CO2 emissions question
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Why bother? CO2 is not a poison or polluter. Without it, plants and humans
>will die. I grow tomatoes in an atmosphere of around 1000 ppm CO2 and
>they love it! We breathe out CO2 at around 40,000 ppm. Mankind's 3% CO2
>contribution affects Mother Nature's 97%? Really?
Do the numbers yourself...
Not sure where you get your 3% from but CO2 levels have risen from 315ppm in 1960 to around 360ppm today (Source http://science.nefferport.com/image008.jpg) That suggests at least 100 x (360-315)/315 = 14% could be man made.
Without the atmosphere earth would be some 30-32C colder than it is (source Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Water vapour accounts for 36-70% of that and CO2 from all sources is believed to account for between 9% and 26%. Huge uncertainty I'm afraid but lets assume CO2 accounts for 17% (average of 9-26).
So without any CO2 the earth would be 0.17 x 31C = 5.3C colder. Mans contribution is 14% of that or 0.14 x 5.3C = 0.7C
That appears to agree remarkably well with what the temperature record suggests. (Source http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...hs/myth6_1.gif)
By the way that's the first time I've done that calculation. I didn't work backwards from the answer honest.
>will die. I grow tomatoes in an atmosphere of around 1000 ppm CO2 and
>they love it! We breathe out CO2 at around 40,000 ppm. Mankind's 3% CO2
>contribution affects Mother Nature's 97%? Really?
Do the numbers yourself...
Not sure where you get your 3% from but CO2 levels have risen from 315ppm in 1960 to around 360ppm today (Source http://science.nefferport.com/image008.jpg) That suggests at least 100 x (360-315)/315 = 14% could be man made.
Without the atmosphere earth would be some 30-32C colder than it is (source Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Water vapour accounts for 36-70% of that and CO2 from all sources is believed to account for between 9% and 26%. Huge uncertainty I'm afraid but lets assume CO2 accounts for 17% (average of 9-26).
So without any CO2 the earth would be 0.17 x 31C = 5.3C colder. Mans contribution is 14% of that or 0.14 x 5.3C = 0.7C
That appears to agree remarkably well with what the temperature record suggests. (Source http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...hs/myth6_1.gif)
By the way that's the first time I've done that calculation. I didn't work backwards from the answer honest.
Last edited by cwatters; 30th Sep 2009 at 07:13.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C02 isn't just "going up", in historic terms it's exploding...
>....and yet, the planet cools...
Due to El Niño...
Met Office: Myth 2: Drop in monthly global temperature means global warming has stopped
Quote: In 2007-2008 the global climate was influenced by the cold phase of this oscillation, known as La Niña. The La Niña began to develop in early 2007, having a significant cooling effect on the global average temperature. Despite this, 2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average.
The La Niña strengthened further during early 2008 and became the strongest since 1988/89, significantly contributing to a lower January temperature in 2008, compared to recent years. In addition, global average temperature was influenced by very cold land temperatures in parts of the northern hemisphere and extensive snow cover.
January 2008 may have seem particularly cold compared to January 2007 - the warmest January on record and largely due to the warming phenomenon El Niño - but this merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate.
In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind.
End Quote.
If you were talking about the longer period of cooling read this..
The Ups and Downs of Global Warming | wltx.com
>....and yet, the planet cools...
Due to El Niño...
Met Office: Myth 2: Drop in monthly global temperature means global warming has stopped
Quote: In 2007-2008 the global climate was influenced by the cold phase of this oscillation, known as La Niña. The La Niña began to develop in early 2007, having a significant cooling effect on the global average temperature. Despite this, 2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average.
The La Niña strengthened further during early 2008 and became the strongest since 1988/89, significantly contributing to a lower January temperature in 2008, compared to recent years. In addition, global average temperature was influenced by very cold land temperatures in parts of the northern hemisphere and extensive snow cover.
January 2008 may have seem particularly cold compared to January 2007 - the warmest January on record and largely due to the warming phenomenon El Niño - but this merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate.
In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind.
End Quote.
If you were talking about the longer period of cooling read this..
The Ups and Downs of Global Warming | wltx.com
Last edited by cwatters; 30th Sep 2009 at 17:26.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems more believable......
1 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.
2 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!
3 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.
Also I would like to know why the CO2 measurements are made near an active volcano.
I also find it hard to believe the CO2 levels are similar worldwide?
1 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.
2 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!
3 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.
Also I would like to know why the CO2 measurements are made near an active volcano.
I also find it hard to believe the CO2 levels are similar worldwide?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who to believe?
If this forum reaches a concensus on the validity of human influence on climate change then it would probably be the first anywhere! All sides can put out the usual suspects as evidence both ways as witness the Myth/Fact posting previously and the sums on the effect of CO2 earlier. You only get the truth as it suits someones point of view or vested interest and nothing seems to give such entrenched opinions. For what it's worth I have followed (as best I can) the topic in New Scientist for some time and whilst they may of course have a vested interest (not sure why though) the story does seem that the concensus of most scientists is that climate change is happening and human intervention is having an effect.
One thing I do take issue with though is this "Save the Planet" message from the more extreme tree huggers; the planet will be fine without us and frequently does it's best to get rid of us in big numbers!
One thing I do take issue with though is this "Save the Planet" message from the more extreme tree huggers; the planet will be fine without us and frequently does it's best to get rid of us in big numbers!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems more believable......
1 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.
2 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!
FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!
We should tax emissions from buildings more.
3 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise!
FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise!
What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.
Nor is methane ignored. Recent examples suggest warming has already triggered the release of methane.. Warming Of Arctic Current Over 30 Years Triggers Release Of Methane Gas
Also I would like to know why the CO2 measurements are made near an active volcano.
Mauna Loa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We can be reasonably sure the data from Mauna Loa is ok because it shows clear seasonal C02 cycles whereas emissions from the volcano itself presumably aren't seasonal.
I also find it hard to believe the CO2 levels are similar worldwide?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Scientist has an interesting article this week. It shows how temperatures around the world would change IF the world warmed by 4C on average whatever the cause.
Basically air temperatures over land would warm by much more than air temperatures over the sea. For example Australia would warm by 6C and North America by 7-10C. Parts of Russia and Africa by 15C. By contrast the southern pacific and would warm by only 1C.
The article begins..
"By 2055, climate change is likely to have warmed the world by a dangerous 4C unless we stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere the way we do now" ... "Even if we are lucky, we we are still likely to hit 4C by 2070."
Basically air temperatures over land would warm by much more than air temperatures over the sea. For example Australia would warm by 6C and North America by 7-10C. Parts of Russia and Africa by 15C. By contrast the southern pacific and would warm by only 1C.
The article begins..
"By 2055, climate change is likely to have warmed the world by a dangerous 4C unless we stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere the way we do now" ... "Even if we are lucky, we we are still likely to hit 4C by 2070."
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
France won't be wanting EU money to fight forrest fires then :-)
peopleandplanet.net > forests > features > mediterranean forests are a burning issue
peopleandplanet.net > forests > features > mediterranean forests are a burning issue
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
France won't be wanting EU money to fight forrest fires then :-)
peopleandplanet.net > forests > features > mediterranean forests are a burning issue
peopleandplanet.net > forests > features > mediterranean forests are a burning issue
CJ
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed It Will
Well a 4C increase in global average means about 6C for france. Anyone not think that will increase the number of forrest fires?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beijing
I wonder how much unneccessary CO2 is generated by the olympics: all that building, training and then attending. Can I have my money back ?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcbmack
Czech yur speling. You meen Solar 'Insulation' surely. 'Insolation' is what a cobbler duz wen he maeks shoos.
yur wilcom
Your solution to Global warming is elegant. We shall have Olympics year round everywhere. (Al Gore will be most upset, however)
Czech yur speling. You meen Solar 'Insulation' surely. 'Insolation' is what a cobbler duz wen he maeks shoos.
yur wilcom
Your solution to Global warming is elegant. We shall have Olympics year round everywhere. (Al Gore will be most upset, however)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cwatters
You use a y that carries 1,000 years in a quarter of an inch. The 1/8 inch where the CO2 spike resides shows a huge uptick, granted, but unimpinged by the last 150 years of the IR. Que paso?
