Australian Politics Forum - The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz... Reply #15 - Apr 28^th, 2010 at 5:21pm Sorry it's not a religion to me. Unlike you and your followers of course... zealots every one. Come on... you said it was wrong, I invited you to show where. Cant progress if we all aren't agreeing.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #16 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 9:18am

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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #17 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 12:47pm

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%!).

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #18 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 12:55pm

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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #19 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 1:01pm

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. Grin

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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #20 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 1:16pm

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.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #21 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 1:45pm

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz... Reply #22 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 2:22pm ipcc table...
Back to top	020210_image1.gif (11 KB \| 46 ) IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #23 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 3:15pm

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)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 29^th, 2010 at 3:43pm by muso »

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

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz... Reply #24 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 4:01pm That table mentiones no fluxes, only you do. It simply states the source and absorption of CO2.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz... Reply #25 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 4:14pm 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.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz... Reply #26 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 5:05pm Don't seem to be able to find the table or the text. There is something different on p188. Who has the link?
Back to top	IP Logged

Paella Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 290	Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz... Reply #27 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #28 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 5:22pm

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 Roll Eyes

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 29^th, 2010 at 6:13pm by muso »

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

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #29 - Apr 29^th, 2010 at 6:40pm

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_20...

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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged