Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[CAP1]

Keep in mind that to others 'you' (and by you I don't mean literally you) may seem to be 'indoctrinated' with Faux News style talking points and the like, and in the same manner (just with opposite viewpoints)... that goes all sorts of ways.

very good point........

[Widewing]

Sir, you quoted an article that you said was from a scientist who "stood up against the AGW mafia" as you succinctly put it.  In fact, his paper had absolutely nothing to do with what you said, and had you read it, you would have realized this.   YOU are absolutely 100% wrong in your position, your wondrous engineering experience aside.   Congrats on your patent... Maybe you might work on your reading comprehension?

Knorr is an ardent supporter of AGW, and is an active member of IPCC Scientific Working Group 1, publishing many articles on the subject.  You misused his journal submission to seem like he was not.  Put your entire life in a post, I care not.  You were wrong.

My reading comprehension? You state above that I said, "stood up the AGW mafia". Then you post the supposed quote and it doesn't say that at all. Here it is again, as you apparently failed to understand:

"You certainly lack the credentials to dispute his findings, other that to parrot the AGW mafia's company line."

Now, explain again how you perceived what I wrote in reply to Penguin.

No, I didn't read the paper. I tried the link to it provided in the article, but guess what? You have to be a member, or fork over a credit card number and purchase it. Not a chance.....

I did, however, read the article. Here's what it said:

"Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."

Thus, according to the article, Knorr's analysis is in opposition to some studies that conclude that the ability of the earth to absorb CO2 is declining. Was not this type of data often input into computer models previously used to predict climate change? Doesn't Knorr's analysis force a change to the previous conclusions?

Suppose the planet continues general cooling trend for the next 20 or more years. Will the AGW guys concede that they were wrong, or will they call it an anomaly and spin it to validate their theory? Like most of the Titanic's crew and passengers; they didn't believe it was possible for the ship to sink. At least up until their feet got wet.


My regards,

Widewing

[Penguin]

Here's the hole in your proposition:

Of course we can't have more than 50% of what we emit stay in the atmosphere, otherwise we would be all on the ground, gasping for breath.  Now let's say that we emit, oh, a trillion metric tons of CO₂.

That's 1,000,000,000,000 metric tons or 1,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (quadrilllion).

So 1,000,000,000,000*.47= 470,000,000,000 metric tons<--that stuff stays up there. 

Here's the function f(x)= .47x

Now that means that not all of it will just go to the oceans or permafrost.  So just put in any number for the emission and you'll get the output value, and that stuff will stay in the atmosphere.  With that last post, you just proved out points.  If you had said that opposite, then there would still be an argument; you said that the capacity of the earth to trap CO₂ is decreasing.

If that is true, we can't keep burning oil and other fuels to keep our grids powered and our cars moving.  You just posted a self-defeating argument.  Where is your evidence to show that in fact it doesn't matter if we burn oil and coal to keep going. 

This means that even an unlimited amount of oil wouldn't matter, as burning it would just warm the planet.  Your argument just proved our point.

Happy Trails!

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Here's the hole in your proposition:

Of course we can't have more than 50% of what we emit stay in the atmosphere, otherwise we would be all on the ground, gasping for breath.  Now let's say that we emit, oh, a trillion metric tons of CO₂.

That's 1,000,000,000,000 metric tons or 1,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (quadrilllion).

So 1,000,000,000,000*.47= 470,000,000,000 metric tons<--that stuff stays up there. 

Here's the function f(x)= .47x

Now that means that not all of it will just go to the oceans or permafrost.  So just put in any number for the emission and you'll get the output value, and that stuff will stay in the atmosphere.  With that last post, you just proved out points.  If you had said that opposite, then there would still be an argument; you said that the capacity of the earth to trap CO₂ is decreasing.

If that is true, we can't keep burning oil and other fuels to keep our grids powered and our cars moving.  You just posted a self-defeating argument.  Where is your evidence to show that in fact it doesn't matter if we burn oil and coal to keep going. 

This means that even an unlimited amount of oil wouldn't matter, as burning it would just warm the planet.  Your argument just proved our point.

Happy Trails!

-Penguin

first off.......co2 doesn't just "go" into the ocean.

it is absorbed by plankton, which then converts it to o2. much the same as trees and green plants. they need it to live.

 secondly, the sun warms the planet.

 

[Penguin]

first off.......co2 doesn't just "go" into the ocean.

it is absorbed by plankton, which then converts it to o2. much the same as trees and green plants. they need it to live.

 secondly, the sun warms the planet.

 

Ok come on, I haven't even taken biology yet.  

I don't see where you are going with that.  Of course it does?   That's why it matters what the atmosphere is composed of, since the sun warms the planet more if we have more CO₂, and other assorted greenhouse gasses.

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Ok come on, I haven't even taken biology yet.  

I don't see where you are going with that.  Of course it does?  That's why it matters what the atmosphere is composed of, since the sun warms the planet more if we have more CO₂, and other assorted greenhouse gasses.

