Australian Politics Forum - Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #420 - Jun 15^th, 2015 at 6:34pm

Right, so you're taking an annual emission of CO2 to atmosphere based on 2000 emission levels, and you are taking this as a proportion of positive fluxes, completely ignoring balancing fluxes, then you are taking a total atmospheric CO2 content and saying that this annual emission is a tiny fraction of the total.

Let me guess. Arithmetic was not one of your strong subjects at school? I don't know that for sure, because you may have lost a few brain cells since then.
However, my previous conclusion seems valid enough.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Take an area of ocean. As it heats up, during the day, more CO2 is partitioned into the atmosphere. As it cools during the night (winters etc) it goes back into the sea.

Now Soren here ( can I call you Mr Genius as a mark of respect?) thinks it's ok to regard the day time flux as an emission and totally disregard the balancing night time flux.

Now I can forgive genuinely stupid people more than dishonest people. So are you stupid, dishonest or both?

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #421 - Jun 15^th, 2015 at 7:08pm

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 6:12pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:50pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 10:32am:

Soren wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 11:38am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 4:43pm:

Do clouds cool or warm the earth? Wink

How much extra cloud is generated by 0.0192% of the atmosphere that is human CO2??

That question assumes that increased CO2 leads to an increase in cloud cover. Maybe it does.

What is your understanding?
What makes you think that an increase in CO2 leads to an increase in cloud cover?
Are all clouds the same?
What type of clouds would result in a net energy loss to space?
What type of clouds would result in a net energy gain?
What type of clouds would increase or decrease as a result of increased CO2?
Are clouds the biggest factor or even a major factor in Global warming?

As you see, you may be asking a question that is not relevant.

In the light of your tenuous grasp of the basic principles involved, what would your response be to

A. An increase in cloud cover of 2%?
B. A decrease in cloud cover of 2%?

One more question - Your figure of 0.0192% is based on what atmospheric CO2 level in ppm(v) ?

Frankly, your question shows that you don't have a clue.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1429976461/282#282

It's around 40% of the total atmospheric CO2. I think you're taking annual carbon emissions and not converting to CO2 or something like that. Let me see if I can work out what you're doing.

Sorry about the 'higher order' maths, here are the baby steps:
Total CO2 in atmosphere = 400 parts per million = 0.04%
Proportion of total CO2 to emissions (550 Gt) that is human emission (26.4 Gt) = 4.8% of all CO2 in atmosphere.
Human CO2 in atmosphere as proportion of all atmospheric gases = 4.8% of 0.040% = 0.00192%

Figures are from the New Scientist.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1429976461/249#249

Get out your calculator and check. I could be wrong - but then you need to show that I am wrong, not just hint at it and nudge-nudge.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #422 - Jun 15^th, 2015 at 9:30pm

Read my previous post. The basic assumptions you make are wrong. For a start, why do you use the annual emissions for the year 2000?

Why do you even mention natural fluxes that are balanced, if not to deceive? (See the example I gave of diurnal and seasonal ocean related fluxes)

You need to show the New Scientist link you used.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 15^th, 2015 at 9:39pm by John_Taverner »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #423 - Jun 16^th, 2015 at 11:28am

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 6:34pm:

Take an area of ocean. As it heats up, during the day, more CO2 is partitioned into the atmosphere. As it cools during the night (winters etc) it goes back into the sea.

Now Soren here ( can I call you Mr Genius as a mark of respect?) thinks it's ok to regard the day time flux as an emission and totally disregard the balancing night time flux.

Is it really in balance?

'Fields of daytime and night-time transfer velocity are computed using wind speed observations from QuikSCAT. These fields are then used to compute monthly mean fields of the daytime sea-air CO2 flux, FD and the night-time flux, FN.The mean of these, FDN gives the monthly mean flux including covariance terms brought around by diurnal variations. The covariance terms themselves are given as the difference between FDN and F, where F is the flux computed from the monthly mean data.'

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL020583/pdf

Why would you compute a mean when the fluxes are in balance?

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #424 - Jun 16^th, 2015 at 12:19pm

lee wrote on Jun 16^th, 2015 at 11:28am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 6:34pm:

Take an area of ocean. As it heats up, during the day, more CO2 is partitioned into the atmosphere. As it cools during the night (winters etc) it goes back into the sea.

Now Soren here ( can I call you Mr Genius as a mark of respect?) thinks it's ok to regard the day time flux as an emission and totally disregard the balancing night time flux.

Is it really in balance?

'Fields of daytime and night-time transfer velocity are computed using wind speed observations from QuikSCAT. These fields are then used to compute monthly mean fields of the daytime sea-air CO2 flux, FD and the night-time flux, FN.The mean of these, FDN gives the monthly mean flux including covariance terms brought around by diurnal variations. The covariance terms themselves are given as the difference between FDN and F, where F is the flux computed from the monthly mean data.'

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL020583/pdf

Why would you compute a mean when the fluxes are in balance?

You need to read up on it from a reputable site. i'm not responsible for your self education or lack of.

Just think in terms of an annual natural flux to atmosphere of 550 Gt compared to an atmospheric inventory of say 820 Gt. if the natural fluxes were not in Balance, we'd be seeing 400ppm this year and 650 ppm the next.

Try any NASA site on climatology if you want to learn more. I'd rather deal with just one crusty old ignoramus at a time please.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #425 - Jun 16^th, 2015 at 1:49pm

What makes you think onlinewiley is not a good site? Peer reviewed science. It's just not paywalled.

