Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2014 - 09:21pm PT
|
Less funny, this exercise from a link to a page referenced by Base's original link:
Exercise
The world' s 1992 population of 5.4 billion people placed approximately 6 billion tons of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere annually. It is expected that this alteration of atmospheric composition will lead to a warming of the global climate. Annual output of carbon dioxide per person on average is 1.11 billion tons. (Remember, averaging lumps the United States with countries like Nepal and Mali, countries with vastly different contributions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.)
What would be the total amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere annually at current per capita production levels if
a. world population stabilizes at 10 billion, an optimistic view;
b. world population stabilizes at 11.6 billion, which current United Nations projections include as a reasonable possibility; and
c. world population stabilizes at 14 billion, which some analysts fear is most likely of all.
By how much would per capita consumption of carbon dioxide have to be reduced to keep total production at 6 billion tons annually under each of the three population scenarios above?
What would per capita production of carbon dioxide have to be under each population scenario in order to halve annual global emissions?
Describe the results of your calculations verbally and present your numbers in tabular form.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 12:14am PT
|
No I cannot tell a lie Werner. If im chopping down Nortons cherry tree I must apologize. Working on something now, will get back to you wackos later.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 07:41am PT
|
As predicted historic low in solar activity combined with
the tremendous succession of dusty volcanic eruptions are hazing
the atmosphere, making the 2013-14 winter colder than usual.
Colder than usual in your backyard or globally? I believe that this so far have been a quite warm winter globally. Here is some data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2014-0-29-deg-c/
I guess that the low solar activity and vulcanic eruptions only make a difference in north america.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 10:20am PT
|
If im chopping down Nortons cherry tree I must apologize.
do it then
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 10:38am PT
|
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 10:56am PT
|
Climate is loosely defined as long term trends. I've seen the term of 30 years tossed about.
Stop being dufus's and tossing out weather events, such as 5 year droughts, unless they seem to be a long term trend.
Even Al Gore knows that Katrina wasn't due to GW.
Katrina wasn't even the worst tropical mesoscale system of a three year period. Probably even that year. It just happened to take the worst possible path.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 11:26am PT
|
A man with no sense of humor is truly stupid.
Sketch nails it.
Bruce Almighty fails again as usual .....
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 11:29am PT
|
Werner, when you post on this thread it just makes Napoleon's nose stinkier.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 11:37am PT
|
Werner? Were you dropped on your head as a young feller? Or maybe it's the lack of oxygen reaching yer brain from decades of huffing them ciggies?
Just wondering.
Yer pal,
Willie Makeit
xoxo
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 11:53am PT
|
You're an idiot nutcase FortMentäl.
I've said long before the climate change issues have come up in recent years that mankind is the cause of climate change.
I've said climate change is due to mankind even before the advent of the internet made it possible to discuss it as we see in this thread now.
You're just another mental speculator projecting your hopeful run away mind onto whomever you decide .....
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 12:06pm PT
|
As fascinating as this 'debate' is I gotta go build a boat.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Norton, are you out there? I've been busy the last couple days with helping my son's in the mad rush of paper work and finishing touches for two home closings. Sorry for the delay, but let's now talk about your cherry tree. First bring up the paper I linked the other day, and again linked below. I presented this to Base as an example of a non AGW paper, I say this because it reports the facts of their experiment without delving into the political side of the debate with buzzwords like consistent with AGW prominently displayed. Besides validating portions of my earlier points 1 and 2 about CO2 residency time and sources of natural CO2, it's proportions, and bias caused by positioning of the main observatory, it also includes errors in data, one of which I will explain. Good science in this modern age delivers new information in a clear concise manner with redundancy of explanation via the text, graphics, and the validating mathematics, which this does in a manner that the likes of me and you can easily understand even if we cant perform the validating math.
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/papers/froelicher13gbc.pdf
This paper has been divided into discrete sections ,contained inside of small italics at the head of each section and numbered from one- the abstract, to 51- the references. I will reference the relevant number and include the relevant quotes indentifying the data error and the relevant graphic figures confirming it.
[1] " Our results highlights the importance of considering the role of natural variability in the carbon cycle for interpretation of observations and for data-model intercomparison". This tips you off there is something in the results of the model runs used that don't completely agree with observations, therefore an error in data. But where?
[13] "The temperature decrease in the standard is consistent with observation based estimate ( Thompson et al. 2009), whereas the global mean CO2 decrease at the peak underestimates the observation-based estimate by about 19%". There you go Norton, the model runs don't agree with observational data. Now is that because the data inputs into the models are wrong in respect to this, or is the observational data itself is in error. To begin with I refer you to [1] above. But let's delve further.