-Penguin

that's part of why i told ya that plankton converts. i know you'll go looking, and researching now, and learn more.  


and no, the only thing that affects how much the sun warms our planet, is how far away we are.

 this gets a little weird though. the earth wobbles on it's axis......much like a spinning top as it slows down. this is part of what causes these cycles that i(and others) keep talking about.
 this and other things is mostly what affects us.


 here's a question. co2 is heavy. it doesn't rise up into the atmosphere. this being the case, how can it affect the temp.?

pardon if some of my replies seem short and are mis-typed today. i'm at work, and replying between jobs. 

[Angus]

Ya ya...Cap1.
Aircraft are also heavier than air.
Anyway, molar mass 44.010 g/mol
Nitrogen is BTW most of our "air".
Why am I explaining this? Oh, forgot, some folks here never saw the mix of fluids, of course co2 should stay at ground level.
There are 3 dimensions physically and forces working in all 3, as well as temperature playing a role. It will not save some from having a 2 dimensional head 

[FireDrgn]

Here's the hole in your proposition:

Of course we can't have more than 50% of what we emit stay in the atmosphere, otherwise we would be all on the ground, gasping for breath.  Now let's say that we emit, oh, a trillion metric tons of CO₂.

That's 1,000,000,000,000 metric tons or 1,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (quadrilllion).

So 1,000,000,000,000*.47= 470,000,000,000 metric tons<--that stuff stays up there. 

Here's the function f(x)= .47x

Now that means that not all of it will just go to the oceans or permafrost.  So just put in any number for the emission and you'll get the output value, and that stuff will stay in the atmosphere.  With that last post, you just proved out points.  If you had said that opposite, then there would still be an argument; you said that the capacity of the earth to trap CO₂ is decreasing.

If that is true, we can't keep burning oil and other fuels to keep our grids powered and our cars moving.  You just posted a self-defeating argument.  Where is your evidence to show that in fact it doesn't matter if we burn oil and coal to keep going. 

This means that even an unlimited amount of oil wouldn't matter, as burning it would just warm the planet.  Your argument just proved our point.

Happy Trails!

-Penguin

Knorr's analysis is in opposition to some studies that conclude that the ability of the earth to absorb CO2 is declining.

Where are you going to get an unlimited amount of oil? That would really make oil prices drop.

[Casca]

Here's the hole in your proposition:

Of course we can't have more than 50% of what we emit stay in the atmosphere, otherwise we would be all on the ground, gasping for breath.
 

The atmosphere comprises something like 38 thousandths of 1 percent of CO2 or around 380 ppm.  Even if this were doubled in absolute terms let alone what we emit, we wouldn't be "gasping for breath".  Physiologically, we wouldn't even notice.

[Widewing]

Sir, you quoted an article that you said was from a scientist who "stood up against the AGW mafia" as you succinctly put it.  In fact, his paper had absolutely nothing to do with what you said, and had you read it, you would have realized this.   YOU are absolutely 100% wrong in your position, your wondrous engineering experience aside.   Congrats on your patent... Maybe you might work on your reading comprehension?  I would imagine your education would have been able to discern the difference between "airborne fraction of CO2" and "CO2 fraction in the air".  You see, the placement of "fraction" changes the meaning.  As in "airborne fraction of CO₂" (What Knorr was talking about) as opposed to "CO₂ fraction in the air"  (What AGW is about)

I could care less if AGW is completely true or not.  Misrepresenting someone's work is lower than dirt, and worse than stealing it.  

Knorr is an ardent supporter of AGW, and is an active member of IPCC Scientific Working Group 1, publishing many articles on the subject.  You misused and misrepresented his journal submission to seem like he was not.  Put your entire life in a post, I care not.  You were wrong.  End of story, your entire life history notwithstanding, nor your obvious distaste for scientists in general.  Pretending it's not what you meant is BS...the quote below is directly from YOU.  It was exactly what you meant.... be a man and admit it.  Engineers are always so good at "passing the buck" though, aren't they?  

Quote from Widewing
Attempting to cloud these facts with your life story in a post  is ludicrous, and doesn't change what you were attempting to post.  I have no doubt you're a fine engineer.  You just couldn't read Knorr's paper without some denialist site telling you what it said.  You got called out,  and are wrong.... live with it.

You thought that you could sneak in an edit and it would be missed by me, but seen by those catching up on the thread... What were you afraid of?

I stand by what I stated. You, on the other hand, flip-flop around like a gaffed tuna.

I don't dislike scientists. I dislike dishonest scientists. You know, liars and fabricators of data. I deal with scientists almost every day.

You wrote: "I could care less if AGW is completely true or not.  Misrepresenting someone's work is lower than dirt, and worse than stealing it."

The first part is obviously bullhockey, based upon your vehement defending of AGW dogma. Bulldinkey #1

The second part is utter fabrication. I stated exactly what the article stated. Is Science Daily misrepresenting Knorr's work? Bulldinkey #2

Your next quote is this one, "You just couldn't read Knorr's paper without some denialist site telling you what it said."

So, you are now saying that Science Daily is a "denialist site"? Oh, and there's that elitist attitude again, calling people "denialists" if they might disagree with some of the worst science since the dark ages. This only reinforces what I defined as lie #1. So, we have bulldinkey #1².

The article I quoted was from Science Daily, which means either they are now a denialist rag, or you're as obtuse as granite. We know that the Science Daily is absolutely not a denialist rag, so what is left is.... Who knows, you may eventually make a usable counter top.

You are so completely full of yourself, that you cannot endure being incorrect. Really, you present everyone who disagrees as being stupid, or perhaps just ignorant, but certainly needing to be talked down to. The reality is that you come across as just an arrogant young man with much to learn about world and the people in it. If that's how you want people to perceive you, than by all means carry on.


My regards,

Widewing

[CAP1]

yikes!!

i missed the edit?


anyway.......careful with the personal attacks......that's what got the thread of serenty's locked.

there's good conversation goin on here.....

[Penguin]

Man, I feel like I'm dancing around the feet of giants... but here goes!

Apart from the personal attacks (no place here, I thought that we are mature), Widewing's post has some merit.  Apparently Moray added in a major edit without noting it (minor ones are grammar, spelling and flow of words).

That statement seems to be false, since he has ardently defended AGW.  The second part still works.  Moray provided the difference between what those two terms.  I have also proven what he is saying mathematically

Of course we can't have more than 50% of what we emit stay in the atmosphere, otherwise we would be all on the ground, gasping for breath.  Now let's say that we emit, oh, a trillion metric tons of CO₂.

That's 1,000,000,000,000 metric tons or 1,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (quadrilllion).

So 1,000,000,000,000*.47= 470,000,000,000 metric tons<--that stuff stays up there. 

Here's the function f(x)= .47x

Now you can see that the remainder stays in the atmosphere.  So even when the coefficient of x decreases, if the value of x increases, you can still get a greater result than the original function. 

Here are some examples:

47% of 100<30% of 150 = {[f(x)=.47x where x=100]<[f(x)=.3x where x=150]}
10% of 1,000< 9% 1,200 = {[f(x)= .1x where x=1,000]<[f(x)=.9x where x= 1,200
5% 37< 4% 47 = {[f(x)= .5x where x= 37]<[f(x)=.4x where x=47

Note that the first part of each example is an inequality, this was added to ease comprehension.

This in turn means that even as the earth can absorb more CO₂ (seen as decreasing coeffcient), we can still see an increase in the amount as a greater absolute amount is pumped in (seen as greater given value for x).

This means that even if the abiogenic theory is true ("unlimited oil", seen in previous posts as an assumption), we will still have to stop as  more CO₂ gets pumped into the atmosphere. 

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Man, I feel like I'm dancing around the feet of giants... but here goes!

Apart from the personal attacks (no place here, I thought that we are mature), Widewing's post has some merit.  Apparently Moray added in a major edit without noting it (minor ones are grammar, spelling and flow of words).

That statement seems to be false, since he has ardently defended AGW.  The second part still works.  Moray provided the difference between what those two terms.  I have also proven what he is saying mathematically

Now you can see that the remainder stays in the atmosphere.  So even when the coefficient of x decreases, if the value of x increases, you can still get a greater result than the original function. 

Here are some examples:

47% of 100<30% of 150 = {[f(x)=.47x where x=100]<[f(x)=.3x where x=150]}
10% of 1,000< 9% 1,200 = {[f(x)= .1x where x=1,000]<[f(x)=.9x where x= 1,200
5% 37< 4% 47 = {[f(x)= .5x where x= 37]<[f(x)=.4x where x=47

Note that the first part of each example is an inequality, this was added to ease comprehension.

This in turn means that even as the earth can absorb more CO₂ (seen as decreasing coeffcient), we can still see an increase in the amount as a greater absolute amount is pumped in (seen as greater given value for x).

This means that even if the abiogenic theory is true ("unlimited oil", seen in previous posts as an assumption), we will still have to stop as  more CO₂ gets pumped into the atmosphere. 

-Penguin

in the real world, there are always variables sir.......mathematics don't allow for them.

[Penguin]

Pssst.  I've made it a little bit simpler to show the principle of it all, and yes mathematics can have multiple answers, check out quadratic formula (see that weird plus sign over a minus sign?), it has two answers.  And algebra, that's all variables!

-Penguin

[Widewing]

Man, I feel like I'm dancing around the feet of giants... but here goes!

Apart from the personal attacks (no place here, I thought that we are mature), Widewing's post has some merit.  Apparently Moray added in a major edit without noting it (minor ones are grammar, spelling and flow of words).

That statement seems to be false, since he has ardently defended AGW.  The second part still works.  Moray provided the difference between what those two terms.  I have also proven what he is saying mathematically
-Penguin

I didn't begin the personal slurs... I merely responded to them.

If highlighting his behavior is a personal attack, (it isn't, you live and die by ones own words), then using terms such as "denialist" must be especially egregious.

I'm not going allow someone to shovel their manure into my yard. If that leads to the thread being locked, so be it. 


My regards,

Widewing