So...  just how much of the atmosphere is CO2?

0.037% give or take?

How many parts per hundred thousand is that again?

Grendel wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 10:47am:

So...  just how much of the atmosphere is CO2? 0.037% give or take? How many parts per hundred thousand is that again?

389 ppm current seasonally adjusted value. (391 without seasonal adjustment)

Good grief...

did you count them all personally too?

So will you agree there is a small variation of say 37-39 parts per 100,000?

I know it doesn't sound as bad as hundreds of parts per...

Here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Check it any time you like. Are you bringing up something new here?

What is wrong with you?
Cant you answer a simple question?
Are you incapable of civil conversation?
If you are agreeing with me just admit it.

Seems to me...


Quote:

0.037% give or take?

was correct.

Reminds me of a young nephew.

Pick a card - any card.

yawn. ::)

ok...

So you are so immature...  you are incapable...  

Someone should tell you to GROW UP then eh.

Let's forget that this figure will vary and say it is 38 parts per 100,000...

Then what portion of that 38 is actually man made emissions?

You do not need to go through the whole twenty questions charade to make a point grendel.
If you wish to say that you believe the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is absolutely tiny by comparison to other elements, and therefore worrying about it's effects is wrong, then just do so.

The obvious reply is that climatologists vehemently disagree with that argument, and point to the numerous studies that quantify the effects they are seeing, and attributing to the relatively high levels of CO2.
Then you would need to point to studies showing where they are wrong.

Guess what, that is where we are at, and that is where we have been at for the last twenty years, waiting for a study to show them wrong, but none has been done, so we just get the same unsupported argument on an endless, and meaningless loop.

Oh yes I do Mozz...

Go away and ass-u-me elsewhere eh.

I keep reading that man made CO2 emissions make up 3.2% approx of total CO2 in the atmosphere.

That would make us "guilty" of creating approx 1 part in 100,000.

Any advances on that?

No?
Good... then we still must be in agreement.

The atmosphere contains 38 parts CO2 per 100,000 parts
and only 1 part of that is made by us.  That is...   1 part in every 100,000 parts.

Grendel wrote on Apr 26^th, 2010 at 10:19pm:

I keep reading that man made CO2 emissions make up 3.2% approx of total CO2 in the atmosphere. That would make us "guilty" of creating approx 1 part in 100,000. Any advances on that?

Incorrect.

Feel free to correct

Grendel wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 3:42pm:

Feel free to correct

What? ........and spoon feed you?

Just read Heaven and Earth. It will make you feel good. It really will.
On your dying day, be sure to have it with you and get somebody to read an excerpt from it as you take your last breaths. It might give you absolution.

I'll concentrate on people who are prepared to listen

Sorry it's not a religion to me.

Unlike you and your followers of course...  zealots every one.  ;D

Come on...  you said it was wrong, I invited you to show where.

Cant progress if we all aren't agreeing.

OK. Your climatology reference books that you use for your study are obviously not worth a crock, so I'll tell you.  In the 1930's, which is a reasonable baseline case,  the atmospheric inventory of Carbon was around 660 Gigatonnes. Today, the atmospheric inventory is around 860 Gigatonnes.

The 200 Gigatonnes are due to human activities. Currently we emit carbon dioxide at around 8.6 Gigatonnes per annum (expressed as carbon). In the 1980'2 it was around 5 Gigatonnes per annum.

So by my calculations, that's a 30.3% increase in inventory. To put it another way, about 23% (and counting) of the atmospheric CO2 today is due to anthropogenic sources.

By current projections, that is set to rise to (take your pick on the likely carbon abatement scenarios) 500ppm by 2100 if we take the middle course.

Then maybe you are wrong eh.

How about you stick to oranges and leave the apples aside.

We are discussing the make up of the atmosphere today.  

In percentages or parts per...  

No source I have found says that CO2 from man is over 20%... pls provide sources for such a figure.

