94% of Greenland has melted

One · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:24

Global warming was just a ruse to set 9/11 in motions. It was all thought-up about 20 years ago by elvis and JFK!

Hatter The Mad · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:25

Glaucus said:
no, now read what you have said and figures hes quoted. it rally isnt.

It rally was

Glaucus · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:26

Hatter The Mad said:
It rally was

it really hasn't.

how is stating atmospheric co2 and human emission co2 tell us anything about the balance?
it simply doesn't. Hes missing several other key numbers and the numbers he chooses to use, simply do not show his claim at all.

Go on then, using atmospheric and human co2 figures, show me how that tells us anything about the balance, how much co2 is being absorbed and the rise that relates to?
you cant.

Domi · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:27

It is worth for clarity pointing out that there are generally 3 groups in the global warming debate.

1 Those that recognise Global warming/climate change is happening and believe it is completely natural and man has nothing to do with it.

2 Those that recognise Global warming/climate change is happening and believe it is completely natural but man has greatly / or moderately accelerated the process.

3 Idiots.

StriderX · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:34

Boring frankly, we have survived ice ages and droughts, if anything can come out of this, it would be a stronger species.

/hurr.

In all seriousness, I just do not care any more, people are too slow to do anything about it if it was real and too dumb to notice if it wasn't.

Alps · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:47

The change in our weather due to the gulf stream has made a mess of my allotment this season, peas and potatoes rotted in the grond before reaching a useable growth. Abnormal climent affected the world's largest produicer of sweetcorn (USA) due to extreme heat. Though my rubarb did good,it's a hardy plant.

jak731 · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:52

Glaucus said:
i said it shows nothing. You're trying to state all that co2 will be added to the atmosphere. it simply wont.

I could have worded my first post better but I have not explicitly, nor do intend, to make that claim.

you need to know natural co2 emissions and you need to know global absorption rate, then you can show what you are trying to say and you will have a very different number.
#
for example

Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans

Click to expand...

The 43% remainder is still significant. Climate science is very complex, indeed here you are missing many factors too. Will the biosphere and oceans continue to absorb that amount? How will it affect them?

The carbon cycle does involve larger quantities than human emissions, but the carbon cycle deals with carbon in every form, not just CO2. It is not possible to do a back of the envelope calculation taking account of all sources and sinks of carbon, their interactions, limits and potential drastic changes, that's what scientific research and journals are for.

My original calculation is useful to me, it tells me that I should pay attention. If the result showed that it took human emissions over a thousand years to amount to 1% of the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere I would be far less interested in AGW for instance. You are free to draw your own conclusions.

Glaucus · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:59

jak731 said:
My original calculation is useful to me, it tells me that I should pay attention. If the result showed that it took human emissions over a thousand years to amount to 1% of the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere I would be far less interested in AGW for instance. You are free to draw your own conclusions.

you could have worded it much better, cant believe your still trying to defend these calculations, they simply do not tell us what you try to imply. just change them to the correct figures. My conclusion are in this thread, so don't go down that route. I'm not implying anything other than your calculations are useless in there current from, for what you are trying to point out. you are simply missing several important figures, which would them make them relevant. On there own they are useless for the point you are trying to make.

jordan282 · 2 Aug 2012 at 13:25

I am an oceanographer. We are ****ed

jak731 · 2 Aug 2012 at 13:27

Ok I have checked more thoroughly and I have made a mistake with one of the values. (I originally did the calculation in notepad a few months ago and didn't save the sources, I found them again today). The emissions due to oil figure I used is actually total emissions. This doesn't really change the conclusion though. So I will provide the values and sources of the values, please point out which ones are incorrect:

atmosphere mass

= 5x10^18kg = 5000 trillion tonnes (rounded for simplicity, standard practice for quick calculations)

by mass CO2 is 0.04% (pre industrial ~ 0.025%) (again rounded to 0.04% from 0.0395% for simplicity)

Therefore mass of CO2 currently in the atmosphere = 2x10^15kg = 2 trillion tonnes (this is simply multiplying 5000 trillion by 0.0004)

Human CO2 emissions, again rounded to 30billion instead of 29.888billion.

I don't like to use wiki as a source but they have taken the data straight from the UN (I checked a few values and they match exactly) and provided a total which the UN site doesn't bother with:

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid=

~ 30 billion tonnes/year = 3 trillion tonnes/century (hopefully this is obvious)

Also 3 trillion is 1.5 times 2 trillion.

I assume the following are the figures you want me to include also:

Values in gigatonnes per year, it shows some absorption but not complete, also 9 gigatonnes is short of the 30 the UN suggest.

Jimz · 2 Aug 2012 at 13:28

The end is near.

Mat · 2 Aug 2012 at 13:34

I don't understand why some people insist on arguing against climate change. As someone has already said, it is naiive and dangerous to assume that nothing is happening and humans are innocent.

Glaucus · 2 Aug 2012 at 13:36

jak731 said:
The emissions due to oil figure I used is actually total emissions. This doesn't really change the conclusion though. So I will provide the values and sources of the values, please point out which ones are incorrect:
.

what don't you get. i'm not arguing bout fag packet calculations. I'm arguing your using totally wrong numbers to come to your conclusion. the figures you original posted have nothing to do with the conclusion you came to. either your conclusion was wrong/you didn't type what you meant, or you thought those where the correct figures to use.

You cant compare man made emission and atmospheric co2 to come to any conclusion. if you changed second conclusion isnt supported by those figures. you say if it was 1% over a thousand years it would change your mind. what happens if that number was only 1% of natural co2 emission, or only 0.1% of co2 absorptions. it has nothing to do with the actual figures and everything to do with your calculations have no bearing on your conclusion.

to do it correctly, you work out co2 absorption, natural co2 and man made co2 and come to the conclusion that ~50% is not abso9rbed, that calculation is correct and would support what you originally said.

jak731 · 2 Aug 2012 at 13:59

I think it is relevant to put perspective on what's going on. I am not trying to publish a scientific paper based on this.

Glaucus · 2 Aug 2012 at 14:02

you don't need to publish a paper, where did I say that. you do how ever need to use relevant calculations for your assumption/conclusion.

no point stating a random calculation and saying, look it supports my theory.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 2 Aug 2012 at 14:03

Hatter The Mad said:
You see to be grossly underestimating how much ice sits above sea level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/2005-02-03-all-about-ice_x.htm

Plus the fact he doesn't drink salt water :rolleyes:

Archimedes' principle is not relevant here because salty sea-water and fresh water glacier's have different density's, however a lot of armchair experts here seemed to be completely ignorant of that fact when I pointed it out in another thread!

Plus a massive lol to all the 'experts' here that think climate change is a big scam/lie, you do realise that you're now disagreeing with pretty much all the REAL experts in the field??
But what do you expect from people that get their scientific information from quality papers like 'The Daily Mail'/ 'The Sun' ,,, etc

GravyMonster · 2 Aug 2012 at 14:09

You mean all the REAL experts who's funding and livelihood depends on years of climate change research?

Hatter The Mad · 2 Aug 2012 at 14:10

Spunkey said:
You mean all the REAL experts who's funding and livelihood depends on years of climate change research?

There is a degree of intellectual fascism that I hate, yeah, but it doesn't mean they're inventing ****.

jak731 · 2 Aug 2012 at 14:18

Glaucus said:
you don't need to publish a paper, where did I say that. you do how ever need to use relevant calculations for your assumption/conclusion.

no point stating a random calculation and saying, look it supports my theory.

I have made a calculation which shows that current human emissions of CO2 amount to the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere in just 66 years (42 years for the pre industrial quantity). My conclusion from this simple result is that human emissions are not insignificant and that care should be taken moving forward. I fail to see where my thought process has left contact with reality.

Glaucus · 2 Aug 2012 at 14:23

I've explained why several times.
you failed to take in the most important factor factor co2 absorption. without it, the figures mean nothing
And it's not removing you from reality. It's simply using the wrong calculation to show your point. Nothing more. Haven't made any stance other than that ~50% quote.