Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
If it works for you. Do you have any opinions about the possibility of ETs visiting Earth?
Does it not work for you? Does it not look like a cyclical trend to you? Do the assumptions of the ice core analysts not seem a little faulty?
I believe it is more likely than not that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I also believe (as a matter of statistical probability) that it is more likely than not that there is a life form of higher intelligence than humans out there somewhere. The form of these intelligent beings or their ability to travel to the Earth are good questions.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
Does it not work for you? Does it not look like a cyclical trend to you? Do the assumptions of the ice core analysts not seem a little faulty?
I believe it is more likely than not that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I also believe (as a matter of statistical probability) that it is more likely than not that there is a life form of higher intelligence than humans out there somewhere. The form of these intelligent beings or their ability to travel to the Earth are good questions.
No matter what one thinks about the ice cores, one hs to explain what happens to the 6+ billion tons of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere every year by the burning of fossil fuels.
As far as ETs are concerned, they are out there, just don't expect to meet any.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
No matter what one thinks about the ice cores, one hs to explain what happens to the 6+ billion tons of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere every year by the burning of fossil fuels.
A reasonable person with a basic understanding of Fick's Laws of Diffusion would think that this would increase the rate that CO2 is redeposited into the earth.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
A reasonable person with a basic understanding of Fick's Laws of Diffusion would think that this would increase the rate that CO2 is redeposited into the earth.
Well, 45% of the CO2 created by burning fossil fuels stays in the atmosphere. The other 55% goes into the ocean and biomass carbon sinks. Does that jive with your numbers?
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Well, 45% of the CO2 created by burning fossil fuels stays in the atmosphere. The other 55% goes into the ocean and biomass carbon sinks. Does that jive with your numbers?
If so, the same ratio probably applies to the CO2 you exhale.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
If so, the same ratio probably applies to the CO2 you exhale.
Probably since the earth's population is increasing. But it is not a significant factor in AGW.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Probably since the earth's population is increasing. But it is not a significant factor in AGW.
I heard that our population increases were roughly balanced by killing the elephants.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Probably since the earth's population is increasing. But it is not a significant factor in AGW.
And the burning of fossil fuels is?
I guess by definition many most exclude respriration as a category of "anthropogenic CO2." So your statement is technically correct. But I assume you are saying that the human respiration is not significant to GW but burning of fossil fuels is.
I believe the numbers for Total annual CO2 production looks like this:
"Natural"
- Animal respiration (38% Total Production)
- Oceans (57% Total Production)
"Anthropogenic"
- Fossil fuels +Cement (3.5% Total Production)
- Deforestation (equivalent of 1% CO2 Production)
*Interestingly, the NOAA says that 97% of the atmospheric CO2 production is natural and 3% is man made.
So lets put it this way:
(1) Total atmospheric CO2 accounts for approximately 3% of the greenhouse effect.
(2) Of this, total anthropogenic CO2 accounts for 0.117% of total greenhouse effect.
I don't know what percentage of animal respiration is human, but if it was 1/10 of total animal respiration, human respiration is still a larger CO2 output than fossil fuel burning. If human respiration is 1/100 of total animal respiration, then fossil fuels represents approximately 10 times the output of human respiration.
Assuming it is the 1/100, then human respiration makes up approximately 0.01% of the greenhouse effect.
It is interesting to me that you believe this level of contribution (0.01%) is not significant but the 0.117% is. How do you figure?
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
And the burning of fossil fuels is?
I guess by definition many most exclude respriration as a category of "anthropogenic CO2." So your statement is technically correct. But I assume you are saying that the human respiration is not significant to GW but burning of fossil fuels is.
I believe the numbers for Total annual CO2 production looks like this:
"Natural"
- Animal respiration (38% Total Production)
- Oceans (57% Total Production)
"Anthropogenic"
- Fossil fuels +Cement (3.5% Total Production)
- Deforestation (equivalent of 1% CO2 Production)
*Interestingly, the NOAA says that 97% of the atmospheric CO2 production is natural and 3% is man made.
So lets put it this way:
(1) Total atmospheric CO2 accounts for approximately 3% of the greenhouse effect.
(2) Of this, total anthropogenic CO2 accounts for 0.117% of total greenhouse effect.
I don't know what percentage of animal respiration is human, but if it was 1/10 of total animal respiration, human respiration is still a larger CO2 output than fossil fuel burning. If human respiration is 1/100 of total animal respiration, then fossil fuels represents approximately 10 times the output of human respiration.
Assuming it is the 1/100, then human respiration makes up approximately 0.01% of the greenhouse effect.
It is interesting to me that you believe this level of contribution (0.01%) is not significant but the 0.117% is. How do you figure?
Your numbers are totally wrong. Read a textbook on global warming to quit talking nonsense.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Your numbers are totally wrong. Read a textbook on global warming to quit talking nonsense.
I thought you told us to read the NOAA reports?
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
I thought you told us to read the NOAA reports?
I did, but he is not reading the NOAA numbers correctly. A textbook would definitely help him understand the carbon cycle in its relationship to AGW and the role of CO2 in forcing climate change.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Your numbers are totally wrong. Read a textbook on global warming to quit talking nonsense.
Which numbers are wrong?
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
I did, but he is not reading the NOAA numbers correctly. A textbook would definitely help him understand the carbon cycle in its relationship to AGW and the role of CO2 in forcing climate change.
That was a direct quote from the NOAA. I tried to pull all of the numbers from sources that were proponents of AGW so that you wouldn't just try to discredit the numbers as coming from a critic. I can't help that the causal link is very weak when viewed from this perspective. The strength of the AGW proponents has always been to try to make the case sound oversimplified (here is their pitch - man made CO2 is on the rise and so are temperatures) so that no one really looked at the other factors that GROSSLY SWAMP the contributions of anthropogenic CO2.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
Which numbers are wrong?
Total annual production of CO2 from natural processes is about 150 gigatons. The total annual consumption of CO2 from natural processes (photosynthesis and rain) is about 154 gigatons. The extra 4 gigtons of CO2 consumed is out of the 7 gigtons created annually by burning fussil fuels and deforestation.
The remaining 3 gigatons remain in the atmosphere.
Your animal respiration number is not that high. Most of the CO2 from biota and soil litter comes from decomposition, not animal respiration.. So your numbers on the effect of human respiration are way off. Maybe 1% contribution to total annual anthropogenic CO2 production.
The amounts of CO2 produced and consumed by nature are in long-term balance. The increases in anthropogenic CO2 cannot be totally absorbed by the ocean and biomass sinks. So there is no comparison between naturally produced CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 because they are operating on different time horizons.
Hence, while both natural and anthropogenic produced CO2 cause the greenhouse effect, it is only the anthropogenic CO2 which is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Likewise, while atmospheric CO2 constitutes 3% of the greenhouse gases, it has the ability to increase (force) global warming whereas water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas, is more a function of atmospheric temperature. Thus, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels increases global temperatures and allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor which contributes to a 60% increase in average global temperature when compared to CO2 by itself.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
The amounts of CO2 produced and consumed by nature are in long-term balance. The increases in anthropogenic CO2 cannot be totally absorbed by the ocean and biomass sinks. So there is no comparison between naturally produced CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 because they are operating on different time horizons.
This is dead wrong. They are not in balance, they are in a constant state of negative and positive flux. If there is anything the ice cores prove definitively, it is that.
