability of the data. It
is just handed to us on a platter and somehow the raw source data
mysterously disappeared. We now know that the data that has been
presented to us by the UN and environments nuts like Gore that is
being shoved in front of our face have been compromised. Like
purposely cherry picked trees from ages ago, and now we find out that
trees don't even correlate with the temperature we are experiencing
today. Satellite data that does not correspond to thermometer data,
yet how does anyone call that science? And rise the so-called climate
scientists are calling for distaster since they have seen 1/2 of a
degree change over the last 30 years. Even making the assumption that
the data is even correct, this temperature rise is not anywhere out of
the norm of what we have experienced before man was blamed for CO2
causing a problem.
Do you call this kind of dry-labing it, science?
We can now all call it a political agenda.
If your CO2 calculations were accurate and as simple as they seem to
be on the surface, then why do computer models of CO2 run up in one
direction while the temperature takes another course? Why do we think
that todays CO2 and temperature levels are out of the norm? why is
everyone conviently ignoring history? As I have mentioned many times
in the past. solar activily has much more correlation to temperature
than CO2.
Obviously, there is much more to our climate that we know about, or is
being presented.
What John Coleman explain his rational for being sceptical.
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
sully
Nothing that happened in the East Anglia theft has changed any Climate
Science.
You have used some bad behavior by people in scientific disciplines to
simply reinforce your pre-existing willful ignorance.
Your stance depends upon dozens of different scientific disciplines in
a hundred countries with hundreds of publications and peer-review
boards
(again across a very diverse set of scientific disciplines) to be
willfully fraudulent.
>
> What John Coleman explain his rational for being sceptical.
John Coleman is a weather man. If he applied his same reasoning
about climate toward meteorology, there wouldn't be a Weather
Channel.
Logan Sacket
wrote:
Have you read the HARRY READ ME.txt file from the climategate files?
Harry is a researcher at the University of EA Climate Research Unit.
_____
So, uhhhh.. what in tarnation is going on? Just how off-beam are these
datasets?!!
Unbelievable � even here the conventions have not been followed. It�s
botch after botch after botch.
22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim�s
labyrinthine software suites � let�s have a go at producing CRU TS
3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the
entire project..
Nearly 11,000 files! And about a dozen assorted �read me� files
addressing individual issues�
(yes, they all have different name formats, and yes, one does begin
�_�!)
How handy � naming two different files with exactly the same name and
relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!
If the latest precipitation database file contained a fatal data
error� then surely it has been altered since Tim last used it to
produce the precipitation grids? But if that�s the case, why is it
dated so early?
So what�s going on? I don�t see how the �final� precip file can have
been produced from the �final� precipitation database, even though the
dates imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the precip file must
have been produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then redated (to match
others?) in Jan 04.
There is no way of knowing which Tim used to produce the current
public files. The scripts differ internally but � you guessed it! �
the descriptions at the start are identical. WHAT IS GOING ON?
So what is this mysterious variable �nf� that isn�t being set? Well
strangely, it�s in Mark N�s �rdbin.pro�. I say strangely because this
is a generic prog that�s used all over the place! Nonetheless it does
have what certainly looks like a bug�
Where is the documentation to explain all this?!
Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud,
because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again
(despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it.
DON�T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no
info about what they are other than their names. And that�s useless..
So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.
This is irritating as it means precip has only 9 fields and I can�t do
a generic mapping from any cru format to cru ts.
Then.. like an idiot.. I had to test the data!
It�s halfway through April and I�m still working on it. This surely is
the worst project I�ve ever attempted. Eeeek.
Oh bugger. What the HELL is going on?!
In fact, on examination the US database record is a poor copy of the
main database one, it has more missing data and so forth. By 1870 they
have diverged, so in this case it�s probably OK.. but what about the
others?
Oh GOD if I could start this project again and actually argue the case
for junking the inherited program suite!!
Oh Tim what have you done, man?
Just another thing I cannot understand, and another reason why this
should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!
am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working
order?!!
Duwaynea Anderson
> >John Coleman is a weather man. If he applied his same reasoning
> >about climate toward meteorology, there wouldn't be a Weather
> >Channel.
>
> Have you read the HARRY READ ME.txt file from the climategate files?
> Harry is a researcher at the University of EA Climate Research Unit.