FROM THE IPCC 2001, A TABLE THAT STATES...
natural CO2 97.1% manmade 2.9%

seems you disagree radically with me and the IPCC.

http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/10/02/eliminating-all-man-made-co2-earth-gets-warmer

have you been basing your beliefs on an error perhaps?

Random googles present...

Quote:

Using the table above in combination with a total concentration of 385 ppmv of CO2 seen in the atmosphere in January 2008, one sees that the increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions.

Quote:

Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropogenic.

Quote:

Anthropogenic (man-made)  CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Quote:

Since mass consumption of fossil fuels began with the industrial revolution around 1800, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown from an estimated 280 parts per million to around 380 parts per million.

Quote:

As measured by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii the present day concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere averages out at 385 parts per million (ppm). Measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations prior to 1958 can be made by analyzing the bubbles in ice at different depths in ice sheets, for instance in Antarctica. According to the IPCC 2007 report these measurements show that there were about 280 parts per million of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere prior to 1800 AD, at least as far back as 1000 AD.

Quote:

"The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce."

Quote:

"Man-made global warming" claim facts - Man-made CO2 is only 3.2%, with natural CO2 other 96.77% (animals, microbes etc) Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas with 95.5% (man made water vapor is only 0.001%!).

It must have been taken out of context. You'll need to find the original IPCC reference and check what it actually refers to

It's well known that CO2 has increased by around 30% since mid last century, and that in addition, the oceans have absorbed between 30 and 40 percent or so of the total anthropogenic emissions.

Grendel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:

Quote: "The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce."

Just to show how the figures have been distorted, they are taking the annual emission of CO2 and dividing that by the atmospheric CO2 inventory to give a percentage. Very sneaky.  ;D

Of course, they also apply an annual emission figure that's out of date too. Today, it's more like 8.6 Gigatonnes and projected to reach 9.2 Gtec by 2020.

I might actually take time to dissect that even more tonight. It's a good illustration of how figures can be manipulated.

That simple illustration of how denialists schmooze the data to suit their agenda is pretty typical of everything I have seen from them, and exactly why I head to real climate, and type in their claims, to see just what real scientists say about them, and it comes up the same every time, it is always lies and misrepresentation of the facts, and that is why I will never accept any denialist argument on it's face value.

I am an average punter, and always maintained for people like me it boils down to who do you trust, and the denialists just do not cut it in any way shape or form, when it comes to being honest and forthright.

Hey Mozz...  if you cant contribute sensibly...  dont contribute.

Cherry picking again Muso...  so far the IPCC figure stands...  hard to take a table out of context

FROM THE IPCC 2001, A TABLE THAT STATES...
natural CO2 97.1% manmade 2.9%

seems you disagree radically with me and the IPCC.

http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/10/02/eliminating-all-man-made-co2-earth-gets-warmer

ipcc table...

---

Grendel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 2:22pm:

ipcc table...

That figure takes into account all the fluxes, and it's on an annual basis based on 1999 figures. It's a very specialised table designed to show the CO2 fluxes.

If you'd asked me what proportion of the CO2 fluxes to atmosphere on an annualised basis are anthropogenic, then that's the answer I would have given.

You didn't ask me that, so I answered the question - What proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is a net result of all anthropogenic sources over the period of industrialisation.

There is a subtle difference. The atmospheric CO2 has increased by around 30% since the 1930's, but the total emissions have been substantially more than that. Why? - because some of the CO2 has partitioned into the ocean. If you look at the table, you can see that.

That's is the figure you should be using for the argument you are trying to make.

I'll explain further:

If you look at the fluxes to and from the Ocean, they are pretty close to being balanced, and in pre-industrial times, the figures were balanced (as near as damn it).  On those 1999 figures, you can see that the net effect of human activity is to add an additional 23,100 million metric tonnes of CO2 to the system each year. It's clear to see that as a result of that emission, the total atmospheric inventory of CO2 increases by 13,100 million tonnes per year, with the remaining 10,000 million tonnes or 43 % of 23,100 (expressed as CO2) ending up in the oceans.  

