Australian Politics Forum - Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #150 - Feb 25^th, 2011 at 3:06pm

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

Groan. How long ago did you do a science subject, Gizmo? Percent of a Celsius temperature? Roll Eyes

OK - back to being non judgmental - On the weekend, between doing some translations, I'll get back to the Greenhouse effect.

Understanding the greenhouse effect plus a little bit of carbon accounting will make it easier to understand.

It wasn't meant to be 'real'...it was an example....So substitute 0.05 for 0.002....Same thing..

I know the real amount is 60% of 7%....which, (being charitable) works out as about 5% of the total Co2 levels are human action....
So if warming 'caused by Co2' (which it isn't..) is 1 degree per century, then 95% of that 1 degree is natural....so 0.95 degrees isn't from human action....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #151 - Feb 25^th, 2011 at 3:33pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 3:06pm:

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

Groan. How long ago did you do a science subject, Gizmo? Percent of a Celsius temperature? Roll Eyes

OK - back to being non judgmental - On the weekend, between doing some translations, I'll get back to the Greenhouse effect.

Understanding the greenhouse effect plus a little bit of carbon accounting will make it easier to understand.

It wasn't meant to be 'real'...it was an example....So substitute 0.05 for 0.002....Same thing..

I know the real amount is 60% of 7%....which, (being charitable) works out as about 5% of the total Co2 levels are human action....
So if warming 'caused by Co2' (which it isn't..) is 1 degree per century, then 95% of that 1 degree is natural....so 0.95 degrees isn't from human action....

I'll give you the actual figures, and back them up with data on the weekend.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

gizmo_2655 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16010 South West NSW Gender:	Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain Reply #152 - Feb 25^th, 2011 at 3:41pm If your figures are higher than 7% then they aren't the 'real' figures....
Back to top	"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition. It's similar to a strawman fallacy" Bobbythebat IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #153 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 8:42am

OK. In a previous post on this thread I gave you the mass of the atmosphere and the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Here is the link:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1272798405/274#274

I'm numbering the points so that you can tell me where you disagree.

1. There are currently 3 × 10^15 (3 times 10 to the fifteen) kilograms of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or about 3000 billion tonnes.

This varies on a seasonal basis, but we can tell this from measurements carried out at various monitoring stations positioned throughout the globe. We can even out the seasonal variations for the sake of this exercise, because they have been pretty constant over the entire monitoring period. You can get the total mass by multiplying the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by the total mass of the atmosphere.

2. Current annual emissions amount to over 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, or around 1% of the total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - every year. To convert tonnes of carbon dioxide to tonnes of carbon, we multiply by about 0.27, so that gives us 8.1 billion tonnes of carbon.

3. We can get total emissions from the various sources. It's easy to determine how much coal was burned each year, and it's easy to determine how much oil was burnt.

4. For coal for example, the carbon content is between 60% for the poorest grade lignite and about 92% for the highest grade. Anthracite. The world production of coal was around 5 billion tonnes in 2004. You can check that figure if you like, but let's use that figure for now. Let's say that equates to 70% carbon as a rule of thumb, that gives us 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon.

5. You can quickly see that 3.5 divided by 8.1 gives us roughly 40 percent of global carbon emissions from coal, and that's about right.

6.The graph shows the total carbon emissions by fuel type over time.

7. We know how much carbon is going into the atmosphere from different sources. We know how much the CO2 concentration has risen, so we can see right away that a significant proportion of that rise is due to the burning of fossil fuels. (actually it's way over 100% if you do your sums, but the remainder is being deposited in the ocean and in biomass to some extent)

Now I'm by no means infallible, so if anybody can spot an error in the above calculations, let me know.

OK so far?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:08am by muso »

emissions.jpg (24 KB | 33 )

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

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #154 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 1:19pm

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 8:42am:

OK. In a previous post on this thread I gave you the mass of the atmosphere and the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Here is the link:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1272798405/274#274

I'm numbering the points so that you can tell me where you disagree.

1. There are currently 3 × 10^15 (3 times 10 to the fifteen) kilograms of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or about 3000 billion tonnes.

This varies on a seasonal basis, but we can tell this from measurements carried out at various monitoring stations positioned throughout the globe. We can even out the seasonal variations for the sake of this exercise, because they have been pretty constant over the entire monitoring period. You can get the total mass by multiplying the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by the total mass of the atmosphere.

2. Current annual emissions amount to over 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, or around 1% of the total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - every year. To convert tonnes of carbon dioxide to tonnes of carbon, we multiply by about 0.27, so that gives us 8.1 billion tonnes of carbon.