I'm still waiting for Logan Sacket to deal with these questions:
1) Why has the mean global temperature continued to rise over the
last decade, even though mean solar radiation *fell?*
2) Why is Venus hundreds of degrees hotter than Mercury, even though
it gets only about 1/4 the solar radiation density?
Hint: The answers to both questions involve "greenhouse warming."
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 06:32:01 -0800 (PST), Duwaynea Anderson
>
>
>
> <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 7, 6:17 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:09:17 -0800 (PST), sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu>
> >> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> >> >I'll hand it to Rutan that he admits he's ignorant of Climate Science
> >> >and admits he's biased against AGW because of his fear of government
> >> >expansion.
>
> >> >Ignorance and bias is no impediment to opinions, though, are they
> >> >Logan?
>
> >> That's for sure.
>
> >Logan, Rutan is a GW denier. And, as Sully pointed out, "he's
> >ignorant of Climate Science."
>
> >On the other hand, the science of Global Warming has been developed by
> >some of the most respected scientists and institutions in the world.
>
> >As with other aspects of science that you disparage (geology and
> >biology being two examples) this is a situation where anti-science
> >ignoramuses are stacked up against the scientific community.
>
> >Duwayne Anderson
> >Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> >science"
> >http://www.google.com/profiles/DuwayneAnderson
>
> Duwayne,
>
> As I have said, everyone needs to back away from the details
This is the swan song of every con man -- pay no attention to the
details. Just watch the hand waving.
> since no
> longer can any one of us have faith in the reliability of the data.
That was the song sung by the tobacco industry, too.
> It
> is just handed to us on a platter and somehow the raw source data
> mysterously disappeared.
And now Logan is lying. The data regarding global warming is totally
transparent. And faking it would be literally impossible as it
involves data collected from literally thousands of independent
researchers.
> We now know that the data that has been
> presented to us by the UN and environments nuts like Gore
This is another of Logan's lies. Gore had nothing to do with
collecting the data.
<snip to end>
Logan Sacket
When you run down a rabbit trail and forget the fox, your lost.
>> since no
>> longer can any one of us have faith in the reliability of the data.
>
>That was the song sung by the tobacco industry, too.
And the Climate alarmists as well.
>> It
>> is just handed to us on a platter and somehow the raw source data
>> mysterously disappeared.
>
>And now Logan is lying. The data regarding global warming is totally
>transparent. And faking it would be literally impossible as it
>involves data collected from literally thousands of independent
>researchers.
BS, you don't even know your history on this.
>> We now know that the data that has been
>> presented to us by the UN and environments nuts like Gore
>
>This is another of Logan's lies. Gore had nothing to do with
>collecting the data.
Never said he did.
><snip to end>
BY William Sweet // January 2010
John R. Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University
of Alabama, Huntsville, and Alabama's state climatologist, is an
expert on Earth's recent temperature history, as derived from
microwave sensors on polar-orbiting satellites. Though he has
contributed since the early 1990s to reports of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change�the large collaboration of scientists that
regularly assesses global warming for the United Nations�Christy
considers the expert consensus overstated and unduly alarmist.
IEEE Spectrum: Tell us please about your work on the world's
temperature and its significance.
John Christy: Since 1978, we've been able to monitor the bulk
atmospheric temperature, which tells you whether heat has been
accumulating or not. What we've found is an upward trend over 31 years
of about 13/100 of a degree Celsius per decade. But you also see
typical ups and downs: During the first two decades, temperatures were
fairly flat, and increases were below the three-decade average. But
with the big 1997 El Ni�o, there was a shift upward, and after that,
temperatures were flat again but above average.
Spectrum: How does this record from microwave satellite observations
differ from the temperature record compiled from other sources?
JC: Readings taken at the surface show 0.16 or 0.17 degrees of warming
per decade�a bit more than the microwave readings. That may not seem
such a great difference, but climate models indicate that if
greenhouse gases are causing this warming, the upper atmosphere ought
to be warming by about 1.2 times that of the surface, not less.
Spectrum: Is this discrepancy at the heart of your issues with what's
often described as the "consensus temperature record"? Professors at
the University of East Anglia, in the UK, have played a big role in
establishing that record, and I see that in their hacked e-mail, you
are one of the individuals who was mentioned most frequently in a
negative way.