That table doesn't even consider the total atmospheric inventory of CO2. It's specifically about carbon dioxide fluxes on an annual basis.

It's correct that human fluxes are about 2.9% of natural fluxes, but that's not the same as saying that the net contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 2.9%.  

In terms of actual net increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, it's agreed that 100% of that increase is due to anthropogenic activities.

By the way, 23,100 million tonnes of CO2 is equivalent to about 6,300 million tonnes of carbon. (23,100 times 12 divided by 44)

That table mentiones no fluxes, only you do. It simply states the source and absorption of CO2.

Soren wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 4:01pm:

That table mentiones no fluxes, only you do. It simply states the source and absorption of CO2.

The Table doesn't but the surrounding text does. As I said, it's taken out of context.

Don't seem to be able to find the table or the text. There is something different on p188.

Who has the link?

So soren lorenson, you are in agreement with Grendel now? Please be careful about that. You are this forum's only hope for any semblance of intelligent debate.

Paella wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 5:20pm:

So soren lorenson, you are in agreement with Grendel now? Please be careful about that. You are this forum's only hope for any semblance of intelligent debate.

Omnes relinquite spes, o vos intrantes  ::)

Table 3.1 is on Page 190, but it's a totally different table to the one Grendel gives, but that section is about carbon fluxes. I have a theory where Grendel's table comes from.

Soren,

You're quite right. That Table does not appear in the IPCC Report, although the figures look reasonably accurate on first scan. What got me wondering was the fact that it was expressed as CO2.  

Here is the link for IPCC 2001 - The Scientific Basis.

http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_630E_S2004/climate%20change/climate_change_2001_tech_summary.pdf

Quite clearly the Table quoted by Grendel is not from the IPCC Report at all. He gave the reference in his initial post. It's on a denialist site thinly disguised as a site about renewable energy,  and the Table is copied from somewhere else.

I did some more digging and found this nice little Article by Robert A. Ashworth from (What a surprise!) The Heartland Foundation.

http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/25348.pdf

So if you look at Table 1 (which is instantly recognisable) on that particular piece of ...literature, you'll find that it references Figure 3.1 on IPCC 2001 - The Scientific Basis, however the Table itself bears no resemblance to the IPCC Figure.

The conclusion - The Table is manufactured.

The moral - Don't trust people who say things like:


Grendel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:

FROM THE IPCC 2001, A TABLE THAT STATES... natural CO2 97.1% manmade 2.9% seems you disagree radically with me and the IPCC.

- because they don't check their references and they get caught out in the end.

weird.

Oh boo hoo...  I dont feel "caught out " at all...  I ask questions to get answers I put forward replies to get responses...  if I post something that is incorrect it is there to be corrected.

No skin off my nose.

I will now weigh up your claims Muso like I always do.

Just wondering how you are going to prove Ashworth's claim incorrect that the Table was not developed by the IPCC.

Paella wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 5:20pm:

So soren lorenson, you are in agreement with Grendel now? Please be careful about that. You are this forum's only hope for any semblance of intelligent debate.

Oh, don't be such a smacking prat all the time. I asked a question if anyone had the correct location of that table because the reference given on it was not correct.

You are a smacking prat. I say this in a nurturing, caring way, in your interest, hoping that you may still have time to grow out of it. And get rid of that red star, will you? Che is dead, and he was a bastard when he was alive.

I thought Che was a brave warrior and brilliant subversive -- all the more reason why we should have exterminated him sooner.

So Muso...  I can't find Ashworth in the Heartland Institute anywhere...

Yes Soren the attribution is incorrect, or just badly expressed...  it could be referring to an adjunct published by the Cambridge (University) Press.

Soren, I sincerely apologise. I gave voice to a baseless suspicion. I plead guilty as charged, a smacking pratt.

Btw Muso, outstanding work.

