Carbon Dioxide: Mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 so small it's not measurable - [MINISTRY]
201903-Co2_Levels2_1_.pdf … --------------- 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) Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. … the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition --------------- Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce? … Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! --------------- Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce? 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. --------------- Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant? … CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant. Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either. --------------- Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect? Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof. The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect. • 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. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume. • Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere. 1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air. 2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable. 3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages. 4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then. • Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature. • The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C). As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day. --------------- Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling. … Despite more than a decade of continual doomsday predictions of increasing temperatures and never-ending drought globally, the opposite has happened. There have been lower temperatures globally with greatly increased rain and snows over much of the planet since 2006. This has caused floods across most of Australia and most other counties, as seen on the TV news. This ended the global 10 year drought conditions from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. There has been no drop in CO2 to cause this: in fact, CO2 has risen. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate. The reason CO2 levels have gone up a little is most likely due to the surface of the oceans warming very slightly during the later half of the century and therefore releasing a little CO2. (The oceans are currently cooling very slightly.) Mankind’s contribution to CO2 is so small it’s not measurable. … ----- Forwarded message from Gil May <gilmay97@gmail.com> ----- From: Gil May <gilmay97@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:46:03 +1000 Subject: Fwd: Fw: Carbon Dioxide : Carbon Dioxide If you know of any poor little kiddies who have been brainwashed by the teacher's union before they took a Friday off to march, get them to read the attached and answer the quiz. Firstly: Ask them would they have marched on a Saturday. Ask them how far from the Barrier Reef is the new mining area in Queensland. Now have them answer the quiz … you may wish to try yourself. ----- End forwarded message -----
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:21:02 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
201903-Co2_Levels2_1_.pdf …
--------------- Q1. What % of the air is CO2?
… CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%.
interesting - I completely overlooked that. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/212/air_composition.png
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. 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. Will increases in CO2 of this magnitude cause global warming? Well, greenhouse theory says it will. And it always has before.
--------------- 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, 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.
• 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. -- Peter Fairbrother ppm = parts per million, by weight
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 24/03/19 10:25, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
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.
eh? The measuring equipment works fine. The overall measured - not estimated, measured - change is from 280 ppm to 411 ppm. That is easily measurable, and measured. The global aggregate %ge change is 46.8% increase over 170 years. Nearly half as much again. The margins of error of the %ge change are around 1 part in 1,000. So it's pretty accurate - not 45%, not 47%, but 46.odd%. Estimates for more recent periods are accurate to about 1 part in 10,000. Pretty darn accurate. There is no accuracy problem.
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.
Greenhouse theory is simply the prediction that glass, increased CO2 etc levels etc increase the reflection of long-wave IR back to the ground, so decreasing heat lost into space. And guess what, it both works and is directly measurable. One lesser-known prediction of greenhouse theory is that the present average temperature of the earth should be around 15 C - if there was no global warming, the average temperature would be -18 C. And yes, greenhouse theory itself is consensus. Some details of what is happening now are a little fuzzy, and extrapolation quickly gets lost because the earth is so complex and politics, but overall we are slowly getting there.
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".
You are a bit out of date there. Consensus pretty much exists amongst non-conflicted scientists. Both those theories have some truth in them, but the first is irrelevant in view of the measured increase in CO2 levels, the second is misstated - agreed the sun has a major long-term influence, yes, but not the recent short term influence seen in practice.
---------------
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
It's your number .. and irrelevant anyway. Fact: CO2 levels have increased, measurably, from 280 to 411 ppm, in the modern era. Fact: This happened too fast to have happened naturally without signs we would have clearly seen, so it must be man-made.
flapping in the wind about compound exponential fear mongering ...
No evil exponentials need get involved. Suppose there is 400 tons in the atmosphere, nature produces 100 tons per year, nature removes 100 tons per year. Now if man adds 3 tons per year for a hundred years, without any increase in the removal by nature there will be 300 extra tons in the atmosphere. In reality nature will take up some of the slack, so lets say the increase is only 150 tons. Or, to put it in real numbers; in 1850 there were 1,480 Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere. Today there is 2,166 Gt, an increase of 686 Gt. Estimated human CO2 release in that period, based on the amount of coal, gas and oil burnt, is about 1,340 Gt. So nature has absorbed an extra 654 Gt. The rate at which nature recycled CO2 isn't immediately relevant, but it is estimated at about 350 Gt/y.
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.
We are. But that part of the cycle causes change at the rate of about 50 ppm total over several thousand years, not 131 ppm over 170 years. The recent rate of change is well outside anything in the recent fossil record.
You and I both are likely just parroting assumptions based on preferred viewpoitns, rather than science.
No. What assumptions? I guess I assume the measured increase in CO2 is real, and that by greenhouse theory increased atmospheric CO2 decreases global cooling - both of these are, or should be, non-contentious.
And on that basis, I prefer my viewpoints over yours as "more grounded in science" <chuckle>
Normally I wouldn't care any - but this sort of wilful stupidity could end up killing everyone.
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.