JC: They rely on readings from surface thermometers, but those have
often been affected by developments like urbanization and
deforestation, so they are not a precise proxy for what's going on in
the atmosphere, where greenhouse gases are supposed to have their
largest effect.
Spectrum: What has been the relationship between the East Anglia
researchers and Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
Research? (Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher set up Hadley two
decades ago, locating it with Britain's prestigious Meteorological
Office, to be a world authority on all matters having to do with
climate change.)
JC: I was a visiting scientist at Hadley for two summers and got to
see firsthand how they work together with East Anglia. At the end of
the month, East Anglia's Phil Jones would send the land data to
Hadley, which would take a critical look and combine that with their
sea-surface data, and then the two teams would release what would be
known as the HadCRU (for East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit)
temperature data set.
Spectrum: So what's described as the "consensus temperature history"
is, in effect, the Hadley-East Anglia history?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/a-critical-perspective-on-climategate
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> >> As I have said, everyone needs to back away from the details
>
> >This is the swan song of every con man -- pay no attention to the
> >details. Just watch the hand waving.
>
> When you run down a rabbit trail and forget the fox, your lost.
See, this is exactly what I mean. You can't deal with the facts of
the matter, so you just make up stuff and invent irrelevant, silly
sayings.
<snip>
> >And now Logan is lying. The data regarding global warming is totally
> >transparent. And faking it would be literally impossible as it
> >involves data collected from literally thousands of independent
> >researchers.
>
> BS, you don't even know your history on this.
Logan proves my point by responding with another of his signature
assertions devoid of any evidence.
> >> We now know that the data that has been
> >> presented to us by the UN and environments nuts like Gore
>
> >This is another of Logan's lies. Gore had nothing to do with
> >collecting the data.
>
> Never said he did.
The scientists that collected the data are the ones that presented it
-- in peer-reviewed science journals. When you try to besmirch the
data by associating it with Gore (who had *nothing* to with the data)
you are telling a lie.
Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." When you lie,
Logan, you are demonstrating your hatred of Jesus, and you are acting
the part of the anti-Christ.
I notice you continue to ignore the two questions I put to you:
1) Why has the mean global temperature continued to rise over the
last ten years, even though mean solar irradiation has *fallen.?*
2) Why is Venus hundreds of degrees hotter than Mercury, even though
Venus receives only about 1/4 the solar irradiation?
The answers to both questions illustrate the reality of global warming
caused by atmospheric gases.
This is basic science, and it is the reason that the vast majority of
climate scientists agree that global warming is real. Of course,
denying Global Warming isn't the only area where Logan Sacket
disagrees with science. Logan denies evolution and the vast
geological age of the earth, too.
That's typical for the deniers --
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>L
> John R. Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University
> of Alabama, Huntsville, and Alabama's state climatologist, is an
> expert on Earth's recent temperature history, as derived from
> microwave sensors on polar-orbiting satellites. Though he has
> contributed since the early 1990s to reports of the Intergovernmental
> Panel on Climate Change—the large collaboration of scientists that
> regularly assesses global warming for the United Nations—Christy
> considers the expert consensus overstated and unduly alarmist.
One approach used by anti-scientists is to find one or two scientists,
out of *thousands* that sound somewhat skeptical about a particular
branch of science, and quote them authoritatively.
That's what Logan Sacket is doing, above.
The evolution deniers do it too (Logan Sacket is also an evolution
denier). So do the young-earth religious fanatics.
To put this into context, here is an excerpt from a letter submitted
by 18 scientific organizations representing hundreds of thousands of
scientists:
-------------------------
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of
scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific
view.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate
change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates
that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary
driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of
evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective
assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there
is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts
on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For
the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for
coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and
increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western
wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the
country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to
increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change,
emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In
addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that
are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved
infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other
natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved
emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your
deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
--------------------------------
Read more at this link:
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
>
> IEEE Spectrum: Tell us please about your work on the world's
> temperature and its significance.
>
> John Christy: Since 1978, we've been able to monitor the bulk
> atmospheric temperature, which tells you whether heat has been
> accumulating or not. What we've found is an upward trend over 31 years
> of about 13/100 of a degree Celsius per decade. But you also see
> typical ups and downs: During the first two decades, temperatures were
> fairly flat, and increases were below the three-decade average. But
> with the big 1997 El Niño, there was a shift upward, and after that,
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/a-critical-perspective-on...