3. We can get total emissions from the various sources. It's easy to determine how much coal was burned each year, and it's easy to determine how much oil was burnt.

4. For coal for example, the carbon content is between 60% for the poorest grade lignite and about 92% for the highest grade. Anthracite. The world production of coal was around 5 billion tonnes in 2004. You can check that figure if you like, but let's use that figure for now. Let's say that equates to 70% carbon as a rule of thumb, that gives us 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon.

5. You can quickly see that 3.5 divided by 8.1 gives us roughly 40 percent of global carbon emissions from coal, and that's about right.

6.The graph shows the total carbon emissions by fuel type over time.

7. We know how much carbon is going into the atmosphere from different sources. We know how much the CO2 concentration has risen, so we can see right away that a significant proportion of that rise is due to the burning of fossil fuels. (actually it's way over 100% if you do your sums, but the remainder is being deposited in the ocean and in biomass to some extent)

Now I'm by no means infallible, so if anybody can spot an error in the above calculations, let me know.

OK so far?

Ok, I'll agree with the figures.....but even on those figures, human emissions are still only 1% of the total atmospheric Co2, and it does cycle through the environment.....absorbed by the oceans and plants etc...
Then there is oceanic outgassing to consider.....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #155 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 1:49pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

Ok, I'll agree with the figures.....but even on those figures, human emissions are still only 1% of the total atmospheric Co2, and it does cycle through the environment.....absorbed by the oceans and plants etc...
Then there is oceanic outgassing to consider.....

Gizmo - I don't think you're absorbing those figures. Around 1% is currently being added to the atmosphere every year. Obviously some of that is being absorbed in the ocean, but for a start that proportion is dwindling as time goes on. It used to be about 50:50 a few decades ago. Now it's about 60:40 atmosphere/ocean split. If it wasn't for the oceans, we would have added roughly 3.8 ppm to the atmospheric CO2 last year. With the oceans absorbing some of it, that figure is 2.39 ppm for 2010. Back in the 60's we were adding about 1ppm per year. If you look at the graph of emissions for the different fuels, you'll see that we were emitting roughly half then of what we do now.

Human activity has added around about 80ppm or roughly 25% of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory since 1950 and roughly 30% since the beginning of industrialisation.

If you still have any doubt about where that CO2 came from, we can turn to isotope analysis. Do I need to go there, or can we move on to Climate sensitivity?

As far as oceanic outgassing is concerned, yes it does occur, as well as absorption. The net effect is absorption (dissolution of CO2), and that flux amounts to roughly 12 billion tonnes per year (as CO2).

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 26^th, 2011 at 2:00pm by muso »

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

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #156 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 2:06pm

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

Ok, I'll agree with the figures.....but even on those figures, human emissions are still only 1% of the total atmospheric Co2, and it does cycle through the environment.....absorbed by the oceans and plants etc...
Then there is oceanic outgassing to consider.....

Gizmo - I don't think you're absorbing those figures. Around 1% is currently being added to the atmosphere every year. Obviously some of that is being absorbed in the ocean, but for a start that proportion is dwindling as time goes on. It used to be about 50:50 a few decades ago. Now it's about 60:40 atmosphere/ocean split. If it wasn't for the oceans, we would have added roughly 3.8 ppm to the atmospheric CO2 last year. With the oceans absorbing some of it, that figure is 2.39 ppm for 2010. Back in the 60's we were adding about 1ppm per year. If you look at the graph of emissions for the different fuels, you'll see that we were emitting roughly half then of what we do now.

Human activity has added around about 80ppm or roughly 25% of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory since 1950 and roughly 30% since the beginning of industrialisation.

If you still have any doubt about where that CO2 came from, we can turn to isotope analysis. Do I need to go there, or can we move on to Climate sensitivity?

As far as oceanic outgassing is concerned, yes it does occur, as well as absorption. The net effect is absorption (dissolution of CO2), and that flux amounts to roughly 12 billion tonnes per year (as CO2).

But that 1% ISN'T staying every year though is it???
At least 40% of the Co2 emissions are absorbed by the carbon cycle....

Natural Co2 is cycled, so why should the emissions Co2 be cumulative???

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #157 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:01pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 2:06pm:

But that 1% ISN'T staying every year though is it???
At least 40% of the Co2 emissions are absorbed by the carbon cycle....

Natural Co2 is cycled, so why should the emissions Co2 be cumulative???

Yes it is. That's what I'm saying because that's what we're measuring. The CO2 in the atmosphere (and in the ocean) has had a net increase of about 30% from the beginning of industrialisation. It is cumulative simply because the extra CO2 emitted is shifting the equilibrium. The natural system has a certain amount of buffering capacity of course, but that buffering capacity has been well and truly broken.