Grendel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 9:57pm:

Oh boo hoo...  I dont feel "caught out " at all...  I ask questions to get answers I put forward replies to get responses...  if I post something that is incorrect it is there to be corrected. No skin off my nose. I will now weigh up your claims Muso like I always do. Just wondering how you are going to prove Ashworth's claim incorrect that the Table was not developed by the IPCC.

I think this is as close as we will ever get to seeing grendel back down on any post he makes, with the appropriate justifications attached, of course.

Well yer honour, it was not my fault ya see, can I just plead ignorance?
No?
Well is it too late to change to one of insanity?
My contention is that my political hatred, for those who support the contention that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, is so consuming that I lose a little perspective and feverishly seek out any and all contrariwise opinions and frenetically paste them as a sort of obsessive compulsion, m'lord.

"plea change granted"

Grendel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 10:52pm:

So Muso...  I can't find Ashworth in the Heartland Institute anywhere... Yes Soren the attribution is incorrect, or just badly expressed...  it could be referring to an adjunct published by the Cambridge (University) Press.

Grendel,

I'll regret this later I'm sure, but I'm sorry if I was too hard on you. I really don't mind people asking questions if they are going to read the responses and not just ignore them.

As to how can I prove that the Table wasn't written by the IPCC, well the reference is all wrong. (Of course, for that matter I can't prove that it wasn't engraved on rock and brought down from Mt Sinai by Moses) The Heartland Institute quite often do this kind of thing so that people can't check the real references.

The fact that the figures are expressed as Carbon dioxide as opposed to carbon made me suspicious. I'm pretty sure that everything the IPCC put out in the 2001 Technical report was expressed as carbon.

Ashworth was flavour of the month at the Heartland Institute a couple of years ago. He's supposed to be a Chemical Engineer. I found some old accolades from the Heartland Institute. Let me see if I can dredge them up again. Apart from that, the link I gave you was from the Hearland Institute's own domain.

(edit)

Here you go:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/25348/No_Evidence_to_Support_Carbon_Dioxide_Causing_Global_Warming.html

Soren wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 9:58pm:

You are a smacking prat. I say this in a nurturing, caring way, in your interest, hoping that you may still have time to grow out of it. And get rid of that red star, will you? Che is dead, and he was a bastard when he was alive.

I don't usually approve of flames, but  this one should be preserved for heritage value ;D

It's a fair call: he has a point.

So Muso... Ashworth isn't a member of the Heartland Institute anymore.
Makes it hard to track him down.  So many Robert Ashworths.

A few quick points.

I welcome any refutation and correction that proves correct.
I concede that the Table is incorrectly attributed and could be a lie or fraudulent.  Even though many other sources back its claims up.
I concede that both sides of the argument lie and commit fraud.
I concede that The Inconvenient Truth was more a propaganda piece of political  argument than accurate science.  With many errors in it.
I note that Jones wasn't VINDICATED but due to the narrow parameters of the inquiry was shown not to have been guilty of serious impropriety. Even though his behaviour and attitude was biased abd questionable.  And yes there are at least 2 more inquiries.

I'd still like to dissect the figures on that table some time to see what they actually represent. The figure of 6.3 Gigatonnes per annum of anthropogenic carbon emissions (23.1 of CO2) would put that data around 1999. The total net natural flux of 210 GteC (770 GteCO2) is again about right for 1999. The balance of about 3.65GteC (13.4 Gteco2) that is not absorbed was also about right.

So he has taken the net emissions per annum and expressed it as a percentage of the total fluxes, regardless of the fact that the absorbed carbon flux is balance by that emitted..... and called that percentage  human made without specifying what it's a percentage of.  It's actually a percentage of all the emission fluxes. I have a strange feeling that I've discussed this once before on this forum.    

However, there are a few points worth considering.