Logan Sacket
And just how to the peer reviewers validate the data that is presented
to them?
And while you are speaking of data:
Hanson, NASA's own Hanson has been caught manipulating the data.
Hansen Nailed for US Climate Data Manipulation
Friday, January 15, 2010
By Roger F. Gay
More fraud reported in global warming scam.
The leaked Climategate emails and data that�s sent shock waves through
the warming camp lately dealt directly with a British climate data
center. Data produced at the NASA Goddard Space Center at Columbia
University by James Hansen has been shown to suffer from similar
manipulations.
Hansen is a global warming extremist and close advisor to Al Gore, who
captured international attention for speeches in which he�s called for
Nuremberg style trials against oil executives and �deniers� who
criticize his work. When questioned by Bush administration officials,
he made news when a leftist Washington law firm sued for �whistle
blower� status. His claim was that the Bush administration was trying
to suppress the truth about catastrophic man-made global warming.
Computer programmer E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting
Meteorologist Joseph D�Aleo looked into the analysis underlying
Hansen�s global warming claims. Not surprisingly, they discovered that
Hansen�s results were fraudulent, the result of �tricks� similar to
those used in Britain.
In particular, Smith and D�Aleo discovered that; of some 6,000 weather
stations, Hansen cherry-picked about 1,000 that gave higher
temperatures and ignored the rest. Since this still resulted in
evidence of cooling, he applied a mathematical formula to �hide the
decline.� The fake results consistently showed warming in support of
his political and financial interests.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/15/hansen-nailed-for-us-climate-data-manipulation/
And Chris Landsea withdrawing from the IPCC due to their unscientific
agenda.
-----------
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process
that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in
Dr.
Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the
AR4,
I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely, Chris Landsea
<http://sppiblog.org/news/dr-chris-landsea-leaves-the-ipcc#more-743>
Logan Sacket
<duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 20, 4:10�pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>
><snip>L
>> John R. Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University
>> of Alabama, Huntsville, and Alabama's state climatologist, is an
>> expert on Earth's recent temperature history, as derived from
>> microwave sensors on polar-orbiting satellites. Though he has
>> contributed since the early 1990s to reports of the Intergovernmental
>> Panel on Climate Change�the large collaboration of scientists that
>> regularly assesses global warming for the United Nations�Christy
>> considers the expert consensus overstated and unduly alarmist.
>
>One approach used by anti-scientists is to find one or two scientists,
>out of *thousands* that sound somewhat skeptical about a particular
>branch of science, and quote them authoritatively.
>
>That's what Logan Sacket is doing, above.
Have you read any of the peer reviewed scientists that question AGW?
<Snip BS>
Duwaynea Anderson
Yes. Virtually all of them (and there are comparatively very few)
don't deny (as you do) the reality of GW, but rather the extent.
Why are you still ignoring these questions:
1) Why is Venus hundreds of degrees hotter than Mercury, even though
it gets only about 1/4 as much sunlight per square meter?
2) Why has mean global temperature on earth continued to rise over
the last decade, even though mean solar intensity has *dropped?*
Hint: The answers to both questions involve global warming due to
atmospheric gases.
> <Snip BS>
Interesting that Logan calls it "BS" when one posts evidence that he
can't deal with.
Duwaynea Anderson
> >The scientists that collected the data are the ones that presented it
> >-- in peer-reviewed science journals. When you try to besmirch the
> >data by associating it with Gore (who had *nothing* to with the data)
> >you are telling a lie.
>
> And just how to the peer reviewers validate the data that is presented
> to them?
Notice how Logan is now changing the subject. First he claims that
Gore presented the data, and then set about trying to invalidate the
data by character assassination of Gore (Logan does that sort of thing
because he hates Jesus).
As for Logan's latest lame excuse, data is verified by having it
measured by multiple researchers. Anyone remotely familiar with the
science of global warming knows that the evidence is from many
different sources. Some measure recession rates of glaciers, others
of the mean polar ice thickness. Still others use satellites, while
some observe the migration patterns of animals.
Temperature data are measured by thousands of independent researchers
and collated by organizations like NASA -- all in the open, and all
available for public view.
> And while you are speaking of data:
>
> Hanson, NASA's own Hanson has been caught manipulating the data.
