Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 162

Thread: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'[W;96]

  1. #121
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,244

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'[W;96]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You've read the IPCC report that hasn't been released?
    Not all of it, but I have had the WG1 part of it since 3/1/13.

  2. #122
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,244

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    Methane has higher anthropogenic sources and at greater amount than human flatulence. Combine with the effect that it is 10 times worse than carbon and you have a factor.
    Your ignorance is showing.

    I have explained this before. Methane is not stronger than CO2. What is larger is the slope that an increase of 1 ppb (parts per billion) causes. At the levels listed in the AR4, CO2 has a radiative efficiency of 1.04 x 10-5. CH4 has a radiative efficiency of 3.7 x 10-4. Without understanding what "radiative efficiency" is, this appears CH4 is 36 times stronger. Now the 20 year GWP (Global warming Potential) is 1 for CO2 and 72 for CH4. 1 is the standard for comparing against CO2. The 100 year GWP is again 1 for CO2, but CH4 drops to 25. Since CH4 decreases compared to CO2 from the 20 yr to 100 yr numbers, it indicates CH4 dissipates faster as well.

    Now back to the radiative Efficiency.


    CO2 in the AR4 for 2005 was 378 ppm (parts per million) which equals 378,000 ppb, Methane was at 1,774 ppb. There is 214 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is CH4, placing CO2 farther along a log curve, hence, less of a slope. The two curves are approximations based on IPCC data, and it shows that CO2 is about 5 times stronger, molecule per molecule. However. With CH4 at 1,774 ppb, the slope of increasing it to 1,775 ppb is 0.3664 using the ppm scale. CO2, starting at 378,000 ppb and increasing it to 378,001 ppb has a slope of 0.0141. My extrapolated numbers match pretty close to the IPCC. These slopes are 0.0003664 and 0.0000141 if I used a ppb scale. Both these numbers round to two significant digits, matching the IPCC numbers.

    Now the GWP scale uses mass rather than molar values. I think they base it on tons added. Using simple baryon counts, CO2 has a mass of 44, and CH4 has a mass of 16. This is a ratio of 44:16, or 2.75:1. This is why the GWP short term is larger even larger, at 72 for 20 years. I forget the exact relationship, and I'm not going to look it up.

    Thing is, we aren't going to add ppb to ppb of CH4 and CO2, or ton for ton. They will each increase by close to the same percentage. Since CO2 is actually about 5 times stronger, molecule per molecule, then when we add 20% or 30% more of each, CO2 is still stronger!
    Last edited by Lord of Planar; 09-25-13 at 02:20 PM.

  3. #123
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Your ignorance is showing.

    I have explained this before. Methane is not stronger than CO2. What is larger is the slope that an increase of 1 ppb (parts per billion) causes. At the levels listed in the AR4, CO2 has a radiative efficiency of 1.04 x 10-5. CH4 has a radiative efficiency of 3.7 x 10-4. Without understanding what "radiative efficiency" is, this appears CH4 is 36 times stronger. Now the 20 year GWP (Global warming Potential) is 1 for CO2 and 72 for CH4. 1 is the standard for comparing against CO2. The 100 year GWP is again 1 for CO2, but CH4 drops to 25. Since CH4 decreases compared to CO2 from the 20 yr to 100 yr numbers, it indicates CH4 dissipates faster as well.

    Now back to the radiative Efficiency.


    CO2 in the AR4 for 2005 was 378 ppm (parts per million) which equals 378,000 ppb, Methane was at 1,774 ppb. There is 214 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is CH4, placing CO2 farther along a log curve, hence, less of a slope. The two curves are approximations based on IPCC data, and it shows that CO2 is about 5 times stronger, molecule per molecule. However. With CH4 at 1,774 ppb, the slope of increasing it to 1,775 ppb is 0.3664 using the ppm scale. CO2, starting at 378,000 ppb and increasing it to 378,001 ppb has a slope of 0.0141. My extrapolated numbers match pretty close to the IPCC. These slopes are 0.0003664 and 0.0000141 if I used a ppb scale. Both these numbers round to two significant digits, matching the IPCC numbers.

    Now the GWP scale uses mass rather than molar values. I think they base it on tons added. Using simple baryon counts, CO2 has a mass of 44, and CH4 has a mass of 16. This is a ratio of 44:16, or 2.75:1. This is why the GWP short term is larger even larger, at 72 for 20 years. I forget the exact relationship, and I'm not going to look it up.

    Thing is, we aren't going to add ppb to ppb of CH4 and CO2, or ton for ton. They will each increase by close to the same percentage. Since CO2 is actually about 5 times stronger, molecule per molecule, then when we add 20% or 30% more of each, CO2 is still stronger!
    But molecule for molecule I meant that methane is 10 times worse than CO2. I know it is less abundant than CO2 but molecule by molecule is worse. As such should also be considered.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  4. #124
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,244

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    But molecule for molecule I meant that methane is 10 times worse than CO2. I know it is less abundant than CO2 but molecule by molecule is worse. As such should also be considered.
    Molecule per molecular is an illusion created by the alarmist. It is a metric that should never be used. It is not representative an any realistic output.

    If that is what you meant, your 10 times is still invalid, as CH4, at current levels, is more than 30 times stronger.

    Why don't you just admit it. These alarmist numbers are silly.

  5. #125
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,685

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    You know, over-and-over again, throughout the many years I have been posting here, I have not once seen one iota of proof that private sector groups are funding scientific organizations so they can push their warming agenda. Who are these people/businesses???
    Seimens, a "leader" in Green Tech, funds millions in climate research annually.

    The climate scientists like James Hansen have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in awards and speaking fees for advocating government solutions to the problem they are defining (nice work if you can get it!).

    Al Gore spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.

    Richard Branson spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.

    And so on and so on.

    To hear you people talk none of the billions of dollars spent annually on climate research ever goes to a single scientist...
    Last edited by jmotivator; 09-25-13 at 03:31 PM.

  6. #126
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,455
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Seimens, a "leader" in Green Tech, funds millions in climate research annually.
    And? What does this prove?

    The climate scientists like James Hansen have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in awards and speaking fees for advocating government solutions to the problem they are defining (nice work if you can get it!).
    And? What does this prove?

    Al Gore spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.
    And? What does this prove?

    Richard Branson spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.
    And? What does this prove?

    To hear you people talk none of the billions of dollars spent annually on climate research ever goes to a single scientist...
    Jeepers creepers, this is not the argument. Of course millions are spent funding research. That is not my argument.

    Once again, like a broken record:

    For years, I've read that climate scientists have taken money for research to push foward an agenda created by the donor and not by science itself. Not once has anyone ever offered any evidence of these supposed sinister dealings. NOT ONCE. Yet, unbelievably, it seems that the deniers universally belive this myth. Why do you think that is?
    No men are anywhere, and Im allowed to go in, because Im the owner of the pageant and therefore Im inspecting it, Trump said... Is everyone OK? You know, theyre standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.

  7. #127
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:43 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,067

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Let's see, how do we scare 6 billion people into accepting a global tax?

  8. #128
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,685

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    And? What does this prove?



    And? What does this prove?



    And? What does this prove?



    And? What does this prove?



    Jeepers creepers, this is not the argument. Of course millions are spent funding research. That is not my argument.

    Once again, like a broken record:

    For years, I've read that climate scientists have taken money for research to push foward an agenda created by the donor and not by science itself. Not once has anyone ever offered any evidence of these supposed sinister dealings. NOT ONCE. Yet, unbelievably, it seems that the deniers universally belive this myth. Why do you think that is?

    *sigh* How much money do you suppose would be spent on climate studies if there was no perceived problem?

    Hint: In 1988 The total spent on climate science was about $100 million in the US. It is now over $8 billion... or roughly a 8000% increase over 25 years. Do you suppose that climate scientists are eager to slash their budgets back to "no threat" level?

  9. #129
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'[W;96]

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    (Reuters) - A United Nations panel of experts met on Monday to review a draft report that raises the probability that climate change is man-made to 95 percent and warns of ever more extreme weather unless governments take strong action.

    Scientists and officials from more than 110 governments began a four-day meeting in Stockholm to edit and approve the 31-page draft that also tries to explain a "hiatus" in the pace of global warming this century despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.
    I read the first 5 words and immediately thought oxymoron.

    I can't wait to read their edits of the report and explanation of the "prophetic error" discovered in their religious doctrine.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  10. #130
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,348

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'[W;96]

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    I read the first 5 words and immediately thought oxymoron.

    I can't wait to read their edits of the report and explanation of the "prophetic error" discovered in their religious doctrine.
    I've always enjoyed reading science fiction. Would this qualify?

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •