dennis@home wrote in
I found this, if it's of any use:
"> I was working on the photosynthesis of plants (CO2 uptake variation in
SORRY, FOR 300PPM READ 330PPM
Its an interesting graph but unfortunately like virtually all the historic measurements its surface CO2 and surface CO2 doesn't cause greenhouse effects anyway. Its the best we can get though, so high level CO2 will have to be estimated from it. Anyone seen any high level CO2 figures from balloons or such to see if they match the surface readings at all?
Donwill wrote in
annual increase of around 0.4% - I'm sure that my error will be pointed out soon :)
I hope this will be my last posting on the subject, at least for a while. I have finished arguing with Dennis the Menace but would like to remind any readers still with us of the more serious of Dennis' lies and say a bit more on his latest. Two cast iron copper bottomed lies and support for Singers Big Lie. If anyone other than Dennis wants to pick holes in what I write I will endeavour to answer their concerns (kill file permitting).
The first lie is the correlation lie:
"So you agree that there is no correlation then as in the data the rise always precedes the CO2 rise (for the last 150 years anyway)."
This has already been done to death and I don't propose to waste any more time on it.
The second lie is the methane lie:
"But CO2 isn't an effective greenhouse gas compared to the other stuff in the atmosphere. Methane and water are magnitudes better at it and there is more of them too. Why do the global warming fanatics concentrate on CO2 when there are other far larger influences?"
"Rubbish, methane currently holds in more heat than CO2"
Dennis has resisted providing any figures to back up his lies. Understandable I suppose. Given the choice would any turkey vote for Xmas.
There is a lot of information floating about the Internet on atmospheric methane and the greenhouse effect, some of it contradictory.
Actual concentrations don't seem to be in dispute - CO2, 383 ppmv, CH4,
1.745 ppmv, to quote one source. A ratio in round figures of 220 to 1. The effectiveness of CH4 as a greenhouse gas vis-a-vis CO2 is more uncertain. There are a host of claims in the range 20 - 25 and a few much higher (70ish). But these are comparisons by weight, not by volume. If I recall the atomic weights correctly the ratio by weight between the 2 compounds is 2.56 which would reduce the effectiveness range down to 8 - 10.The author of the Wikipedia article maybe muddies the water still further by quoting a huge range for each greenhouse gas depending on whether it is viewed in isolation or in combination but I can't reconcile his figures with the range above . FWIW the figures quoted are:
Water Vapour 36 - 70% CO2 9 - 26% CH4 4 - 9% O3 3 - 7%
The same article also claims that the greenhouse effect results in the Earth being 33 degrees C warmer than it otherwise would be. A figure I previously misremembered from a different source as -33C.
I can find absolutely no justification for Dennis' lies anywhere.
The third lie, Singers Big Lie, is more insidious. It is a misrepresentation of facts that could well be true (although his water vapour and CO2 figures are way out of line with the ones above). Unlike the author of the Wikipedia article Singer has no problem reducing every element to its precise percentage. I have had some trouble tracking Singers figures down again as I forgot to bookmark the site when I came across it last evening
Based on concentrations Percent of Total Percent of Total (ppb) adjusted for heat --adjusted for Retention characteristics water vapor
Water vapor ----- 95.000% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618% Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360% Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950% CFC's 1.432% 0.072% (and other misc. gases) Total 100.000% 100.000%
The preciseness of the percentages is obviously absurd but Singers comparison between CO2 and CH4 above is about 10 to 1 which ties in with the 20 - 25 range by weight referred to above.
There is a further table in which the manmade concentrations are reduced to an insignificant 0.28%. So are we all doomed? Looks that way doesn't it. On the face of it there is bugger all we can do about the water vapour in the atmosphere but that is where the Big Lie comes in.