The natural cycle has been roughly in balance prior to industrialisation. Of course if you change any one factor, the position of the equilibrium shifts. If you look back at the records from prehistory (CO2 and temperature) you can see evidence of that. As the Earth's orbit and tilt changes, the net irradiation from the sun changed with that, and slowly the CO2 responded upwards and downwards. <- maybe I should explain that bit in more depth.

Remember I'm talking about net fluxes. ok?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:10pm by muso »

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

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #158 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:12pm

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 2:06pm:

But that 1% ISN'T staying every year though is it???
At least 40% of the Co2 emissions are absorbed by the carbon cycle....

Natural Co2 is cycled, so why should the emissions Co2 be cumulative???

Yes it is. That's what I'm saying because that's what we're measuring. The CO2 in the atmosphere (and in the ocean) has had a net increase from the beginning of industrialisation. It is cumulative simply because the extra CO2 emitted is shifting the equilibrium. The natural system has a certain amount of buffering capacity of course, but that buffering capacity has been well and truly broken.

The natural cycle has been roughly in balance prior to industrialisation. Of course if you change any one factor, the position of the equilibrium shifts. If you look back at the records from prehistory (CO2 and temperature) you can see evidence of that. As the Earth's orbit and tilt changes, the net irradiation from the sun changed with that, and slowly the CO2 responded upwards and downwards. <- maybe I should explain that bit in more depth.

Remember I'm talking about net fluxes. ok?

Granted....Co2 has increased....However, there's still nothing in your posts to indicate that Co2 is responsible for any changes in global temperature...

THAT is the basic problem..

I'm sorry, but that is where I have a problem, I still haven't seen ANYTHING that indicates that Co2 is behind AGW.....

From my point of view, the IPCC and the other 'climate scientists' all started from the same point....."Co2 is causing global warming...now how do we prove it??"......And that, more than any thing else worries me.....Because it's the same 'mantra' that the greenies have been using since the late 60's.......it's got nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics....

Any time scientists start from a 'result' then work backwards to find justifications for it...my 'spidey' sense starts tingling....

It's the same method used during the US slave days "negroes aren't human" and in Nazi Germany "Jews are evil".....

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:22pm by gizmo_2655 »

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

qikvtec

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1846
Queensland

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #159 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:33pm

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:25pm:

You know what?
There will be people still saying, "it's all happened before & it's just mother nature", when both polar caps are gone and the oceans have reclaimed large tracts of land, around the world.

And, all of that, just before we starting shifting into the next Ice Age!

You know what?
It's just possible that the scientists have got it wrong and this is simply part of mother natures normal cycle? I greatly doubt, having read a lot of information and come to my own conclusion, but it is possible?

So what! We are still heading for the top of this warming cycle, before we head into another Ice Age, but we are probably getting there faster than on previously ocassions and this time there are 7 Billion+ humans riding on the outcome.

This has never happened before!
Trust me (I'm not a Politician), I guarantee it and if Public Policy/planning is done on the back of an assumption that it (the usual climate cycle) has happened before and we are still here, then we will risk the entire future of humanity, on a false premise!

You know what?
Given the human species track record and the record of our Politicians and of TPTB, it is quite likely that we will proceed with those false assumptions and it may well, cost us the Earth?

And, future generations, if there are any, will look back say, "they knew there were substantial Risks, but they didn't try to mitigate those Risks, they didn't even try"!

If we are heading into an Ice Age that will dictate human oblivion, wouldn't we be better off as a race encouraging global warming rather than preventing it?

Back to top

Politicians and Nappies need to be changed often and for the same reason.

One trouble with political jokes is that they often get elected.

Alan Joyce for PM

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #160 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:51pm

qikvtec wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

[quote author=perceptions_now link=1297970964/0#11 date=1298003123]You know what?
There will be people still saying, "it's all happened before & it's just mother nature", when both polar caps are gone and the oceans have reclaimed large tracts of land, around the world.

And, all of that, just before we starting shifting into the next Ice Age!

You know what?
It's just possible that the scientists have got it wrong and this is simply part of mother natures normal cycle? I greatly doubt, having read a lot of information and come to my own conclusion, but it is possible?

So what! We are still heading for the top of this warming cycle, before we head into another Ice Age, but we are probably getting there faster than on previously ocassions and this time there are 7 Billion+ humans riding on the outcome.

