On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 05:40:33AM +0000, Peter Fairbrother wrote:

On 21/03/19 09:21, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

Q1. What % of the air is CO2?

… CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27 th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036% - 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)

i.e. the measured concentration changes if the air flow is from an industrialized region

So even according to you mankind's contribution is measurable.

Local delta's are measurable "at coordinate", which can be fed into any number of computer models to estimate aggregates per area or per globe. So the global "man-made" CO2 contribution delta is estimatable, even though the global aggregate % change is not measurable, due to margins of error and the limits and errors of measuring equipment. The measurability is not a contentious point, so little use in making this a contention. Seek truth in the presentations of each, and we find truth in one another. This is perhaps the useful place to start.

Getting real, NOAA measure global average CO2 to about five figures of accuracy - presently it is 411.75 ppm. People who use different methods sometimes argue about the last figure, so let's say it is routinely measured accurate to maybe 4.5 digits.

Over the million years before 1900 CO2 global average levels hovered around 220 ppm, and never exceeded 300 ppm. In the last few 100 years the level has gone from 280 ppm to 411 ppm.

Which is absolutely fantastic for life on this planet, since at 180ppm and below, most plants die, along with their "high up" food chains... Rumour has it we should now be good for at least a few thousand years from now, even if man goes "fully electric, man, fully electric" overnight.

Will increases in CO2 of this magnitude cause global warming? Well, greenhouse theory says it will. And it always has before.

Greenhouse theory, is anything but concensus. To imply otherwise is disingenuous. Some scientific theory has it that CO2 is a product primarily of the quanta of plant life, plus the temperature of the oceans (and thus oceanic absorption vis a vis release, of CO2). Other scientific theory has it that almost everything is entirely driven by the Sun. There is no concensus that atmospheric CO2 is the cause, and not the consequence of, "global warming" or rather, "global heat levels due to solar, and tectonic, activity".

...

--------------- Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

… Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%.

You are looking at it the wrong way.

Though I personally doubt it, it may be that humans only produce 3% as much CO2 as per year as nature does. But an increase of 3% per year,

"increase per year" is vastly different to "total over all modern time, i.e. industrial revolution" - someone would need to look at the source for this 3% number so that we can talk about it without wildly flapping in the wind about compound exponential fear mongering ...

if not compensated for, is 30% in ten years, or 300% in 100 years.

People may argue up and down about that, but the simple fact is that CO2 levels rose from 280 pm to 411 ppm over the last few 100 years. This is a man-made increase. There is no natural CO2 regulation process (other than major volcanism or fires, which did not happen) which could work that fast.

Which means that human activities have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 32% over the last few 100 years.

Possibly, or possibly we're in a particularly "good for life" solar and tectonic "warming" cycle. You and I both are likely just parroting assumptions based on preferred viewpoitns, rather than science. And on that basis, I prefer my viewpoints over yours as "more grounded in science" <chuckle>

...

• It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases.

Greenhouse theory has nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere getting hot.

The basic mechanism controlling the Earth's temperature is: the sun shines light and shortwave infrared on the ground. The ground absorbs them and gets warm. At night the heat from the warm ground is radiated into space as long wave infra-red.

CO2 interferes with this process because it reflects the outgoing long wave infra-red back towards the ground (it does not reflect the incoming short wave infrared.)

This may sound strange - how can only 400 ppm of CO2 reflect long wave IR? But if you think about it, 400 ppm of the 50 km tall atmosphere is roughly equivalent to a pound per square foot of the earth's surface - or travelling through 10 feet of CO2 at normal atmospheric pressure - enough for the beginnings of a mirror.

Need some hard science on that to make sense of anything other than our personally preferred assumptions... and not just computer models, but actual calculations which are peer reviewed and "generally agreed or at least not disputed by those who would" kind of science.

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 05:40:33 +0000 Peter Fairbrother wrote:

i.e. the measured concentration changes if the air flow is from an industrialized region

So even according to you mankind's contribution is measurable.

yes, you can stand by a fire started by a 'human' and kinda measure how much CO2 that combustion produces - so what?

Over the million years before 1900 CO2 global average levels hovered around 220 ppm,

And how on fucking earth do you know what happened in the last million years? That sort of comment gives away your pseudo scientific charlatanism.

and never exceeded 300 ppm. In the last few 100 years the level has gone from 280 ppm to 411 ppm.

"last few 100 years" again, you know that bullshit figure, how, exactly. Also notice how you quote 'accurate' numbers for the concentration value...over a bullshit, indefinite timespan.

Will increases in CO2 of this magnitude cause global warming? Well, greenhouse theory says it will. And it always has before.

And you know that happened because you are the guy who runs the computer simulation we live in?

People may argue up and down about that, but the simple fact is that CO2 levels rose from 280 pm to 411 ppm over the last few 100 years.

because the enviro fascists say so =) Peter, what can you tell us about the commercial/political organization of "the west"? How do you think the government, 'green' 'industry' and the 'mass media' interact?

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:52:38 +0000 Peter Fairbrother wrote:

On 24/03/19 18:49, Punk wrote:

...

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 05:40:33 +0000 Peter Fairbrother wrote:

...

...