Water vapour in the atmosphere is self limiting in that it will all too readily turn to rain. The actual amount is to a very large extent determined by the temperature (more positive feedback, but transient unlike CO2 expelled from the oceans) but it is essentially a passive effect driven by heat. If we believe Singers interpretation scrub all the real greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and we would still have
95% of the greenhouse effect left. Taking 33 degrees C as the current greenhouse effect a 5% reduction would be only 1.65 degrees C. Still a massive change in global averages but one I am sure most of mankind would survive.If the atmosphere was uniformly hot then the 95% might hold for a while but there are wide fluctuations in atmospheric temperatures in any region outside the arctic regions in the course of a single 24 hour period and without any of the real greenhouse gases around to drive the temperature back to it former heights the overall temperature will (if other factors are not at work) sink to that supported by water vapour alone, not in a warm atmosphere, but in a very cold one and that would depend on how much water vapour is present in very cold air. On its own the water vapour can't pull the temperature back up by its own bootlaces to the level that the 95% implies, nor anywhere near it.
The most obvious other factor that would be at work would be a reduction in cloud cover but I don't even want to speculate on what effect that would have other than to say that the increased incident radiation reaching the Earth's surface during the day has to be balanced against the increased outward radiation during day night.
And where do I really stand on the basic question of manmade global warming? Actually I am not a strong supporter, that is just another of Dennis' lies. I am still sitting on the fence, although not as firmly as before.
I have a great deal of trouble in accepting that the 3% reported share of CO2 output attributable to mankind could have such a big effect on an otherwise stable system that has much greater annual variations within it. One of the items that has changed my recent thinking is the way the oceans behave as a CO2 sink. Until fairly recently I had casually thought that gas would be more soluble in water the warmer it was, just as solids are.
I do not have a closed mind and I am always open to rational argument. What I can't abide is people who can't accept they are wrong and lie and misrepresent in their attempts to maintain their bogus position.
A a percentage of the existing CO2, or the whole atmosphere?
">>>> As a little contribution to the discussion, I thought this was quite
I'm not sure, but probably your maths were correct, however, the source quoted an average yearly increase as 1.4 ppm (in the trends section), I tend to like to express it in per cent rather than per million as it's a figure that most people are used to evaluating, hence the 0.00014% that I quoted. Don
Ok, a 19.4% increase in CO2 since 1959.
Has the temperature gone up by 19.4% since then? To account for it's generation?
Is it conceivable that all the coal oil and gas burnt since 1959 would NOT have ended up stuck in the atmosphere for a rather long time?
At what other period in prehistory, has a signifcant fraction of stored carbon been nburnt to release CO2?
If temperature rises, vegetation changes..and so will CO2. Is it safe to assume that the effect of an unprecedented event - the burning of large fractions of global carbon, in the last 300 years,can be modelled using historical data over which such an event has never before occurred?
Is it conceivably possible that burning all this stuff wont affect climate in the slightest?
Any sane rational person can see ten times MORE flaws in Dennis' arguments than in the standard climate change model.
Its the same argument the creationists use..since science cant *prove* anything for *sure*, ever, science has no more validity than any other explanation of anything.
You have already been given access to the Mauna Loa figures. That IS high altitude.
Thats why it's of greater significance.
In the end my position is that it really doesn't matter that much for two reasons:
It is politically economically and socially impossible o halt CO2 emissions to sthe sorts of levels that would allow atmospheric CO2 to subside in the next few decades. Arguably all the work done to stop sulphur and soot pollution in the 50's 60's nd 70's has in fact made things worse, by reducing cloud/smog cover..
We are running out of easily exploitable oil, and to an extent coal anyway. The output of a few million yeas of biofuel photosyntheis back in the carboniferous era, has been used up.
So we are heading into a fossil fuel crisis anyway - and one that cannot be engineered around. Not with any renewable sources anyway.
Whatever the reasons, we are faced with two pretty established FACTS
- its getting warmer
- we are running out of traditional energy sources and renewables have
*no chance* to take up the slack.What irks me MOST about the likes of Dennis, is that they would try to turn 'its *possible* that global warming is not our fault' into 'global warming isn't our fault, and therefore we don't need to do anything about it'
This is ostrich on a grand scale IMHO. And shows a total lack of responsibility towards the fellow man.
