Re: 35% C02 increase from last 160 years partitioned as usual.
JohnM
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 12:48 pm, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Realist wrote:
> > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>
> > The GRL article of Knorr et al is fairly easy to read. It says that
> > about 40% of the emitted CO2 since the start of the industrial
> > revolution stays in the atmosphere (the so called airborne fraction or
> > AF), and that the remaining 60% is taken up by land use and the oceans.
> > In the conclusions they say:
>
> > > From what we understand about the underlying
> > > processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a
> > > change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A
> > > further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary
> > > in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF
> > > since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent
> > > or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of
> > > the available data and its accuracy.
>
> > If you want to read more than you should buy the article, or mail the
> > authors and beg for a personal copy.
>
> > Hope this helps,
>
> > Q
>
> > --
> > Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahanhttp://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
>
> There's obviously some right-wing web site that's trumpeting "the
> article says no CO2 increase" since several denialists have posted it
> here, and it's obvious they've not read it. That's the thing with
> denialists -- they never read their sources; they just crib material
> from some right-wing web site. I've found some of their sources
> actually say the opposite of what they claimed.
>
> Of course, they would never bother to read something scientific. It's
> full of science (which is socialist) and lots of big words, and math.
Here's the abstract. It shows that the increase in the airborne
fraction is not statistically significant. In other words, one cannot
tell if the added CO2 from fossil fuel use is being partitioned as it
was historically or not. This is good news, as it means there may
still be time for humanity to take avoiding action.
"Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the
oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their
ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2
emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40%
of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented
additional climate change. This study re-examines the available
atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It
is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne
fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and
not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that
the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with
the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down
to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of
coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction
can be found."
Rav1ng rabbit
The article didn't say that, you should read it completely and not only
read the abstract. The authors investigated the airborne fraction SINCE
the start of the industrial revolution, and not any point further back
in time when we hardly burned any fossil fuels.
Before the IR CO2 was stable near 280 ppm, whatever we burned came from
wood. In other words, our short term effect on the carbon cycle was
closed. All sources were in the biosphere, and the biosphere was able to
handle what we did.
But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle, because 40%
remains airborne, while 60% is eaten up by the oceans and the biosphere.
Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
atmosphere.
> still be time for humanity to take avoiding action.
There is actually no good news at all in the entire message. Burn 10
barrels of oil, and the carbon of 4 of them stay in the air. So how to
you get 0 in the air which would stabilize our CO2? The only remedy is
to grow more trees, or to burn zero barrels of oil, or to jump out of
the window.
No good news at all my friend,
Q
>
> "Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the
> oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their
> ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2
> emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40%
> of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented
> additional climate change. This study re-examines the available
> atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It
> is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne
> fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 � 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and
> not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that
> the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with
> the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down
> to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of
> coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction
> can be found."
JohnM
OK. The news is not as bad as it would have been had Prof. Knorr found
a statistically significant increase in the atmospheric fraction.
Rav1ng rabbit
The latter is entirely true.
Green Turtle
news:4b3fb4a3$0$22940$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
> which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle
Apparently? Says who? Cite? Maybe, apparently, perhaps, gee, you so
scientific in a trailer park kind of way.
>
> Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
> loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
> atmosphere.
>
And the result is more plant growth *ASSUMING* there been any significant
increase in co2 in the atmosphere anyway. We only talking about 3% output
compared to 97% of nature in one year. The response of nature is to
return to a balance, and that's what the article shows...
>
> There is actually no good news at all in the entire message.
No, it great news, and shows that man's co2 output is not a problem.
Super Turtle.
Rav1ng rabbit
> "Rav1ng rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:4b3fb4a3$0$22940$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>
>> But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
>> which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle
>
> Apparently? Says who? Cite? Maybe, apparently, perhaps, gee, you so
> scientific in a trailer park kind of way.
Come on guy, this is a basic fact, all Chinese, Indians, and South
Americans now joined our way of living. Since the 70's we are in an
hyper acceleration mode, before that time it was a modest acceleration
since WW2, etc etc. The following graph is purely based on economics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png
Please read the corresponding article.
>
>> Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
>> loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
>> atmosphere.
>>
>
> And the result is more plant growth *ASSUMING* there been any significant
> increase in co2 in the atmosphere anyway. We only talking about 3% output
> compared to 97% of nature in one year. The response of nature is to
> return to a balance, and that's what the article shows...