Figure 2b. Compare the simulated run, in blue, which represents the time of year (summer) and El Nino condition present during the actual Pinatubo eruption with the actual observations represented by a dotted line.
Figure 6a and b. a) shows the easier to measure global land uptake of carbon is relatively close to that simulated but b) shows the global ocean uptake varies considerably from the simulations.
Figure 7b and e. a) shows the large decrease relative to simulations again and b) is very interesting in that it shows the ratio of increase of atmospheric CO2 versus emissions (presumably the anthro emissions) decrease quite a bit from simulations-but that is part of another story that fits into my point 1 and 2.
[30] "Our analysis suggests that the decadal-scale volcanic effects are underestimated in recent studies describing airborne fraction trends". There you go again reference to underestimation, or better known errors in data.
There's more references to the error in the paper Norton,but ill leave it you to find for yourself. Now apologize to me for lying about me telling a lie, and quit slobbering all over yourself like the other idiots that were gleeful I brought up a paper about modeling experiments and convinced I had no idea of what I was talking about. If you have the time look at the other papers I referenced to find errors (both made by the authors and/or mentioned by skeptics), they are in there and maybe look at the paper below for some real doozies.
http://www.pnas.org/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
and convinced I had no idea of what I was talking about.
And your posts with those quoted sections is supposed to show that you know what you talk about? I doubt that you actually understand the meaning of the sections that you quoted. Why don't you with your own words explain the meaning of the quotes in detail?
Do your for example believe that scientist think that their models are 100% true? Do you believe that it is that extremely important that scientist get to slightly different results and that they sometimes are wrong in some details?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
[1] " Our results highlights the importance of considering the role of natural variability in the carbon cycle for interpretation of observations and for data-model intercomparison". This tips you off there is something in the results of the model runs used that don't completely agree with observations, therefore an error in data. But where?
Why should an incompletnec of an model imply an error in data? What do you mean with data in this case?
[13] "The temperature decrease in the standard is consistent with observation based estimate ( Thompson et al. 2009), whereas the global mean CO2 decrease at the peak underestimates the observation-based estimate by about 19%". There you go Norton, the model runs don't agree with observational data. Now is that because the data inputs into the models are wrong in respect to this, or is the observational data itself is in error. To begin with I refer you to [1] above. But let's delve further.
I don't know what they mean with the quoted section but you make the same strange comment as above. The most likely explanation is a incomplete model and not error in the data.
Figure 7b and e. a) shows the large decrease relative to simulations again and b) is very interesting in that it shows the ratio of increase of atmospheric CO2 versus emissions (presumably the anthro emissions) decrease quite a bit from simulations-but that is part of another story that fits into my point 1 and 2.
I don't understand what you see in those figures. Do you understand that what they do in the article is to subtract the effect of vulcanism in the data such that the other components in the CO2 signal appear better? The simulations and data is not supposed to be equal in those figures.
[30] "Our analysis suggests that the decadal-scale volcanic effects are underestimated in recent studies describing airborne fraction trends". There you go again reference to underestimation, or better known errors in data.
What do you mean with errors in data? Do you know what a model is? Do you know what data is?
It is kind of strange to see how critical you seems to be when trying to read some research but are completely non critical when trying to read research about the solar influence on the climate.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Besides validating portions of my earlier points 1 and 2 about CO2 residency time and sources of natural CO2, it's proportions, and bias caused by positioning of the main observatory,
Really? please show those sections. To me it seems like they say that 100% of the CO2 concentration above the old mean at about 300 ppm is due to human activity and that about 45% of the CO2 from fossil fuels that is released every year end up in the atmosphere.
I neither find were they discuss any bias of the position of mauna loa.
I didn't believe that you thought that that were the case.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
I don't even understand if Rick likes the paper. If he thinks that the results in the paper are true or not. He seems complain about the models that is used in the paper.
I guess his source for the paper is
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2013/02/new-paper-finds-natural-variability.html
because it seems to be the only blog discussing the paper. The reason for the low interest is probably that the blog post make a clearly incorrect conclusion, as is explained in comment 2, and I doubt that the interest of the results in the actual paper are that interesting for the "skeptics".
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Quit slobbering idiots. Those are my own words from my own examination and interpretation. I kept my focus tight, on one item. Prove from a reading of the paper I am wrong-you can't. Norton, I want an apology. I have lots of work today so ill check back this evening.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!