Poor, stupid Logan. Can't even keep his lies straight. From the
article, the allegation is that
> Computer programmer E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting
> Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo looked into the analysis underlying
> Hansen’s global warming claims. Not surprisingly, they discovered that
> Hansen’s results were fraudulent, the result of “tricks” similar to
> those used in Britain.
Manipulation of results derived from the data are not the same as
manipulation of the raw data.
And since thousands of scientists are busy using the data in
simulations, the fact one individual might have been nefarious has no
implications at all for the larger conclusions by the scientific
community.
In short, Logan is playing the same anti-science game with GW that he
plays with his anti-evolution diatribes.
Logan Sacket
You missed the "fact" that the entire global warming "science" is
scientifically suspect. All you did was cite the science that is in
question. What you need to do is show that all that "science" that you
cited is actual creditable. How do you do that? You can't, and neither
can the entire global warming scientific community. Their credibility
is goner. That is the implication of climategate and the
political machinations of the IPCC.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> >In short, Logan is playing the same anti-science game with GW that he
> >plays with his anti-evolution diatribes.
>
> ><snip to end>
>
> >Duwayne Anderson
> >Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> >science"
> >American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
>
> You missed the "fact" that the entire global warming "science" is
> scientifically suspect.
Balderdash.
It’s an established fact that atmospheric gases warm planets. For
example, Mercury, which lacks a substantial atmosphere, has an average
surface temperature of 167 Celsius while Venus, which has a thick
atmosphere of CO2, has an average surface temperature of 464 Celsius.
http://www.solstation.com/stars/mercury.htm
Thus Venus is much, much hotter than Mercury even though Mercury (at
just 0.387 AU from the sun) is nearly twice as close to the sun as
Venus (0.723 AU). All because of Venus’ thick atmosphere of CO2; it’s
nearly 300 Celsius hotter than Mercury even though it receives 3.5
times *less* solar radiation per square meter than Mercury.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Solar/soldata2.html#c2
This is an amazing demonstration of the way surface temperature is
affected by planetary atmospheres, and it needs to be kept as a
backdrop to the discussion about global warming in which advocates of
polluting industries try to argue that doubling/tripling the
concentration of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere won’t have any effect on
earth’s mean global temperature.
> All you did was cite the science that is in
> question.
It's easy to verify that Logan Sacket is lying. Just read the
hyperlinks I've posted above. The temperatures of planets, both
measured from space and taken at surface level, are not in question.
Neither, I might add, are the data showing the warming of planet
earth, the rising of ocean levels, the drifting northward of migratory
paths, the melting of glaciers, etc.
When Logan Sacket denies the science of global warming he's doing the
same sort of thing as when he denies evolution -- he's lying about the
science.
> What you need to do is show that all that "science" that you
> cited is actual creditable.
I've posted this for Logan before. He just ignores it.
As any fifth grader knows, incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the
Earth and then re-radiated at longer wave-lengths. The incoming solar
flux is 1367 J/(m^2,sec) and the radius of the Earth is R = 6357 km,
so the area facing the Sun is pi*R^2 = 1:27*10^14 m^2. Thus the total
energy budget is 1:735*10^17 Watt.
The albedo of the Earth is about 30%, meaning that that 30% of the
incoming radiation is reflected back into space without being
absorbed. That leaves 0:7*1:735*10^17 = 1:2*10^17 W which is
absorbed.
When the earth is in thermal equilibrium (neither globally heating up
nor globally cooling down) this exact amount of energy has to be
radiated back into space in the form of infrared radiation.
Furthermore (as any fifth grader knows) the spectrum of this radiation
follows the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
I =sigma*T^4; where sigma = 5:67*10^-8 W/m^2,K^4
This gives the following:
T4 = (1.21*10^17)/(sigma*4*pi*R^2) = (0.7*1367)/(4* 5.67*10^-8) =
4.2*10^9 K^4
Thus T = 255 K, the effective temperature at which the Earth
radiates.
However (and just as we expect) Earth’s average surface temperature is
known to be 15 Celsius = 288 K, demonstrating the fact that the
atmosphere acts like a blanket over the
Earth, warming it by about 33 Celsius.
This simple calculation proves the reality of the “greenhouse
effect.” It demonstrates the fundamental absurdity of deniers who
claim that dramatic changes in major greenhouse gases will not have an
effect on mean global temperature.
Of course, as I said, none of this is spectacularly new – it’s
actually old news. Any fifth grader knows this stuff. Here are a few
relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/05SprgClass/geo116/8-1.pdf
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/evol/temp.html
Okay, at this point I suspect that all the fifth graders are still
eagerly reading along, and that 36.5% of the heads of the Global
Warming deniers have exploded or are spinning in circles. Now let’s
look a little more closely at the specific impact that doubling/
tripling the concentration of C02 can be expected to have.
Light traversing the atmosphere is absorbed by successive molecules.
Mathematically we have the following equation for the absorbed
fraction of the out-going radiation:
f(v) = 1- exp(-lambda*c*gcoll(v))
Where v = frequency, lamda = wavelength, c = concentration of the
absorbing molecule.
The total absorption is given by integration and is:
k(c) = integral(v1,v2,f(v))
Where the integration is over the spectral width (v1,v2) of the
absorption band. For small atmospheric concentrations (which applies
to CO2) k(c) behaves as
k(c) = k0 +m*root(c)
The main absorption line in CO2 (near wavelengths emitted by earth) is
at at a wavelength of 15 microns and corresponds to a frequency of
2*10^13 Hz. It has a central peak and two attenuated shoulders. The
width of the band is about 2.8*10^12 Hz. Although the absorption band
is relatively narrow it lines up very closely with the peak emission
of the earth, which is just slightly shorter than 2*10^13 Hz.
The contribution from this line is found by integration:
Integral(0, infinity, I(v,T)*k(c)) = 43 W/m^2
Where the integral is from 0 to infinity, and I(v,T) is the spectral
distribution of earth's emission, as given by the Plank distribution,
at T = 288K.
We compare this with the total energy density:
Integral(0, infinity, I(v,T)) = 389 W/m^2
Thus the total contribution from the CO2 absorption line is 43/389 or
11%.
From this we can see that CO2 is not the dominant source of greenhouse
heating (water is) but it is a *significant* source. In all their
hand waving the global warming deniers (who don’t seem half as smart
as a typical fifth grader) basically assert that something that's
responsible for 11% of greenhouse heating can't possibly have an
impact on mean global temperature.
What bunk!
Now let's look at the increase in temperature that we can expect from
increasing CO2 concentration from 290 ppm to 385 ppm (the measured
increase between 1880 and 2008).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
We have:
deltaI/I = 4*deltaT/T. Furthermore, because of the overlap with the
H2O absorption at low frequencies we'll only take into account the
high-frequency half of the absorption band. We'll also use a cut-off
at high frequencies to account for the oxygen absorption band (high
cut-off frequency = 3*10^13 Hz). The corresponding contribution is
Integral(2*10^13Hz, 3*10^13 Hz, I(v,T)k(v)) = 25 W/m^2
Reducing the concentration to 290/385 and repeating the integration
yields 22 W/m^2
Thus deltaT = (1/4)*((25-22)/389)*255K = 0.5K
Well, what do you know? The calculated increase in mean global
temperature is 0.5K -- remarkably in agreement with measured mean
global increase in temperature.
Again -- this is a simple calculation. Any fifth grader can do it.
Many others *have* done it. Here are a few more links of interest:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
> How do you do that? You can't,
I just did. And you will continue ignoring it because you can't deal
with it.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of “Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science”
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Fred the Red Shirt
> > percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord saidwarming
> > should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed action
> > increases the chances of exceeding the two-degreewarmingmark.
>
>
> Nothing puts out more carbon dioxide than a good old volcanic eruption.
> ...
Nonsense.
Gerlach, T.M., 1991, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos,
Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, No. 23, June 4,
1991, pp. 249, and 254-255.
Fred the Red Shirt
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Duwaynea Anderson
>
> <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 10:52 am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, Duwaynea Anderson
> >> <duwayneander...@gmail.com
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > A moments thought by anyone who has seen the CO2 concentration data
> >> > (and is at least as smart as a fifth grader) illustrates that Uncle
> >> > Vic's assertion cannot possibly be true.
>
> >> Uncle Vic was playing his irony card.
>
> > Irony or sarcasm?
>
> Yes.
>
http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/gustin/ERS765/geologic%20carbonarticleJMB.pdf