1. Prior to industrialisation, the carbon balance was actually in balance. There was slight variation mainly caused by slow orbital changes and solar flux variations, plus the odd explosive stratospheric volcano which cooled things down slightly for a year or two. Two exceptions were Mount Toba, approximately 73,000 years ago which arguably caused a 1000 year "volcanic winter and the Younger Dryas cooling, which new studies reveal was caused by cometary impact.  On the whole, variations before industrialisation were slow and predictable. The carbon cycle was not far out of kilter.  


2. The crux of the problem is the fact that Greenhouse gas emissions
upset the natural balance to the tune of 3.65GteC per annum (1999 figures - probably more like 5 on today's figures). That excess in the carbon budget tends to be accumulative. The figures I provided originally of about 200 GteC since industrialisation is about right (erring on the conservative side). It amounts to an increase of 30% since 1930 and about 38% since the onset of industrialisation.  

The Heartland Institute paper concentrates too much on CO2 alone.  We all know that CO2 is part of the problem, albeit a fairly major part.

We also all know that water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, however if we could magically remove it from the atmosphere in an instant, it would return to it's original level in about 12 weeks.

Beo, for your reference:

Concede v. to accept as true, valid, or accurate, esp. grudgingly or hesitantly.

Allege v. to assert without proof or before proving.

You seem to be mixing them up.

Concede doesnt have to be hesitant nor with a grudge.

And no I'm not mixing them up.

I used concede in the ironic sense once I believe.

You do understand irony I take it Pooella?

The bit that you missed was the fact that the data itself is valid - It's just the way it's expressed that's wrong.

Grendel wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 12:08am:

Concede doesnt have to be hesitant nor with a grudge. And no I'm not mixing them up. I used concede in the ironic sense once I believe. You do understand irony I take it Pooella?

Oh I understand Irony all right. I also understand what esp. means.

But I think you will find you were being sarcastic, not ironic.

You do understand sarcasm I take it Beopup?

esp is the short form of Espana or Spain.
Sarcasm can be irionic or used as irony...  
oh dear...  so much to learn and so little time.

Do I understand sarcasm...?
I use it all the time.
So piss off with your penis measuring for a while will you...  I find it not only tiresome but irksome...
you might like to look them up too.

Quote:

The bit that you missed was the fact that the data itself is valid - It's just the way it's expressed that's wrong.

That could only be written by someone with a very biased pov with a very specific if not narrow agenda.

back to the last point b4 the sidetrack...


Quote:

The atmosphere of Earth is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by Earth's gravity. The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation, warming the surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and night. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.

Composition of Earth's atmosphere. The lower pie represents the trace gases which together compose 0.039% of the atmosphere. Values normalized for illustration. The numbers are from a variety of years (mainly 1987, with CO2 and methane from 2009) and do not represent any single source.

---

Quote:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms approximately 0.04% of the nominal 5,000,000 gigatonnes of gas and aerosols that comprise the Earth's atmosphere. It is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas.

Quote:

Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropogenic.

Quote:

Composition of the Atmosphere The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%).

and.... we have....

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=107

Quote:

Large amounts of carbon dioxide are dissolved in the oceans, plant life is also a major remover of CO2. Off all the CO2 emitted in the atmosphere (0,039%) only 3% is of human origin (0,00117%). Worldwide aviation emissions causes only 2% of all man made carbon in the atmosphere (0,0000234%).

Good.

All that is true, although the >95% figure, and the 3 percent (on 1999 figures) is talking about carbon fluxes as I said before - and that doesn't really count because the natural fluxes balance.

Let me try to give an analogy. Imagine a hamster's tread mill with half of it in the water and half in the air. The treadmill goes round and round. The wire represents the carbon, and the total mass doesn't vary much from year to year although it's continually being transferred to and from the atmosphere. .

By burning fossil fuels, we are upsetting that balance, and here we leave the analogy. The extra bit of carbon that we add to the system goes mostly into the atmosphere and about 1/3 gets absorbed by the ocean. So it's accumulating each year. It might just be 2.9% of the flux based on 1999 figures, or 4.3% based on today's figures, but it's not going anywhere and it's accumulated since we first started burning fossil fuels so that we now have 20-25% of the CO2 due to Anthropogenic sources.