'Technique on a Temperate Mire in Poland'

http://www.pjoes.com/pdf/21.3/Pol.J.Environ.Stud.Vol.21.No.3.643-658.pdf

Or

'Terrestrial biosphere flux studies are often process based, using bottom-up models. However, this requires assumptions about the physical processes involved and models vary dramatically in terms of complexity. Models agree at continental scales, as current atmospheric monitoring provides adequate constraints at a large scale, however on the scale of biomes, (e.g., grasslands, forests) the models do not agree on seasonality or flux.'

http://decadal.gsfc.nasa.gov/documents/12-30-08-ASCENDS_Workshop.pdf

Of course that's models and the first one I posted was measurements. To which should I defer?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 16^th, 2015 at 1:57pm by lee »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #426 - Jun 16^th, 2015 at 2:03pm

'John Wiley & Sons, Inc., also referred to as Wiley (NYSE: JW.A), is a global publishing company that specializes in academic publishing and markets its products to professionals and consumers, students and instructors in higher education, and researchers and practitioners in scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly fields. The company produces books, journals, and encyclopedias, in print and electronically, as well as online products and services,[3] training materials, and educational materials for undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education students.[4]'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wiley_%26_Sons

Just for you. JT

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #427 - Jun 16^th, 2015 at 3:57pm

Nothing wrong with the source. The problem is that you lack the basic knowledge of climatology that most high school kids have these days.

So when it comes to interpreting this kind of thing, you are just not understanding the basics.

It's ridiculous to regard a diurnal or a seasonal flux as an emission, but you just don't get that intuitively.

What I said in my last post clearly went over your head, otherwise you'd be embarrassed at giving that nonsense any credence.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #428 - Jun 16^th, 2015 at 4:09pm Jt, To which source are you referring? I've given so many. Isn't balance part of the basics? Isn't diurnal day/night?
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #429 - Jun 16^th, 2015 at 10:18pm

lee wrote on Jun 16^th, 2015 at 11:28am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 6:34pm:

Take an area of ocean. As it heats up, during the day, more CO2 is partitioned into the atmosphere. As it cools during the night (winters etc) it goes back into the sea.

Now Soren here ( can I call you Mr Genius as a mark of respect?) thinks it's ok to regard the day time flux as an emission and totally disregard the balancing night time flux.

Is it really in balance?

'Fields of daytime and night-time transfer velocity are computed using wind speed observations from QuikSCAT. These fields are then used to compute monthly mean fields of the daytime sea-air CO2 flux, FD and the night-time flux, FN.The mean of these, FDN gives the monthly mean flux including covariance terms brought around by diurnal variations. The covariance terms themselves are given as the difference between FDN and F, where F is the flux computed from the monthly mean data.'

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL020583/pdf

Why would you compute a mean when the fluxes are in balance?

All johns is saying is that co2 is less soluble at higher temperature to see how indirect your argument gets, which you have done!

You, sir, are Dr Strawman who fishes with red herring for bait Wink

The kids love you as does Bjorn Lomborg and the out of fashion real estate guys with the moustaches and stories about the seventies ... don't mention their kids of course because they all messed up on the crack and pleaded for a bailout to keep looking cool and stuff but ya know,... Bronny and the out of date crowd still like to party and do old school cool stuff like COUNT MORE COIN AND SHITE Roll Eyes

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #430 - Jun 16^th, 2015 at 10:21pm

lee wrote on Jun 16^th, 2015 at 4:09pm:

Jt, To which source are you referring? I've given so many.

Isn't balance part of the basics?

Isn't diurnal day/night?

lee can't accept formula-e is here because he voted for copper internet and that means the kids have already promised to let him die alone in the nursing home... bye bye Undecided

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #431 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 11:37am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 16^th, 2015 at 10:18pm: All johns is saying is that co2 is less soluble at higher temperature to see how indirect your argument gets, which you have done! No, John quite clearly refers to a 'balance'. ' and totally disregard the balancing night time flux. '
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #432 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 12:19pm

From the Royal Society-

'Speaking of the ‘hiatus’ in global warming that has been observed since the end of the 20th century, and the doubt that it has cast on climate change modelling – points which had been discussed at length at the Global Warming Policy Foundation event – Davies remarked:

“They had two guys whose job it was to go around and persuade everyone that we’re all trying the ruin the economy.

“We pinned them down on this hiatus… they were arguing that yes, there might have been a hiatus, but warming might be going into the ocean, or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked at what point would you begin to accept there had been no warming. If there is no warming for five years, or ten years?

“Finally they conceded they would wait fifty years.

“We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.'

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/16/exclusive-well-all-be-dead-before-cli...

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #433 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 12:42pm

lee wrote on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 12:19pm:

From the Royal Society-

'Speaking of the ‘hiatus’ in global warming that has been observed since the end of the 20th century, and the doubt that it has cast on climate change modelling – points which had been discussed at length at the Global Warming Policy Foundation event – Davies remarked:

“They had two guys whose job it was to go around and persuade everyone that we’re all trying the ruin the economy.

“We pinned them down on this hiatus… they were arguing that yes, there might have been a hiatus, but warming might be going into the ocean, or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked at what point would you begin to accept there had been no warming. If there is no warming for five years, or ten years?

“Finally they conceded they would wait fifty years.

“We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.'

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/16/exclusive-well-all-be-dead-before-cli...

that is gobsmacking.....I bet they wouldn't wait 50 seconds if one of their confected reports using tortured data was produced showing 0.01degree increase though...which no doubt will be rolling off the 'peer pal review' machine quite soon.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #434 - Jun 17^th, 2015 at 12:46pm It must be remembered AGW was proposed with less than 10 years of data. Does 80 years (50+30) mean that is how long to determine AGW?
Back to top	IP Logged