Also, earlier you show a 45ppm increase over the last 50 years. At 3% manmade, that is a total ACO2+ of 1.35 ppm. In fifty years? It works out to .0270 ppm/year? Please do check my math.
You use a y that carries 1,000 years in a quarter of an inch. The 1/8 inch where the CO2 spike resides shows a huge uptick, granted, but unimpinged by the last 150 years of the IR. Que paso?
Also, earlier you show a 45ppm increase over the last 50 years. At 3% manmade, that is a total ACO2+ of 1.35 ppm. In fifty years? It works out to .0270 ppm/year? Please do check my math.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insolation
jcbmack
Czech yur speling. You meen Solar 'Insulation' surely. 'Insolation' is what a cobbler duz wen he maeks shoos.
yur wilcom
Your solution to Global warming is elegant. We shall have Olympics year round everywhere. (Al Gore will be most upset, however)
Czech yur speling. You meen Solar 'Insulation' surely. 'Insolation' is what a cobbler duz wen he maeks shoos.
yur wilcom
Your solution to Global warming is elegant. We shall have Olympics year round everywhere. (Al Gore will be most upset, however)
"The amount of electromagnetic energy (solar radiation) incident on the surface of the earth. Basically that means how much sunlight is shining down on us."http://www.apricus.com/html/solar_collector_insolation.htm
SOLAR INSOLATION
"Insolation (Incoming Solar Radiation) is the amount of solar radiation incident on any surface – for our purposes, we will be comparing insolation levels on the surface of the Earth. The amount of insolation received at the surface of the Earth is controlled by the angle of the sun, the state of the atmosphere, altitude, and geographic location."--http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/solar-insolation-levels/
Also read: RealClimate: Global Dimming II
The solution to the issue is complex.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cwatters
Mauna Loa site indexes local vocano emissions? You are kidding, yes?
Google is your friend, Loihi
Please do address my math re: CO2 (man made) percentage enhancements?
jcbmack
I had forgotten this was tech log when I posted a cryptic attempt at humour. I see you missed it, so I shant apologize.
I gave up Real climate when I found they were playing with science re: Hockey Stick, Mann et al. I gave up Climate audit when they became fixated on the Stick, and avoided Bristlecone proxies, and deleted my attempts to steer them to the problems with conifer program proxies for the obvious reasons.
Insolation in toto is a nice simple starting place. Please do try to steer the howling chimps to the Sun and its vagaries. Sunspots? Also see what you think of cwatters graph re: uptick conformity with 350 years missing of the last millenium. Good chap.
Cheers, Will
Mauna Loa site indexes local vocano emissions? You are kidding, yes?
Google is your friend, Loihi
Please do address my math re: CO2 (man made) percentage enhancements?
jcbmack
I had forgotten this was tech log when I posted a cryptic attempt at humour. I see you missed it, so I shant apologize.
I gave up Real climate when I found they were playing with science re: Hockey Stick, Mann et al. I gave up Climate audit when they became fixated on the Stick, and avoided Bristlecone proxies, and deleted my attempts to steer them to the problems with conifer program proxies for the obvious reasons.
Insolation in toto is a nice simple starting place. Please do try to steer the howling chimps to the Sun and its vagaries. Sunspots? Also see what you think of cwatters graph re: uptick conformity with 350 years missing of the last millenium. Good chap.
Cheers, Will
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> earlier you show a 45ppm increase over the last 50 years. At 3% manmade,
> that is a total ACO2+ of 1.35 ppm. In fifty years? It works out to .0270
> ppm/year? Please do check my math.
Who says only 3% of the increase is man made?
Lets say over 50 years 1 ton of natural C02 and 0.03 tons of man made C02 were released (eg 3%). In the past nature was roughly in balance so roughly 1 ton was also absorbed in that time. That means 100% of the increaseis man made even if man was only responsible for 3% of the release.
> that is a total ACO2+ of 1.35 ppm. In fifty years? It works out to .0270
> ppm/year? Please do check my math.
Who says only 3% of the increase is man made?
Lets say over 50 years 1 ton of natural C02 and 0.03 tons of man made C02 were released (eg 3%). In the past nature was roughly in balance so roughly 1 ton was also absorbed in that time. That means 100% of the increaseis man made even if man was only responsible for 3% of the release.