The worrying statistic is the fact that we are adding about 1% (and counting)  of the atmosphere's total inventory of CO2 every single year.  

On the Aviation emissions, well heavy transportation is all lumped together and accounts from about 14% globally. Aviation could account for 2%. I can't be bothered to check that at the moment, but it's probably about right.

None of what you've said so far comes as a revelation. Feel free to challenge any of my figures.  

I like the new style of your posts, Grendel.

Let's chill out on the bickering guys.

I understand about the adding to non-absorbed co2...  I understand it varies over time and place.
I understand about carbon sinks.
I understand the carbon cycle and that you are saying we are adding to the non-absorbed atmospheric load (if I can put it like that).
Even though we live in a carbon based natural system and all carbon in whatever form... was there and will be there, stored or released.
(I know that is a bit vague).

My preferred solution is new technologies and reafforestation.

But here for now, I am talking about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere/air by % of composition.

The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the most well established things we can put a finger on.

Do you also understand that the major atmospheric gases (nitrogen and oxygen) don't absorb longwave infrared radiation to any extent, but carbon dioxide does, even though it's in a relatively tiny proportion of the entire atmosphere?

This is probably the most sense you've made for a long time if you don't mind me saying so.

Sooner or later we'll have to bite the bullet and go with new technologies. Apart from Global Warming, a lot of people are now saying that we reached peak oil in 2008, and that peak oil indirectly caused the GFC. (I'll explain that in more detail if you like) So for any number of reasons, we'll have to stop relying on fossil fuels, and phase them out while we have the chance.

Reafforestation sounds great, at least in the short term,  but 30 or 40 years down the track, many forests will go from net carbon sinks to net emitters.  

Yes I understand that...
I also understand that water vapour is THE major greenhouse gas.
I also understand that CO2 in the outer layer radiates heat away from us.
But I will eventually get around to that.

BTW people have been saying we reached peak oil before that and every decade or so they repeat it.

We haven't reached peak oil.

There are also many more alternative sources if we get desperate enough to want to use them.

Peak oil is a fair way off yet.

As for making sense...  I always have...  you've just been too busy trying to ridicule me.  :)

Grendel wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 10:10pm:

Yes I understand that... I also understand that water vapour is THE major greenhouse gas. I also understand that CO2 in the outer layer radiates heat away from us. But I will eventually get around to that. BTW people have been saying we reached peak oil before that and every decade or so they repeat it. We haven't reached peak oil. There are also many more alternative sources if we get desperate enough to want to use them. Peak oil is a fair way off yet. As for making sense...  I always have...  you've just been too busy trying to ridicule me.

Peak Oil is determined by production levels, and by demand outstripping supply. The GFC gave us time to prove more reserves, but getting back to 2008 levels is going to be difficult.

It has less to do with the actual reserves, and more to do with the rate at which we can extract oil to meet the growing demand.  The limiting factor will be production rates, especially with new sources.

An article I read last week discussed how people with sub-prime mortgages had to pay ever increasing fuel costs, because they generally had further to travel to work than others.  As a result of the fuel hikes, a lot more people started to default on their mortgages, and the rest is history.

Believe me... they claimed we reached peak oil b4 the turn of the century...

I read somewhere the US have reserves in Alaska as big as the Arabian fields and the new sources found in the Gulf are also very substantial.

Canada have oil sands that potentially rival the Middle East.

Grendel wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 10:10pm:

I also understand that CO2 in the outer layer radiates heat away from us.

You'll need to explain what you mean by that. Do you have a url you can reference?

There are a number of overlapping effects in the outer atmosphere, but I'll leave that for another day. It's getting late.  