The mere fact of global warning is worrying enough. the PACE of it is even more bothersome, and the most terrifying thing is the possibility of localised positive feedback in some climatic areas..the methane hydrate issue..the possible effects on e.g. the gulf stream..the effects of loss of a significant percentage of food growing areas under a sea level rise..
There are some positives. We can now grow grapes..there is a likelihood that London will vanish under the waves by 2080..along with most of Holland and the Fens..and plenty of other places no one really likes..;-)
Donwill wrote in
I'm fairly sure (note the growing confidence that will surely presage a blunder) that an increase of 1.4 ppm on a base of 315 ppm is an increase of
0.44%The message from "PeterMcC" contains these words:
Not an error as such.
Donwill's original figure is potentially confusing as the percentage can be read either as applying to the atmosphere as a whole or just to the increase of the CO2 element.
Agreed, however,I believe that a reduction in world population is the only answer, when will people face up to this FACT and at least discuss it. If we do not cull ourselves (like we do to other species when we think they are doing harm), then the planet with all of i'ts negative feed back mechanisms will do it for us. The planet will still be here with it's millions of species long after the human race has perished.
And not just coal and oil, ALL of the Earth's resources, we shall be fighting each other for them.
It has to be neuclear and run the world on electricity, we don't have a choice.
Let's stick to known facts, there's enough problems with those, without speculating about possibles.
I'll drink to that :-) Don
19.4% of a very small amount is still quite small. Approx 0.0316% --- 0.0377%
As a start, do we know that the effect on net radiation is linearly related to CO2 concentration??
I'm sure it will to some extent, However I'm a believer in negative feedback, I believe it exists, If it didn't the planet would have died eons ago, please remember the planet has already been through a carboniferous period, and it doesn't give a damn if there are humans on it or not. Don
It's not my figure (he hastens to add :-)) it's what was published. When I was measuring CO2 in air (for plants) it was, and still is as far as I am aware expressed as a pecentage of the atmosphere. (concentration). The units used were PPMv or %
The message from "Donwill" contains these words:
Yes I know, I followed the link.
It is just that from the POV of someone on the outside a percentage increase is at least as likely to be taken as a percentage of the highlighted component as of the volume as a whole. What I said above "Not an error as such" is equally valid for either way of looking at things.
Answer the volcanoes question later on and then tell us where the CO2 released went?
Can it be assumed that it will lead to GW? Is it safe to make most of the un-developed suffer because there might be GW? Are more people suffering because of GW or the "cure" for GW?
Did CO2 released from volcanoes like Krakatoa and Vesuvius make significant long term changes to the climate? They released more CO2 than burning fuels does.
Is it the removal of rain forests causing GW rather than the CO2 released from burning fuel? Are we tackling the wrong problem?
What flaws? I have quoted data. Are you saying the data is wrong? If so, show where.
You have the opportunity to point out the errors in the data if you wish.
No it isn't. Try reading what is posted.
"the top of four 7-m towers and one 27-m tower"
That is ground level!
Try find one at 150,000m and I may take you seriously.
So now you decide to post some data.. which you then call lies..
If its lies where is your true data that you use to prove its lies?
Anyway now to debunk what you said..
Any greenhouse effect doesn't depend on what happens in the troposphere, that is much too low to have a significant effect. So now we know your assertion about rain is wrong as it doesn't rain where it matters.
Then of course you dismiss water vapour entirely just because it doesn't fit with you ideas.. even though there is lots of evidence that water vapour is a greenhouse gas and does account for 95%. Would you like to post your evidence you used to discount the water vapour?
Then of course there is the Methane issue.. where I am correct if you include water vapour and you are if you ignore facts.
As for correlation.. you accuse me of lying, I accuse you of not understanding what was said and then trying to score points from it. You say there is a correlation between CO2 rises and temp rises.. I say its between temp rises and CO2 rises.
I hope that was your last post as you are as boring as hell and wrong with it.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.