Eh? It's the simplest of back-of-an-envelope, measure-it-yourself stuff. Back of an envelope to calculate the thickness of CO2, which I just did (I also calculated the Gt numbers above, indeed I calculate most numbers when I give them - keeps me honest, keeps me in practice, and gives me a better overview). Measure-it-yourself, well if I must, but it's easier just to look up the long-wave IR absorbance spectrum of CO2. Measuring long wavelength IR spectra in a gas is a bit unwieldy, I haven't done it in 45 years. Note that I haven't said anything about how significant today's levels are - mainly because I don't really know. But I am a little worried about the possibility of an end-Permian level extinction event. Or worse, end of all life on earth - the sun is hotter now. -- Peter Fairbrother
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 05:40:33 +0000 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> 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 24/03/19 18:49, Punk wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 05:40:33 +0000 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> 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. Then you take a core, measure the CO2 concentration and depth, adjust for how much got trapped, then calculate the age at that depth. That is just roughly speaking; in practice it is a bit more involved than that. 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. The measurement protocols are quite complicated, but very accurate. The measurements, methods and calculations are all public. No reputable scientist doubts them.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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 =)
No. Because it did. We know that because some chemists in the 1850-1900 period measured the amount of CO2 in the air. 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. Not hard to understand, not tricky stuff, not people trying to mislead you - just what was, and what is.
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 unless people are bending scientific truth for their own benefit - which is happening here. 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. 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. But maybe GW is now too mainstream to rebel against? What have you got? Peter Fairbrother
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:52:38 +0000 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/03/19 18:49, Punk wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 05:40:33 +0000 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> 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
More linkies: TL;DR: most plant species studied appear to have optimal growth characteristics with CO2 at well above current levels, in particular at from 743ppm (measured) to 2700ppm (estimate of combination of CO2 and water usage optimization). That is, plant life on this planet appears optimized for atmospheric concentration levels of around 1200ppm. Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low For Life On Earth http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm... Over the Earth's history, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have ranged from 180 ppm to 7000 ppm, see Figure 1 below. On that scale we are in fact today barely above the Earth's record lows. Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 concentration is just barely above the life-sustaining levels of 150 ppm. … It’s a fact that biologists have shown that once the atmospheric CO2 level falls below the 500 ppm level, plants really begin to suffer. Many of us have seen the video showing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE how plants grow faster under higher CO2 concentrations. The following charts show the growth curves of some plants as a function of CO2 concentration: Study: why CO2 levels are lower during global cold periods https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/15/study-why-co2-levels-are-lower-during... As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth. This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. CO2 myth busted: Why we need more carbon dioxide to grow food and forests https://www.naturalnews.com/039720_carbon_dioxide_myths_plant_nutrition.html … as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Plant Growth and Carbon Dioxide for Maximum Yield http://www.jasons-indoor-guide-to-organic-and-hydroponics-gardening.com/plan... Plant growth requires a tremendous amount of Carbon Dioxide (also known as CO2). At the center of every plant cell is an atom of Carbon, which the plant has absorbed from the surrounding air. When all other growing conditions are kept ideal, Carbon Dioxide becomes the growth limiting factor. This means, as you increase the CO2 in your garden area, you will also increase the plant growth rates....and your yields. The ideal level of CO2 supplementation to maximize plant growth in a well maintained garden is generally 1500 ppm. In one final twist of irony, as you begin to increase plant growth and Carbon Dioxide levels you will reach a point where temperature becomes the limiting factor. In order to benefit from the highest levels of CO2 supplementation (1500-2000 ppm), you actually need to run your garden area warmer than normal (80-85 degrees). On average, plants will also require an extra 30 watts of light/sq.ft. (70-80 watts/sq.ft.). Plants will use extra water and nutrients under these conditions, so make sure they are available! This has one implication which may offer you (the indoor gardener) a very nice solution to one of your most difficult problems. If all other factors are perfect in your garden EXCEPT your temperature runs a little high, you may be able to maximize plant growth AND solve your heat problem at the same time with the addition of CO2. The optimal CO2 concentrations for the growth of three perennial grass species https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3 Here, we examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration effect on CO2 fertilization and further on the growth of three perennial grasses in growth chambers with the CO2 concentration at 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1200 ppm, respectively. … the CO2 fertilization effect may sustain up to about 1000 ppm for leaf photosynthesis [46, 49] and 1800 ppm for grain yield of crops [50]. For example, Xu [23] examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2 fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat and found that the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration was 894 and 968 ppm for total biomass and leaf photosynthesis… … Elevated CO2 effects on plant biomass We found very strong CO2 fertilization effects on the aboveground and total biomass of the three species. The optimal CO2 levels for the aboveground biomass were 945, 915, and 1151 ppm, and for the total biomass were 915, 1178, and 1386 ppm for tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, and Kentucky bluegrass, respectively (Fig. 1). However, an optimal CO2 of 895 ppm for the belowground was found only for the tall fescue, while no obviously optimal CO2 of the belowground biomass for the other two species was detected. Beyond the optimum, further elevating the ambient CO2 concentration significantly reduced the growth of perennial grasses, indicating the adverse impacts of high CO2 concentration on the grass species. … we quantified the relationship between CO2 and WUE [water use efficiency] of perennial ryegrass through quadratic models and found that the optimal CO2 for WUE would occur at about 2700 ppm, which was much higher than those of the other two species (Fig. 2).
participants (3)
-
Peter Fairbrother -
Punk -
Zenaan Harkness