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2867591.htm

Quote:

After 50 kilometres, the next layer is the mesosphere, and the temperature starts dropping again. By 85 kilometres, the top of the mesosphere is the coldest place on earth. The density of the upper atmosphere is so low that carbon dioxide actually radiates heat away into space, rather than trapping it.

Beo, you're losing this one really really badly. Give it away. It's starting to read like a snuff movie, and I'm also starting to feel sorry for you.

I don't think I'm losing anything...  
I thought we were having a discussion.
Well Muso and I were.
(I was hoping the snide crap and garbage could be kept to a minimum, for a change)

Grendel wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 2:23am:

I don't think I'm losing anything...   I thought we were having a discussion. Well Muso and I were. (I was hoping the snide crap and garbage could be kept to a minimum, for a change)

Yeah, let's do that. Nobody is winning or losing anything here.

Re the upper atmosphere, it's reasonably correct, but think in terms of the low density of the atmosphere at that level and think in terms of specific heat capacity (remember SMDelta T from physics? )

Now when you look at the relative mass of that part of the atmosphere compared to the troposphere, the fact that it's cooler up there will have 4/5 of very little effect on the troposphere.

Now that's probably an ill-considered response but I'll read that article in more detail and comment further.

ok.... (edit)

Just imagine a CO2 molecule at the level of the mesosphere. An infrared photon hits it and it re-emits it in a random direction. Thinking back to the dandelion seed head analogy, at that level the probability of the IR photon escaping to space is much higher because of the curvature of the Earth and the fact that there are very few CO2 molecules to hit (and practically zero water molecules). Even if it's emitted slightly below "waist" level it only has a very thin layer of atmosphere to pass through before it ends up in space. So it's correct to state that it actually radiates more energy to space than it redirects downwards.

However, as I stated before, it's an incredibly small effect, and by the time the IR photons reach the mesosphere, it's all over red rover. The main warming effect is happening lower in the atmosphere.

I have a friend in the States who is an Atmospheric Physicist. If you think that explanation is lame, I'll get a more detailed explanation from him.

Well I'm not sure about the amount of the effect in the Mesosphere, haven't found any good stats on it yet.  But I do remember you telling me that warming is due to a very small amount of CO2.  Hence I am thinking the cooling effect is similar, no need for lots of CO2.  I also recall reading something many years ago about radiative absorption and a saturation point.  I think it stated that there is a point in which additional CO2 in the system does not produce additional warming after a certain saturation point.  Now that's off on a bit of a tangent at the moment.

BTW wouldn't you see the CO2 in the mesosphere as being a retardant to the warming of the Troposphere after all it gets hit first.  Surely it would be "all over red rover" if it wasn't there.

Grendel wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 4:11pm:

Well I'm not sure about the amount of the effect in the Mesosphere, haven't found any good stats on it yet.  But I do remember you telling me that warming is due to a very small amount of CO2.  Hence I am thinking the cooling effect is similar, no need for lots of CO2.  I also recall reading something many years ago about radiative absorption and a saturation point.  I think it stated that there is a point in which additional CO2 in the system does not produce additional warming after a certain saturation point.  Now that's off on a bit of a tangent at the moment.

That argument is ancient history. It was argued out during the 1930's and 40's. I'll obviously need to expand on that answer, but I'm busy at the moment.

Quote:

BTW wouldn't you see the CO2 in the mesosphere as being a retardant to the warming of the Troposphere after all it gets hit first.  Surely it would be "all over red rover" if it wasn't there.

It actually 'gets hit' last. The Long Wave Infrared is the key to the whole thing. That's coming from the earth (black body radiation). No disrespect intended, but I thought you knew that. Sorry if I haven't made that clear.

The effect on Incident sunlight is miniscule by comparison to the effect on emitted LW infrared.

I can see I'm going to come up with some good references instead of shooting from the hip here. Leave it with me and I'll provide a fuller explanation, but if you look at the diagram, the red represents downgoing Solar radiation (mostly visible and near IR), and the blue represents emitted blackbody radiation (Long wave infrared)

The Greenhouse effect acts on the latter.  Make sense?

Also note the spectrum of CO2. You notice how there is a heavy absorption band around 10 microns? That's what we're talking about.

The same applies to water as we said before. Water accounts for about double the greenhouse effect of CO2.  Every climate scientist in the world knows this :)

---

Ah no, logically it gets hit first... radiation has to pass through the mesosphere before it can reach the Troposhpere...  or the Earth in order to reradiate...  are you saying it miraculously reaches the Earth first with absolutely no effects

I can see that you don't quite grasp the Greenhouse Effect.  (I don't mean that in any sense other than factual)

The Sun's radiation is mostly in the visible spectrum. Look at the CO2 contribution and you'll see how much of that is absorbed (4/5 of FA) Basically the radiation hits the troposphere and Earth's surface where it's absorbed and it heats up the Earth.

OK so far?

The Earth emits blackbody radiation and that's where the Greenhouse effect comes in. Now as far as CO2 in the upper atmosphere is concerned, that has a negligible effect on incident radiation (Look at the spectrum and you'll see why.) Water vapour on the other hand has a considerable effect. It's the main reason for absorption of Solar Energy, and that occurs mainly in the troposphere.

As well as that, there are albedo effects (eg clouds and ice), which mean that approximately 30% of the solar radiation is reflected back into space, but that has nothing to do with CO2.

Looking at that red curve, do you see the chunks missing from it? Take a look at the relative contributions (The graphs below) and you'll see what's responsible for that effect. (The upper stratosphere is bone dry.)

Can you see now why CO2 has very little effect on incident solar radiation?  Again not trying to be sarcastic, but can you interpret the spectra? (That's a genuine question - if you can't, I'll break down the explanation further)

Incidentally, do you notice the curve for Rayleigh scattering up on the UV end? Ever wonder why the sky is blue? - there's your answer.

Quote:

I can see that you don't quite grasp the Greenhouse Effect.  (I don't mean that in any sense other than factual)

No I get it.

But that isn't the only way the planet and atmosphere is warmed now is it?

Nor is cooling only caused by lack of CO2.
Cooling is due to the absence of heat/radiation and as you mentioned clouds etc also add to that effect.

Climate is not as we have said many, many times...  not a simple thing.

Grendel wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 8:29pm:

No I get it. But that isn't the only way the planet and atmosphere is warmed now is it?

The input is the incident radiation from the sun (no brainer), however the overwhelming reason that the Earth retains its heat is the Greenhouse effect, and that is connected with how much of the Earth's radiation is radiated into space.

Do you understand why the Sun emits mainly around the visible while the Earth radiates in the Long wave portion of Infrared?

The key is the The Stefan–Boltzmann law.  The frequency, which is proportional to Energy [E = H(nu)],   is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature of the object.


Quote:

Nor is cooling only caused by lack of CO2. Cooling is due to the absence of heat/radiation and as you mentioned clouds etc also add to that effect. Climate is not as we have said many, many times...  not a simple thing.

Correct. Hopefully we're on te same wavelength here. I've tried to explain this before. See the sticky notes. Nobody is claiming that it's simple. If it was simple, you wouldn't need general circulation models to predict future climate scenarios - accurately.

Climate models are just systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry.  

If you want accurate answers, you have to take a lot of variables into account.

The radiative forcing equations alone incorporate a great deal of  physics,  and chemistry.

What we do understand extremely well is what happens when you change one variable in a complex system, and in the case of global warming,  the variable that we are currently changing is atmospheric CO2 (and other GHG's) concentration.  

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

You are a patient man, Muso (applies to both topics)

Paella wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:55pm:

You are a patient man, Muso (applies to both topics)

My patience has a use-by date, but when people ask sensible questions, I don't mind being patient.

We'll see how patient I am in 2 weeks time after wrestling with the intricacies of Energy Efficiency Opportunities (EEO).