- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
It is all hysteria, religious mumbo jumbo, this climate belief.
the warmist's arguments that we may be making some contribution to warming.
The reality vs the hype and sensationalism.
Here let me fix some of that reality for you:The reality vs the hype and sensationalism.
Contrary what you may think from the first part of my post, I think the govt's attempts at the moment are futile in the face of the lack of any cooperation from the worlds major emitters.Factor in that Australia is going to go at it without China, US and India and at a price higher than the rest of the world.
lmao indeed.
You might say that I am being picky, but if you claim to be presenting on behalf of reality then it helps if your numbers are correct and that those you represent actually display some understanding of the ratios and processes involved.
Contrary what you may think from the first part of my post, I think the govt's attempts at the moment are futile in the face of the lack of any cooperation from the worlds major emitters.
Here let me fix some of that reality for you:
The assumption is that 1% of the atmosphere are greenhouse gasses (10,000ppm). With 9500ppm being water vapour (at the surface water vapour ranges from 1-4% (10000-40000ppm) though when you take the whole atmosphere into account it is only 0.4% or 4000ppm, but lets stick with ~0.95% as in the image).
C02 is now ~390ppm (not 362ppm)
Methane (1.79ppm) + others (nitrous oxide - 0.3ppm and ozone - 0.07ppm)
Correcting for the methane error of confusing ppm for %, for the greenhouse gasses to = 1%, water vapour needs to be 9608ppm not 9500ppm.
So that breakdown gives us:
Water Vapour - 96.08%
Carbon Dioxide - 3.94%
Methane and Others - 0.02%
Though then they go on and assume that as annual anthropogenic CO2 is approx 3% of the global emission that then it must equal only around 3% of the total atmospheric CO2. When in fact it is pretty easy to work out what the anthropogenic total is: Current CO2 = 390ppm, pre-industrial = 280ppm therefore (390-280)/390 *100 = 28.5% of CO2 is caused by human activity (an increase of 40% in CO2 levels).
Now looking at the small red section - we have the claim that the reductions equal reducing a 100km length of string by 1mm. They don't really say what the 100km length of string represents. Lets look at that:
A 100km piece of string equals 100x1000x1000mm = 100 million mm
If the string represents annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions then 5% of 1.5% = 0.05 x 0.015 = 0.00075 or 0.075%. So 100 million mm x 0.075% = 75000mm = 75m (not 1mm)
If the string represents that erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2 then we have 5% of 1.5% of 3.4% = 0.0000255 = 0.00255% = a reduction on the length of the string by 2550mm or 2.55m
If the string represents the total green house gas content of the atmosphere with water vapour approximated at 9600ppm and using the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2. We have 5% of 1.5% or 3.4% of 3.94% = 0.000001 = 0.0001% = a reduction of string length of 100mm or 10cm (getting closer).
If the string represents the entire atmosphere with greenhouse gasses representing 1% of the volume with water vapour approximated at 9600ppm and using the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2. We have 5% of 1.5% or 3.4% of 3.94% of 1% = 0.00000001 = 0.000001% = a reduction of string length of 1mm (bingo!).
This would be fine except that 99% of the atmosphere (according to their calculations) is transparent to visible light and infra-red so there for you can't really include that in the calculation if you are discussing greenhouse emissions.
You might say that I am being picky, but if you claim to be presenting on behalf of reality then it helps if your numbers are correct and that those you represent actually display some understanding of the ratios and processes involved.
Contrary what you may think from the first part of my post, I think the govt's attempts at the moment are futile in the face of the lack of any cooperation from the worlds major emitters.
Why should we go to hell in a hand basket while most everyone else decides to go there in the Bentley?
There you go again quoting numbers etc unbelievably boring who wants facts and basic common sense that the changes in percentage terms are by any measure extreme..............Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (but not a member of the house of lords btw) is much more entertaining.
Ahhhh numbers. Interesting things numbers... depending of course, how much they agree with one's bias.
Anyone read this http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
This by Wendy Carlisle pretty much put me off the anti climate change mob http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3268730.htm the irony of the claims of fear are just extraordinary.
I don't recall seeing anyone commenting on the hole in the ozone layer. In my youth I remember the phasing out of chloro-fluro-carbons which were damaging to the ozone layer. Does this problem still exist with other gases being released into the atmosphere damaging the ozone layer and causing the assumed AGW? Derty or anyone?
Too true.I think that the majority of the western world has accepted the warmist's arguments that we may be making some contribution to warming. What has not worked has been the attempt to scare us into the belief that we are facing floods, droughts, cyclones and sea rises unless we take urgent action.
Gillard started her spiel on Carbon Sunday with all sorts of dire warnings, about our fate if we didn't act quickly, but she could not say how a carbon tax would delay this.
It all went over like a lead balloon. Common sense wins. AGW is dead in the water.
....
The overpopulation myth is a tool of control freaks, a discredited and arcane reinvention of the eugenics dogma, designed to oppress, micro-manage and enslave the population by imperiling them to stunt their freedom, prosperity and happiness, while its proponents are stinking hypocrites who would do the planet a huge favor by following their own advice and disappearing off the face of the earth for good.
Well I don't really see it being addressed in any way that will begin to actually reduce emissions. Mind you there are ruminations that China is to embark on a emissions trading scheme though the aim is not to reduce emissions but to slow the rate of increase. The end result will be that we will see global annual emissions rise and will see an acceleration in rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels.derty,
Sans political agendas, funding imperatives and other extraneous factors, where do you see the future with regards to AGW.
I'm asking for a bare bones opinion that can be scientifically substantiated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?