This has never happened before!
Trust me (I'm not a Politician), I guarantee it and if Public Policy/planning is done on the back of an assumption that it (the usual climate cycle) has happened before and we are still here, then we will risk the entire future of humanity, on a false premise!

You know what?
Given the human species track record and the record of our Politicians and of TPTB, it is quite likely that we will proceed with those false assumptions and it may well, cost us the Earth?

And, future generations, if there are any, will look back say, "they knew there were substantial Risks, but they didn't try to mitigate those Risks, they didn't even try"!

And PN, if we are wrong???...What will the 'future generations' say....
"They looked at the data, and destroyed their industry and civilisation...and STILL did nothing to change the world..."

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

qikvtec

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1846
Queensland

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #161 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:51pm

____ wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

50 years, Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 65 ppm

Now, has this ever happened so fast before?

If not, then human population and human behaviour is the likely cause
... correct?

440 ppm, and world agriculture is likely to collapse. Lets all follow the denialists and play russian roulette.

Can you briefly explain why agriculture will collapse at this level?

Back to top

Politicians and Nappies need to be changed often and for the same reason.

One trouble with political jokes is that they often get elected.

Alan Joyce for PM

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #162 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 4:24pm

qikvtec wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

____ wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

50 years, Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 65 ppm

Now, has this ever happened so fast before?

If not, then human population and human behaviour is the likely cause
... correct?

440 ppm, and world agriculture is likely to collapse. Lets all follow the denialists and play russian roulette.

Can you briefly explain why agriculture will collapse at this level?

Because that 'evil' industry will make it so.....Just like evil cars, electricity and all technology will....we should ALL be living in communes, growing dope and making our own clothes....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #163 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 8:08pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

qikvtec wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

[quote author=perceptions_now link=1297970964/0#11 date=1298003123]You know what?
There will be people still saying, "it's all happened before & it's just mother nature", when both polar caps are gone and the oceans have reclaimed large tracts of land, around the world.

And, all of that, just before we starting shifting into the next Ice Age!

You know what?
It's just possible that the scientists have got it wrong and this is simply part of mother natures normal cycle? I greatly doubt, having read a lot of information and come to my own conclusion, but it is possible?

So what! We are still heading for the top of this warming cycle, before we head into another Ice Age, but we are probably getting there faster than on previously ocassions and this time there are 7 Billion+ humans riding on the outcome.

This has never happened before!
Trust me (I'm not a Politician), I guarantee it and if Public Policy/planning is done on the back of an assumption that it (the usual climate cycle) has happened before and we are still here, then we will risk the entire future of humanity, on a false premise!

You know what?
Given the human species track record and the record of our Politicians and of TPTB, it is quite likely that we will proceed with those false assumptions and it may well, cost us the Earth?

And, future generations, if there are any, will look back say, "they knew there were substantial Risks, but they didn't try to mitigate those Risks, they didn't even try"!

And PN, if we are wrong???...What will the 'future generations' say....
"They looked at the data, and destroyed their industry and civilisation...and STILL did nothing to change the world..."

I think you meant, if YOU are wrong, which you are!

Even if you are right, which you aren't, it will setback the Global GDP say 5, 10, 20%, so what, TPTB are in the process of setting back Global GDP by much more than that, anyway!

However, if you are wrong, which you are, then you will have destroyed industry and civilisation, because you just did nothing, to change the world!

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Is the Culprit in Extreme Rain
Reply #164 - Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:07pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:

Granted....Co2 has increased....However, there's still nothing in your posts to indicate that Co2 is responsible for any changes in global temperature...

THAT is the basic problem..

I'm sorry, but that is where I have a problem, I still haven't seen ANYTHING that indicates that Co2 is behind AGW.....

Ignoring the irrational bit at the end - you accept that the CO2 has risen by 30% since industrialisation and you accept that the evidence shows that the carbon dioxide produced from fuel burning is pretty well consistent with the growth in atmospheric and ocean CO2 over that period.

Now you are questioning the very mechanism of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, even though you've said that without that CO2, the Earth would be around -18 degrees C on average.

If I've got that right, the only thing I need to do to convince you is to demonstrate that CO2 and other Greenhouse gases cause warming, and to show how we can demonstrate that.

I guess there is the question of the magnitude too.

I'm not interested in what you say about the IPCC or Chicken Little or whatever. Let's stick to science here.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

Because that 'evil' industry will make it so.....Just like evil cars, electricity and all technology will....we should ALL be living in communes, growing dope and making our own clothes....

I hope you're not implying that that's my position. I have always made it clear that the way ahead is through sustainable growth. I approve of capitalism, and I like the idea of being rich.

Back to top

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

IP Logged