quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quoting from the Energy Advisor.

In 2011, the US emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon. That compares with over 200 GTC/year from nature (92 GtC/year from the oceans, and 200 GtC/year from vegetation, soil, and detritus).

The atmospheric load is 750GtC. If all US emissions stayed in the atmosphere it would take 500 years to double the atmospheric concentration and that would lead to about a 3 degree rise in temperature, IF the climate models were any good at prediction (which they are not).


Other notes: Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

This 'Energy Advisor' you mention - is this a bloke who works at your local car showroom?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quoting from the Energy Advisor.

In 2011, the US emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon. That compares with over 200 GTC/year from nature (92 GtC/year from the oceans, and 200 GtC/year from vegetation, soil, and detritus).

The atmospheric load is 750GtC. If all US emissions stayed in the atmosphere it would take 500 years to double the atmospheric concentration and that would lead to about a 3 degree rise in temperature, IF the climate models were any good at prediction (which they are not).


Other notes: Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

Hmm you're only off by a factor of more than 3.5.
http://iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/may/name,27216,en.html

92 million tons decrease = !.7% decrease therefore 92Mt/0.017 = 5.411Gt for 2010. 5.411Gt - 92Mt = 5.319Gt

BTW natural sources are matched by natural sinks that is why the atmospheric composition was stable. What we're doing is adding more CO2 than those natural sinks can keep up with and theCO2 concentration has increased dramatically because of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quoting from the Energy Advisor.

In 2011, the US emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon. That compares with over 200 GTC/year from nature (92 GtC/year from the oceans, and 200 GtC/year from vegetation, soil, and detritus).

The atmospheric load is 750GtC. If all US emissions stayed in the atmosphere it would take 500 years to double the atmospheric concentration and that would lead to about a 3 degree rise in temperature, IF the climate models were any good at prediction (which they are not).


Other notes: Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

Hmm you're only off by a factor of more than 3.5.
http://iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/may/name,27216,en.html

92 million tons decrease = !.7% decrease therefore 92Mt/0.017 = 5.411Gt for 2010. 5.411Gt - 92Mt = 5.319Gt

BTW natural sources are matched by natural sinks that is why the atmospheric composition was stable. What we're doing is adding more CO2 than those natural sinks can keep up with and theCO2 concentration has increased dramatically because of it.

I'm afraid once again you demonstrate a remarkable inability to comprehend english as I wrote it.

Your source quotes CARBON DIOXIDE. Carbon (which is what I quoted) is approximately one third the weight of CO2. Its necessary to make the conversion since terrestial carbon uptake (lignen etc) is measured in carbon units, not CO2.

Such elementary mistakes blind you to even more obvious issues.

Even if you were to cut the US emissions to ZERO you would have no appreciable effect on the carbon dioxide concentration.

Let me make the numbers more clear for those that have an actual interest in this:

US emissions: 1,500,000,000 metric tons.
Emitted from the oceans: 92,000,000,000 metric tons.
Emitted from terrestial Natural sources 200,000,000,000 metric tons.

This is the amount of carbon being added to the atmosphere in 2012.
Again. Reduce the US emissions to zero and you make negligible impact on atmospheric CO2 content.

Be a sheeple. Believe in 'global warming'. Or else actually read the numbers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quoting from the Energy Advisor.

In 2011, the US emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon. That compares with over 200 GTC/year from nature (92 GtC/year from the oceans, and 200 GtC/year from vegetation, soil, and detritus).

The atmospheric load is 750GtC. If all US emissions stayed in the atmosphere it would take 500 years to double the atmospheric concentration and that would lead to about a 3 degree rise in temperature, IF the climate models were any good at prediction (which they are not).


Other notes: Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

Hmm you're only off by a factor of more than 3.5.
http://iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/may/name,27216,en.html

92 million tons decrease = !.7% decrease therefore 92Mt/0.017 = 5.411Gt for 2010. 5.411Gt - 92Mt = 5.319Gt

BTW natural sources are matched by natural sinks that is why the atmospheric composition was stable. What we're doing is adding more CO2 than those natural sinks can keep up with and theCO2 concentration has increased dramatically because of it.

I'm afraid once again you demonstrate a remarkable inability to comprehend english as I wrote it.

Your source quotes CARBON DIOXIDE. Carbon (which is what I quoted) is approximately one third the weight of CO2. Its necessary to make the conversion since terrestial carbon uptake (lignen etc) is measured in carbon units, not CO2.

Such elementary mistakes blind you to even more obvious issues.

Even if you were to cut the US emissions to ZERO you would have no appreciable effect on the carbon dioxide concentration.

Let me make the numbers more clear for those that have an actual interest in this:

US emissions: 1,500,000,000 metric tons.
Emitted from the oceans: 92,000,000,000 metric tons.
Emitted from terrestial Natural sources 200,000,000,000 metric tons.

This is the amount of carbon being added to the atmosphere in 2012.
Again. Reduce the US emissions to zero and you make negligible impact on atmospheric CO2 content.

Be a sheeple. Believe in 'global warming'. Or else actually read the numbers.

I'm gonna fault your logic a bit.
Let's say that for years, you eat 2500 calories/day and you burn 2500 calories/day.
One day, you start to drink one extra soda a day but you don't burn any extra energy.
What happens over the course of 3 years? You gain about 50#

Emission and absorption have been in balance for centuries. Now we start to put a little extra in.

Over a period of time, that fit body becomes bloated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Great Theory.
Completely ignores the facts.

The point *again* is that emissions from natural sources DWARF what American emissions are.

quote:


And even if you doubt my word (good, scepticism is good for the soul), science rests on data.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SaintHayden
The model I've been involved with has built in randomized variables in every square km of the entire atmosphere. You run it several thousand times to see what the range of potential outcomes maybe. It'a not a perfect science

quote:

ORIGINAL: SaintHayden

Couple points.

By simple laws of thermodynamics increased levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere would raise the heat reflection point of that atmosphere higher above core, and could not possibly not raise the temperature of the earth. Yes there are a lot of other variables, but if all else remained the same more Carbon Dioxide = higher temperatures.
. . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quoting from the Energy Advisor.

In 2011, the US emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon. That compares with over 200 GTC/year from nature (92 GtC/year from the oceans, and 200 GtC/year from vegetation, soil, and detritus).

The atmospheric load is 750GtC. If all US emissions stayed in the atmosphere it would take 500 years to double the atmospheric concentration and that would lead to about a 3 degree rise in temperature, IF the climate models were any good at prediction (which they are not).


Other notes: Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

Hmm you're only off by a factor of more than 3.5.
http://iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/may/name,27216,en.html

92 million tons decrease = !.7% decrease therefore 92Mt/0.017 = 5.411Gt for 2010. 5.411Gt - 92Mt = 5.319Gt

BTW natural sources are matched by natural sinks that is why the atmospheric composition was stable. What we're doing is adding more CO2 than those natural sinks can keep up with and theCO2 concentration has increased dramatically because of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quoting from the Energy Advisor.

In 2011, the US emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon. That compares with over 200 GTC/year from nature (92 GtC/year from the oceans, and 200 GtC/year from vegetation, soil, and detritus).

The atmospheric load is 750GtC. If all US emissions stayed in the atmosphere it would take 500 years to double the atmospheric concentration and that would lead to about a 3 degree rise in temperature, IF the climate models were any good at prediction (which they are not).


Other notes: Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Look, I don't have a lot of time to really educated people in this.