No, that was the point of the article, our emissions are only absorbed
for 60% by plants and the ocean. The remaining fraction stays airborne.
>> There is actually no good news at all in the entire message.
>
> No, it great news, and shows that man's co2 output is not a problem.
There no good news at all, for every 10 barrels we burn, 4 remain in the
atmosphere. This means that the Keeling curve is just a scaled version
of the fossil fuel burning that we do. IOW, there is no way to stop a
progression of atmospheric CO2 concentration unless we stop burning
those pesky carbons from geologic sources.
Now that you've learned this, what do you think we should do to
stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations? This is not going to be easy.
Greetz,
Rav1ng rabbit
Doing some homework in the meantime. Below is the annual averaged
Keeling curve and the estimated carbon burned. These carbon burn rates
agree roughly with what you find from economic data, see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png
The black line shows that we fired off roughly 2500 Megaton/yr of carbon
in 1960, and presently we do around 8000 Megaton/yr.
The conversion assumes that 40% of the burned carbon ends up in the
atmosphere so that we get to see it in the observed CO2 curve measured
at the Hawaii observatory.
year PPM CO2 Megaton Carbon/year
1960.00 316.51 2464.10
1961.00 317.11 2662.41
1962.00 318.03 2983.96
1963.00 318.81 2622.05
1964.00 319.53 1256.76
1965.00 319.53 1499.10
1966.00 320.39 4417.14
1967.00 322.05 4127.38
1968.00 322.74 3343.61
1969.00 323.95 3906.06
1970.00 324.97 3827.68
1971.00 326.14 3365.03
1972.00 326.89 4288.17
1973.00 328.59 4477.38
1974.00 329.45 3598.76
1975.00 330.64 3798.32
1976.00 331.61 3821.10
1977.00 332.82 5713.29
1978.00 334.87 5660.14
1979.00 336.05 5236.93
1980.00 337.86 5603.81
1981.00 339.25 5401.61
1982.00 340.95 3965.65
1983.00 341.51 5156.30
1984.00 343.89 6521.63
1985.00 345.23 4572.97
1986.00 346.50 4884.34
1987.00 348.02 6094.00
1988.00 349.98 7761.88
1989.00 352.45 6239.22
1990.00 353.54 4407.39
1991.00 354.97 4155.27
1992.00 355.91 2677.81
1993.00 356.49 3287.50
1994.00 357.78 5468.95
1995.00 359.62 6408.01
1996.00 361.44 5328.66
1997.00 362.66 6099.62
1998.00 364.92 8851.76
1999.00 367.71 6751.66
2000.00 368.78 4455.30
2001.00 370.25 5691.81
2002.00 372.02 7614.10
2003.00 374.60 8325.88
2004.00 376.77 6220.41
2005.00 378.15 7388.89
2006.00 380.99 7868.70
2007.00 382.64 6911.45
2008.00 384.94 6852.72
To get the third colmn rates I wrote a matlab script where the file
co2_mm_mlo.txt comes from
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
and where you replace the leading #'s by %'s to get it into the matlab
format (wish that textread was smarter).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
clear;
%
data = textread('co2_mm_mlo.txt','','commentstyle','matlab');
%figure(1); plot(data(:,3),data(:,6),'-');
%
Ma = 5.14e18; % mass of the atmosphere (see wiki)
%
n = size(data,1);
BM = 0; % burned carbon mass
i = 0;
for i=2:n,
dc = data(i,6) - data(i-1,6); % carbon change
dm = dc * Ma * 1e-6; % mass change accounting for ppm
dAF = dm / 1e9; % conversion to million tons CO2
dAF = dAF * (12/(12+16+16)) % CO2 has 12+16+16, carbon has 12
dBM = dAF / 0.4; % 40% is not absorbed
BM = BM + dBM;
i = i + 1;
x(i) = data(i,3); % date
y(i) = BM; % burned carbon mass
ppm(i) = data(i,6); % CO2 ppm
end
%
xx=1959:2009;
yy=spline(x,y,xx);
zz=spline(x,ppm,xx);
nn = size(xx,2);
k = 0;
for ii=2:nn-1,
k = k + 1;
rate(k) = (yy(ii+1) - yy(ii-1))/2;
year(k) = xx(ii);
co2(k) = zz(ii);
end
%
figure(2);
subplot(2,1,2); plot(year,rate,'o-')
xlabel('year');
ylabel('megaton / year');
title('Carbon mass burning rate');
%
subplot(2,1,1); plot(year,co2,'o-')
xlabel('year');
ylabel('ppm');
title('Keeling curve');
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It may not be according to all tight software specs, but the Keeling
curve is simply in agreement with our fossil fuel burning. This is the
true meaning behind the "CO2 airborne fraction remained constant message".
Greetz,
I M @ good guy
wrote:
It would not only be not easy, it isn't going
to happen, so don't wring your hands and whimper.
A really good idea for the warmist brainwashed,
watch the articles that claim added CO2 could cause
cooling.
The coincidence of clouds during the daytime,
clear skies at night, and snow cover is enough to
cause an ice age, any cooling effect of increased
radiation to space, or reduction in solar insolation
adds to the threat of cooling.
I could use a warming of 30 degrees F today,
that would only make the maxT today about
5 degrees above normal, still way below record
highs, and short of what is comfortable.
Monkey Clumps
> Green Turtle wrote:
> > "Rav1ng rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b3fb4a3$0$22940$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> >> But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
> >> which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle
>
> > Apparently? Says who? Cite? Maybe, apparently, perhaps, gee, you so
> > scientific in a trailer park kind of way.
>
> Come on guy, this is a basic fact, all Chinese, Indians, and South
> Americans now joined our way of living. Since the 70's we are in an
> hyper acceleration mode, before that time it was a modest acceleration
> since WW2, etc etc. The following graph is purely based on economics:
>
>
> Please read the corresponding article.
>
>
>
> >> Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
> >> loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
> >> atmosphere.
>
> > And the result is more plant growth *ASSUMING* there been any significant
> > increase in co2 in the atmosphere anyway. We only talking about 3% output
> > compared to 97% of nature in one year. The response of nature is to
> > return to a balance, and that's what the article shows...
>
> No, that was the point of the article, our emissions are only absorbed
> for 60% by plants and the ocean. The remaining fraction stays airborne.
>
> >> There is actually no good news at all in the entire message.
>
> > No, it great news, and shows that man's co2 output is not a problem.
>
> There no good news at all, for every 10 barrels we burn, 4 remain in the
> atmosphere. This means that the Keeling curve is just a scaled version
> of the fossil fuel burning that we do. IOW, there is no way to stop a
> progression of atmospheric CO2 concentration unless we stop burning
> those pesky carbons from geologic sources.
>
> Now that you've learned this, what do you think we should do to
> stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations? This is not going to be easy.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Q
Why do we need to? CO2 is still at very low levels historically:
http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
Plus, CO2 has never driven temperature in the past, why should we
expect it to do so now? CO2 is generally beneficial to plantlife and
by extension, us.
Roving rabbit
That is because the system earth changed too much over 500 million year
to make the comparison to the present day situation. Plate tectonics
causes continents to move from one location to another, Antarctica was
for instance not where it is today, etc. To analyze the present day
situation you should analyze an Earth which resembles our present day
world. The last 400 thousand year for instance, where there is better
isotopic data compared to 500 million years ago:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Q
--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
Tom P
Because never in the past history of the planet have humans been around
to burn gigatons of fossil fuel every year.
In fact there was quite possibly a comparable situation 250 million
years ago, google Permian Mass Extinction.
CO2 is generally beneficial to plantlife and
> by extension, us.
Like on Venus, maybe?
>
Roving rabbit
> You don't even need a graph to see the non-correlating numbers.
Translation: Peter is blind and does not see that 2500 Mt carbon/year
and around 8000 Mt Carbon/year is a perfect correlation.
> ROFLMAO
I call it German humor, the thinnest book in the world.
> Wanna show us yet another GIGO model?
Do you need new spectacles or so?
Flaps_50!
> Green Turtle wrote:
> > "Rav1ng rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b3fb4a3$0$22940$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> >> But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
> >> which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle
>
> > Apparently? Says who? Cite? Maybe, apparently, perhaps, gee, you so
> > scientific in a trailer park kind of way.
>
> >> Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
> >> loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
> >> atmosphere.
>
> > And the result is more plant growth *ASSUMING* there been any significant
> > increase in co2 in the atmosphere anyway. We only talking about 3% output
> > compared to 97% of nature in one year. The response of nature is to
> > return to a balance, and that's what the article shows...
> >> There is actually no good news at all in the entire message.
>
> > No, it great news, and shows that man's co2 output is not a problem.
>
> > Super Turtle.
>
> Doing some homework in the meantime. Below is the annual averaged
> Keeling curve and the estimated carbon burned. These carbon burn rates
> agree roughly with what you find from economic data, see also
>
Are you a modeling climatologist?
Lookee here ----> dBM = dAF / 0.4; % 40% is not
absorbed
Bwhahahhahahahaha !!!
Cheers
Roving rabbit
>>
>
>
> Are you a modeling climatologist?
>
> Lookee here ----> dBM = dAF / 0.4; % 40% is not
> absorbed
>
> Bwhahahhahahahaha !!!
>
> Cheers
Read the F*****G paper for once and try to understand what it means, 40%
is airborne, input is the airborne part, output is the burned mass part,
so delta burned mass * 0.4 = delta airborne, or dBM = dAF/0.4 as stated
in the matlab script.
By doing so I was able to reproduce the burned carbon mass rates from
the measured co2 rates as stated in the paper.
You simply didn't appreciate it because you live in the denialiosphere.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Jan 2, 7:58 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 12:48 pm, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>
> > > Realist wrote:
> > > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
• www.sciencedaily.com - the daily compendium
of AGW nonsense
> > > The GRL article of Knorr et al is fairly easy to read. It says that
> > > about 40% of the emitted CO2 since the start of the industrial
> > > revolution stays in the atmosphere
That is unadultrated bullshit. None is higher than the clouds and the
40% came from the author's anus.
>>> (the so called airborne fraction or
> > > AF), and that the remaining 60% is taken up by land use and the oceans.
> > > In the conclusions they say:
• ALL of the airborne CO2 came from the warm waters. It is heavier
than air and falls towards earth immediately. What reaches the ground
is immediately entered into the photosynthetic process, all the rest
gets washed into the lakes and seas.
• When the warm waters rise by convection they
carry CO2 encapsuled in the H2O into the
clouds. Within days a cold front meets the
warm clouds and the lot hits the ground and
become fertilizer.
Flaps_50!
Do you even begin to understand why a constant 0.4 cannot be correct?
No, like your climatologist modeling buddies you have no understanding
of chemistry, math or physics and by the way, your method of
integration/code sucks too.
Cheers
Last Post
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 12:48 pm, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
> > > Realist wrote:
> > > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>
> > > The GRL article of Knorr et al is fairly easy to read. It says that
> > > about 40% of the emitted CO2 since the start of the industrial
> > > revolution stays in the atmosphere (the so called airborne fraction or
> > > AF), and that the remaining 60% is taken up by land use and the oceans.
• Right off the start, that is a total no starter.
> > > In the conclusions they say:
>
> > > > From what we understand about the underlying
> > > > processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a
> > > > change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A
> > > > further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary
> > > > in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF
> > > > since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent
> > > > or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of
> > > > the available data and its accuracy.
• Nonsense begets more nonsense
> Here's the abstract. It shows that the increase in the airborne
> fraction is not statistically significant. ...
• That was quoted above and is nonsense
> "Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the
> oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their
> ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2
> emissions.
• ROTFLMAO:— That is nonsense. On one
hand alarmists are complaining that there is
too much CO2 in the oceans (acidity). Now
they fear "loosing [sic] part of their ability to
sequester a large proportion of the
anthropogenic CO2 emissions".
• 96.5% of all of the anthropogenic CO2 is
immediately absorbed in the photosynthetic
process, the balance goes into the waters..
> This is an important claim, because so far only about 40%
> of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented
> additional climate change.
• If there is only 350, 380 or 400 ppm in the
atmosphere that is hardly one days collection
and that will not be there more than a few days.
Photosynthesis converts around
100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 into biomass
per year.
> This study re-examines the available
> atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties.
• Your "atmospheric CO2 and emissions data"
has all been adjusted to to provide only
warming. However the original data from
1820 and it shows 333 ppm average to 1950.
So your increment a mere 45 ppm in 60
years (0.75%)
• The AGW alarmist pack presume to be able
control a climate on a planet, spun off from
the Sun and still in the solar system and in
the Sun's control.
So I ask them and you 3 questions:
1- Can you make the wind to blow?
2- Can you make the rain to fall?
3- Can you stop a hurricane?
• If the answer to these are no then get the hell
out of town before the lynch mob comes.
• BTW In 1947 or 8 there was a great
experiment where they sent a B29 bomber up
with several tonnes of CO2 pellets to seed the
clouds and nothing happened
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Roving rabbit
> On Jan 5, 7:11 am, Roving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>> Flaps_50! wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 12:57 am, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>> Green Turtle wrote:
>>>>> "Rav1ng rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b3fb4a3$0$22940$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>> But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
>>>>>> which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle
>>>>> Apparently? Says who? Cite? Maybe, apparently, perhaps, gee, you so
>>>>> scientific in a trailer park kind of way.
>>>>>> Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
>>>>>> loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>> And the result is more plant growth *ASSUMING* there been any significant
>>>>> increase in co2 in the atmosphere anyway. We only talking about 3% output
>>>>> compared to 97% of nature in one year. The response of nature is to
>>>>> return to a balance, and that's what the article shows...
>>>>>> There is actually no good news at all in the entire message.
>>>>> No, it great news, and shows that man's co2 output is not a problem.
>>>>> Super Turtle.
>>>> Doing some homework in the meantime. Below is the annual averaged
>>>> Keeling curve and the estimated carbon burned. These carbon burn rates
>>>> agree roughly with what you find from economic data, see also
I have a message for you:
Two totally independent data source are brought into agreement by a
factor 0.4. This was claimed in a GRL paper, and I was able to validate
this claim. So I'm convinced that the authors have the answer in the
right ball-park.
> No, like your climatologist modeling buddies you have no understanding
> of chemistry, math or physics and by the way, your method of
> integration/code sucks too.
I have a second message for you:
The debat is over for me because two totally independent data source are
brought into agreement by a factor 0.4. This was claimed in a GRL paper,
and I was able to validate this claim. So I'm convinced that the authors
have the answer in the right ball-park.
>
> Cheers
Greetz,
Last Post
>
> The debat is over for me because two totally independent data source are
> brought into agreement by a factor 0.4. This was claimed in a GRL paper,
> and I was able to validate this claim. So I'm convinced that the authors
> have the answer in the right ball-park.
• ROTFLMAO
The odds are that you are working with fraudulent data
• To get it straight read:
Message-ID: <bc421438-9c9a-420a-8151-
dd28d4...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
• The AGW alarmist pack presume to be able
control a climate on a planet, spun off from
the Sun and still in the solar system and in
the Sun's control.
So I ask them and you 3 questions:
1- Can you make the wind to blow?
2- Can you make the rain to fall?
3- Can you stop a hurricane?
• If the answer to these are no then get the hell
out of town before the lynch mob comes
Duncan Patton a Campbell
> On Jan 5, 5:19 pm, Roving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The debat is over for me because two totally independent data source
>> are brought into agreement by a factor 0.4. This was claimed in a GRL
>> paper, and I was able to validate this claim. So I'm convinced that the
>> authors have the answer in the right ball-park.
>
> • ROTFLMAO
> The odds are that you are working with fraudulent data
>
> • To get it straight read:
> Message-ID: <bc421438-9c9a-420a-8151-
> dd28d4...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
>
> • The AGW alarmist pack presume to be able
>
control a climate on a planet, spun off from
> the Sun and still in the solar system and in
>
the Sun's control.
> So I ask them and you 3 questions:
>
> 1- Can you make the wind to blow?
Surely. You appear even more skilled than I.
> 2- Can you make the rain to fall?
Aye. Just stand downwind from me after a few pints.
> 3- Can you stop a hurricane?
Might just figure out how to add to the spin at a crucial moment,
enough to send some rain to the Marquesas or Bonaparte's grave;)
>
> • If the answer to these are no then get the hell
>
We are currently generating enough power to put anthropogenic
sources into the same order of magnitude as the energy we
receive from Sol.
Whether or not we can do anything about climate change is
the only meaningful question. It is here and now and we
are a significant part of the equation.
My own take on this is that we need to address first and foremost
the toxic effects of our industrial society upon the biology of the planet.
The planet's biota, of which we are part, has survived temperature
and CO2 fluctuations b4 but has no experience with buckyballs or nanobots.
Dhu
out of town before the lynch mob comes
>
>
> — —
> | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer,
> never on the sceptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has
> provided one | iota of valid data for global warming nor have | they
> provided data that climate change is being | effected by commerce and
> industry, and not by | natural phenomena
--
Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu
T. Keating
<camp...@neotext.ca> wrote:
>We are currently generating enough power to put anthropogenic
>sources into the same order of magnitude as the energy we
>receive from Sol.
Incorrect.. Not even close...
Earth's portion of SOL's energy output is ~1.740 *10^17 watts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Multiply that number by 365.24 * 24 * 60 * 60 to get Joules..
or
Multiply that number by 365.24*24*3.412 to get BTU's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
"In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (5�1020
J) with 80 to 90 percent derived from the combustion of fossil fuels.
[1]. This is equivalent to an average power consumption rate of 15
terawatts (1.504�10^13 W). "
Ergo.. mankind's total energy usage is less than 0.01% of earth's
solar energy input.
Note: A significant fraction of that power is already being derived
from solar energy.. (Biomass 4%, Hydro 3%, solar heat 0.5%, wind
0.3%).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/World_energy_usage_width_chart.svg
T. Keating
<camp...@neotext.ca> wrote:
>We are currently generating enough power to put anthropogenic
>sources into the same order of magnitude as the energy we
>receive from Sol.
Incorrect.. Not even close...
Earth's portion of SOL's energy output is ~1.740 *10^17 watts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Multiply that number by 365.24 * 24 * 60 * 60 to get Joules..
or
Multiply that number by 365.24*24*3.412 to get BTU's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
"In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules
(5�10^20 J) with 80 to 90 percent derived from the combustion of
Last Post
>
> Note: A significant fraction of that power is already being derived
> from solar energy.. (Biomass 4%, Hydro 3%, solar heat 0.5%, wind
> 0.3%).
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/World_energy_usage...
• ROTFLMAO
Back to the asylum for you!
• Every climate related article in Wikip[edia has
been revised to comply with the IPCC report
which is ipso fact false.
Of course you have been spewing that bullshit
for years.
• Tell me can you make the rain to fall?
Last Post
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/World_energy_usage...
• Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense?
Harry Merrick
> On Jan 6, 9:22 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/World_energy_usage...
>
>
> � �
> | In real science the burden of proof is always
> | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> | they provided data that climate change is being
> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> | natural phenomena
YOU, Last Post, are saying that what he claims is nonsense. How is it
nonsense? Where is the science to prove that it is indeed nonsense? I await
your clarification in detail.
--
Harry Merrick.
Roving rabbit
Thought I just verified a claim in Knorr's GRL paper, this was so easy.
Last Post
> Last Post wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 9:22 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/World_energy_usage...
>
>
> >
> > | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> > | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> > | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> > | they provided data that climate change is being
> > | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> > | natural phenomena
>
> YOU, Last Post, are saying that what he claims is nonsense. How is it
> nonsense? Where is the science to prove that it is indeed nonsense? I await
> your clarification in detail.
• ROTFLMAO
His citation/source is a fraud and
his logic sucks wind badly.
— —
T. Keating
<last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 9:22�am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/World_energy_usage...
>
>��Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense?
Poor science illiterate Lenny, he doesn't even know what he is
complaining about...
"Values are taken from the pie chart, which is originally from the
data in REN21 2006 global status report on renewables and the BP 2006
Statistical review (most recent data available at
http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview)"
Fortunately wiki authors also include references to support their
efforts.
But Lenny's GED science level never taught him how to look them up or
what to look for.
>
> ���
> | In real science the burden of proof is always
snip the remainer of Lenny's standard science illiterate spiel..
Here is a repost.. of the entire message...
=====
Last Post
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:08:48 -0800 (PST), Last Post
>
> >On Jan 6, 9:22 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/World_energy_usage...
>
> >• Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense?
>
> Poor science illiterate Lenny, he doesn't even know what he is
> complaining about...
>
wounded so he must fight back but his only
ammunitions are feeble flames.
> "Values are taken from the pie chart, which is originally from the
> data in REN21 2006 global status report on renewables and the BP 2006
> Statistical review (most recent data available athttp://www.bp.com/statisticalreview)"
>
> Fortunately wiki authors also include references to support their
> efforts.
Only one person created that article and he is a rabid
environmentalist who rewrote 5300 climate related articles to IPCC
specs. Wikipedia hjas been degrad from sloppy to dreadful.
> But Lenny's GED science level never taught him how to look them up or
> what to look for.
• I had a physics degree before you were born.
Do not attack people of whom you know nothing.
• BTW:— when you deny "In real science the
burden of proof is always on the proposer",
you deny logic, but then you don't have the
brainpower to figure that out. You just follow
your fascist leaders, slavishly.
• I note that you never responded to the article
that started this thread. You would do well to
read it and lookup the links and find some
honest data in: Message-ID:
<bc421438-9c9a-420a-8151
-dd28d4...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
T. Keating
<last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 12:51�pm, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:08:48 -0800 (PST), Last Post
>>
>> <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>> >On Jan 6, 9:22�am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/World_energy_usage...
>>
>> >��Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense?
>>
>> Poor science illiterate Lenny, he doesn't even know what he is
>> complaining about...
>>
>� ROTFLMAO � Poor Keating, his vanity is
> wounded so he must fight back but his only
> ammunitions are feeble flames.
>
>> "Values are taken from the pie chart, which is originally from the
>> data in REN21 2006 global status report on renewables and the BP 2006
>> Statistical review (most recent data available athttp://www.bp.com/statisticalreview)"
>>
>> Fortunately wiki authors also include references to support their
>> efforts.
>Only one person created that article and he is a rabid
>environmentalist who rewrote 5300 climate related articles to IPCC
>specs. Wikipedia hjas been degrad from sloppy to dreadful.
and your proof is... NON-EXISTANT...
The referenced wiki pages are about energy, not climate.. with no
mention of the IPCC..
Wiki has millions of contributing authors, including myself..
T. Keating
wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:35:33 -0800 (PST), Last Post
><last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 6, 12:51�pm, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:08:48 -0800 (PST), Last Post
>>>
>>> <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>>> >On Jan 6, 9:22�am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/World_energy_usage...
>>>
>>> >��Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense?
>>>
>>> Poor science illiterate Lenny, he doesn't even know what he is
>>> complaining about...
>>>
>>� ROTFLMAO � Poor Keating, his vanity is
>> wounded so he must fight back but his only
>> ammunitions are feeble flames.
>>
>>> "Values are taken from the pie chart, which is originally from the
>>> data in REN21 2006 global status report on renewables and the BP 2006
>>> Statistical review (most recent data available athttp://www.bp.com/statisticalreview)"
>>>
>>> Fortunately wiki authors also include references to support their
>>> efforts.
>>Only one person created that article and he is a rabid
>>environmentalist who rewrote 5300 climate related articles to IPCC
>>specs. Wikipedia hjas been degrad from sloppy to dreadful.
>
>and your proof is... NON-EXISTANT...
Most recent 500 edits for that page..
Does that look like a Single author made all those changes???
Answer.. NO...
And you're complaining about a fairly accurate graph attached to that
page... Lenny you are dumber than steaming pile of shit..
Last Post
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:43:25 -0500, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com>
> wrote:
> >and your proof is... NON-EXISTANT...
>
>
> Most recent 500 edits for that page..
> Does that look like a Single author made all those changes???
> Answer.. NO...
>
> And you're complaining about a fairly accurate graph attached to that
> page... Lenny you are dumber than steaming pile of shit..
• ROTFLMAO
Poor poor Keating, is hysterical because I don't
buy into his nonsense. He is going apesh.. over
his nonsense. The boy is mad! Careful with
your blood pressure, kid!
— —
macksamillion
"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
news:638092b7-f278-4a71...@d7g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
Duncan Patton a Campbell
This is NOT the energy sticking to the ground, just
a gross calc of energy hitting the earth's "disk".
I was talking about apples to the market and you fruit trees
on the back 40.
Dhu
> Earth's portion of SOL's energy output is ~1.740 *10^17 watts...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
>
> Multiply that number by 365.24 * 24 * 60 * 60 to get Joules.. or
> Multiply that number by 365.24*24*3.412 to get BTU's.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
>
> "In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (5×10^20
> J) with 80 to 90 percent derived from the combustion of fossil fuels.
> [1]. This is equivalent to an average power consumption rate of 15
> terawatts (1.504×10^13 W). "
>
> Ergo.. mankind's total energy usage is less than 0.01% of earth's solar
> energy input.
>
> Note: A significant fraction of that power is already being derived
> from solar energy.. (Biomass 4%, Hydro 3%, solar heat 0.5%, wind 0.3%).
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/World_energy_usage_width_chart.svg
--