Climate and Weather

EvilGoalie 21 said:
Not sure what you mean by 4% of 0.04. That would by 0.0004. 4% (4/100) is equivalent to 0.04. Raw numbers, normalized to a %, expressing the % out of total or % of the change, not sure how any change in perspective that may be associated with putting it one way or another means much. That's all just value association based around a number. Ratio of sources to sinks, that's the only thing that matters with respect to the dynamics of the system. At least for me.
Click to expand...
espola said:
What is your source for "only 3%"? How was that determined?
Click to expand...
I threw 3% out there.
Evil Goalie said 4%.
There are some estimates of up to 10% on the high end.

30%?...nope.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
I threw 3% out there.
Evil Goalie said 4%.
There are some estimates of up to 10% on the high end.

30%?...nope.
Click to expand...

The pre-industrial CO2 concentration was about 280 ppm. The current concentration is about 400 ppm. The difference between the values is 30% of the total. You concede 3% from human-activity sources. Where did the other 27% come from?
 
espola said:
The pre-industrial CO2 concentration was about 280 ppm. The current concentration is about 400 ppm. The difference between the values is 30% of the total. You concede 3% from human-activity sources. Where did the other 27% come from?
Click to expand...
That depends on you. Where do you think we would be, in terms of ppm, if the industrial revolution never happened?
 
'
espola said:
kid's table in the kitchen.
Click to expand...

I guess more and more I'd rather just hang at the kids table. Get everybody in trouble by putting a pinch of bromophenol blue in the water glasses, blow bubbles through straws and watch the pH change. Surreptitiously slip the bean casserole under the table to the dog. Clear a space on the plate and ask the the kids to pass an extra piece of hope.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
'


I guess more and more I'd rather just hang at the kids table. Get everybody in trouble by putting a pinch of bromophenol blue in the water glasses, blow bubbles through straws and watch the pH change. Surreptitiously slip the bean casserole under the table to the dog. Clear a space on the plate and ask the the kids to pass an extra piece of hope.
Click to expand...
Nah, you're too intellectual for the kids table. Come on, what would the world be like at 250 to 280?
 
espola said:
Imagine a family holiday dinner where there is one open seat left at the adult table so they invite Izzy in from the kid's table in the kitchen. From time to time he manages to get the table's attention for a few seconds and contributes his little bit, perhaps a nearly-perfectly-remembered slogan from a recent political commercial. "That was very nice, dear" - then back to the conversation of which he understands so little and in which he wants so eagerly to be a participant.
Click to expand...

Again, what policie$ would you two intellectuals propose that is not already being implemented? Please join us at the adults table when you have a policy and a price. At the end of the day, I don't need to know everything there is to know about environmental science. I just need to know how much money you want to spend and what part of the population you plan to wipe out.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Gobbledegook.
Co2 concentrations have been much higher and lower.
1850 was the end of a significant cold period, which followed a significant warm period, within a larger inter glacial.
3% of .04%
Click to expand...

A discussion focused solely on percentages is what's gobbledegook. Sanders: 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere right now is from human action. CO2 is 0.04% of the total gas molecules in the atmosphere. So that 3% of .04%, which is 0.0012% of all the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Goalie: ~4% of total gigatons of carbon flux on an annual basis comes from human activity. That 4% shifts the climate from CO2 flux neutrality to CO2 accumulation. Espola: Since industrial revolution CO2 concentrations have shifted from ~280 ppmv to ~400 ppmv. That's a 30% change (my emphasis added). And note ppmv values already normalized on a per gas molecule basis in the same way you normalized yours. In terms of higher and lower, it certainly does not appear to have been up to 400 ppmv in the last 800,000 years. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt. Paleoclimates going way back, sure, particularly the hothouse climates in the Cretaceous. And before the evolution of photosynthetic processes. But the further back you go the flimsier the data gets. Wipe the percentages away and the simple message is that we are accumulating CO2 at a measurable rate.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Again, what policie$ would you two intellectuals propose that is not already being implemented? Please join us at the adults table when you have a policy and a price. At the end of the day, I don't need to know everything there is to know about environmental science. I just need to know how much money you want to spend and what part of the population you plan to wipe out.
Click to expand...

Nah, anytime try to go there you just wiggle away with Musk or Comey or what not. Humans are asymtotically successful. We're probably not going away anytime soon. So quit being an alarmist. What's the cost/benefit? There's whole journals devoted to it. So if want a real answer get to work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wez
Bruddah IZ said:
Again, what policie$ would you two intellectuals propose that is not already being implemented? Please join us at the adults table when you have a policy and a price. At the end of the day, I don't need to know everything there is to know about environmental science. I just need to know how much money you want to spend and what part of the population you plan to wipe out.
Click to expand...

Before we start chewing on the politics, we should agree on the science. If we just say we are going to do nothing because nothing is happening, a lot of money will be spent and a large part of the population will be wiped out due to that error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wez
espola said:
Before we start chewing on the politics, we should agree on the science. If we just say we are going to do nothing because nothing is happening, a lot of money will be spent and a large part of the population will be wiped out due to that error.
Click to expand...
97% agree on the Science. Whatʻs your new deal?
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Nah, anytime try to go there you just wiggle away with Musk or Comey or what not. Humans are asymtotically successful. We're probably not going away anytime soon. So quit being an alarmist. What's the cost/benefit? There's whole journals devoted to it. So if want a real answer get to work.
Click to expand...
Spesking of wiggling away.
 
espola said:
Before we start chewing on the politics, we should agree on the science. If we just say we are going to do nothing because nothing is happening, a lot of money will be spent and a large part of the population will be wiped out due to that error.
Click to expand...
That was supposed to happen earlier this year Mr Gore, remember?
Now, who is an alarmist?
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Wipe the percentages away and the simple message is that we are accumulating CO2 at a measurable rate.
Click to expand...
I dont know of anyone who disagrees with this. We measure c02 in parts per million, and methane in parts per billion.
If, in fact, c02 is the climate temp control mechanism, I could understand espola's hysterical claim that a large portion of the earth's population will be wiped out by its increase.
I tend to believe c02 is a bit player, like one of the pumpkins off the stage in the school halloween play, and the net effect is negligible, if measurable at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top