Over the million years before 1900 CO2 global average levels hovered around 220 ppm,

And how on fucking earth do you know what happened in the last million years?

By looking at ice cores from the Antartic. As the ice freezes CO2 freezes with it.

What's the melting point of CO2? It's −57 °C according to wikimierda. But wait, "Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 standard atmospheres. At 1 atmosphere the gas deposits directly to a solid at temperatures below −78.5 °C and the solid sublimes directly to a gas above −78.5 °C." And here's the winter temperatures in the north pole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JanArcticSfcT.svg lowest temperature is -40C at best. Sooo....How does CO2 manage to freeze...?

Then you take a core, measure the CO2 concentration and depth, adjust for how much got trapped, then calculate the age at that depth.

all indirect methods and so easy to manipulate. How do you date ice?

That is just roughly speaking; in practice it is a bit more involved than that.

which of course makes the results even less dependable and even easier to manipulate.

Figures are usually based on satellite observations and measurements made by hundreds of sensors worldwide, gathered and calculated by Scripps and NOAA at Mauna Loa.

Oh yes, the satellites that have been measuring stuff for the last million years =)

The measurement protocols are quite complicated,

that is, hard to audit, easy to manipulate.

but very accurate. The measurements, methods and calculations are all public. No reputable scientist doubts them.

YES! A = A! No believer in antropomorphic reheating ever doubts antropomorphic reheating! Your 'reputable scientists' are so impressive =)

...

That sort of comment gives away your pseudo scientific charlatanism.

...

and never exceeded 300 ppm. In the last few 100 years the level has gone from 280 ppm to 411 ppm.

"last few 100 years" again, you know that bullshit figure, how, exactly.

There are several ways, and the figures do vary - but only very slightly. For instance, from 1750 to 1850, most reliable measurements range from 276 to 282 ppm.

What measurements? I mean, I think I can safely assume that C02 levels were not 'monitored' at all in 1750. At best, a few chemists tried to measure the air's composition a few times. And in principle I highly doubt they got it down to parts parts per million. So feel free to link the actual data from 1750. Here's a pointer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Black "Like most 18th-century experimentalists, Black's conceptualisation of chemistry was based on five 'principles' of matter: Water, Salt, Earth, Fire and Metal(....!) He added the principle of 'Air' when his experiments definitely confirmed the presence of carbon dioxide, which he called 'fixed air'. " Well, well. Looks like in 1750 the existence of CO2 in air was just confirmed, not measured down to ppm accuracy eh?

Most researchers use the values 280 ppm in 1850 and 290 ppm in 1900, as representative of the results of contemporaneous measurements.

Those measurements were done by chemical analysis.

I don't need you to tell me that =) Now, do you mind linking some hard data?

Modern methods use electronic sensors etc, and are more accurate than the old methods.

...

Also notice how you quote 'accurate' numbers for the concentration value...over a bullshit, indefinite timespan.

Sorry about that. But the figures don't change much with the timespan.

Don't worry. I do thank you for being sloppy and showing that your numbers are not to be 'trusted' =)

...

...

Will increases in CO2 of this magnitude cause global warming? Well, greenhouse theory says it will. And it always has before.

And you know that happened because you are the guy who runs the computer simulation we live in?

By looking at historic CO2 levels and temperatures.

Yeah right. See above.

We know that because some chemists in the 1850-1900 period measured the amount of CO2 in the air.

So it's not 1750, now it's 1850. Again, I'd like to know who measured what.

And because some other chemists measured the CO2 content in the air yesterday.

The first got values from 270-280 ppm depending on when the measurements were made.

The second got values of 411 ppm.

Where?

Not hard to understand, not tricky stuff, not people trying to mislead you

- just what was, and what is.

Where?

...

Peter, what can you tell us about the commercial/political organization of "the west"? How do you think the government, 'green' 'industry' and the 'mass media' interact?

Not really my field. I try to stay out of politics

But Peter, as we all know, this is the cypherpunks mailing list, a list dealing with crypto ANARCHY. I think we all also know that anarchy is a political philosophy?

unless people are bending scientific truth for their own benefit - which is happening here.

Indeed. Haha.

I guess they are almost all out for themselves. There are a few genuine green industry types, but they are often misguided to the point of doing as much wrong as they think they are doing good.

There are some genuine media people too, though not many.

And at the top, they are all owned and controlled by the same people. Most of whom are somewhat self-serving.

Fine, at least something we can agree on. So clearly all those people have vested economic and political interests in 'climate change' being what they say it is, no?

As an aside, I am a little confused - I would have thought you, Zenaan etc would be all for supporting the truth about global warming. After all it is those rich cunts who want you to believe it isn't true.

Which rich cunts? Oh, you mean the oil mafia. But as shown above the oil mafia is not the only mafia at play. So in this case, the oil mafia may tell the truth, not because of any moral principle (they have none), but because it benefits them.

But maybe GW is now too mainstream to rebel against?

Not sure what you mean. 'climate change' which you just misspelled as 'global warming' is indeed mainstream and that's a reason to rebel against it. Like all mainstream 'truths', 'climate chage'(former scam name GW) is just an excuse for more fascism.

What have you got?

All I said above. Starting with the fact that CO2 freezes at -80C =)

Peter Fairbrother