[Vision2020] Questions about global warming
J Ford
privatejf32 at hotmail.com
Mon May 14 14:59:35 PDT 2007
Question: How did you get the graph to move? I looked at it and it won't
even let me alter its size, shape or whatever. Just asking.
J :]
>From: nortons <nortons at moscow.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Questions about global warming
>Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:28:57 -0700
>
>Paul,
>Regarding your post,
>You will need to revise your analysis of the data when you
>reinterpret the graph (fig 1).
>Tthe left hand y-axis represents the total atmospheric carbon dioxide
>as parts per million in the atmosphere (the orange line). The right
>hand axis represents the total mass of carbon (as carbon dioxide)
>anthropogenically added to the atmosphere during the given year (grey
>line). You can't read the orange line off the right hand axis nor the
>grey line off the left axis. The fact that the lines cross in 1960 is
>an artifact of the scales chosen for the two graphs. For example, If
>you contract or expand the left axis, you can make the lines cross at
>just about any year you want. If I've misinterpreted what you did,
>please accept my apology
>
>Steve
>P.S. This is my first post and I'm winging how to do it.
>
>
>On May 14, 2007, at 12:00 PM, vision2020-request at moscow.com wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:56:36 -0700
> > From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Spam] Questions about global warming
> > To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>, Vision2020
> > <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Message-ID: <299be6223b3445045ac061b22a693163 at turbonet.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Thanks fior your post. I have printed it off and will read as time
> > permits. I would like to complement you and Glen Schwaller on your
> > posts. Both of you have presented reasoned viewpoints without
> > being vindictive or engaging in innuendo. I would like to see more
> > of this on vision2020. Skeptical Inquirer has a review of the
> > literature on global warming in the May/June issue. They will
> > continue the review in the July/August issue. I may tend to
> > disagree with their conclusions. Good discussion none the less.
> >
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
> > Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:55:47 -0700
> > To: Vision2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: [Spam] [Vision2020] Questions about global warming
> >
> >> I have been looking into Global Warming, and I have some questions
> >> that
> >> have come up as I've been attempting to educate myself on this topic.
> >>
> >> First, look at this graph from the Energy Information Administration
> >> which appears to be part of the Department of Energy (from
> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html in case your
> >> email doesn't show it):
> >>
> >> Trends in Atmospheric Concentrations and Anthropogenic Emissions of
> >> Carbon Dioxide
> >>
> >> I've been attempting to understand this graph for a little while now,
> >> and something about it seems strange to me. Hopefully, I have
> >> misunderstood it completely. The text for this image states:
> >> "Figure 1
> >> is a line graph showing the trends in atmospheric concentrations and
> >> anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.". Ok. We're talking
> >> millons
> >> of metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere here, with a scale that
> >> goes
> >> from 0 (in 1860 or so) to about 6,600 at present. I had at first
> >> assumed that they were showing the total amounts of carbon int he
> >> atmosphere on the right hand side, but the numbers are way too low
> >> for
> >> that and they start at zero. There is supposedly right now about 730
> >> billions metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere, so that top 7,000
> >> million tons number must mean something else. It's somewhat close to
> >> the current number for billions of tons of carbon put into the
> >> atmosphere by "Fossil Fuel Combustion and Industrial Processes",
> >> which
> >> appears to be an annual number. To make these numbers come
> >> together, I
> >> have to assume that the above graph is showing the amount of
> >> change in
> >> millions of tons of carbon each year since 1750.
> >>
> >> So my question is, what happened in the 1960s? That is the point at
> >> which the lines cross. So, if you look at 1860 you see that the
> >> entire
> >> amount of carbon increase each year in the atmosphere (the orange
> >> line)
> >> is about 2400 million tons. So that's the baseline for the
> >> non-anthropogenic increases. It would basically have been going
> >> up by
> >> that amount without our help every year, anyway. Perhaps we had some
> >> effect before 1860 burning wood and coal, cutting down forests and so
> >> on, but presumably not the steep incline we see later - so we're
> >> not so
> >> much to blame here.
> >>
> >> Now, if you look at 1950, you see that the total anthropogenic
> >> amount is
> >> about 1500 million tons, yet the total atmospheric increase is about
> >> 3600. Subtracting the two, you get a difference of 2100 million tons
> >> instead of the 2400 million tons that I would have naively predicted.
> >> It gets hugely worse in the 1960s, where the graphs actually
> >> cross. At
> >> that point, the total amount of atmospheric change per annum is
> >> due to
> >> anthropogenic changes. From that point forward, the amount of
> >> atmospheric change would have been dropping, if not for the huge
> >> spike
> >> in anthropogenic change. We have the strange situation where the
> >> total
> >> amount of atmospheric change is less than the total amount of
> >> anthropogenic change, which is just flat-out weird. What this
> >> seems to
> >> say is that if you simply stopped burning all fossil fuels and
> >> stopped
> >> all industrial processes, the amount of carbon in the air would drop
> >> quite quickly.
> >>
> >> This is why I'm skeptical that we are going to have as disastrous an
> >> effect as seems to be assumed by global warming proponents.
> >>
> >> Take a look at the next graph on that site:
> >>
> >> Global Carbon Cycle (Billion Metric Tons Carbon)
> >>
> >>
> >> We are focusing so much on the dashed line heading from the
> >> factory to
> >> the atmosphere that we seem to be ignoring the question of why 90
> >> billion tons of carbon come out of the atmosphere and end up in the
> >> ocean while only 88 billion tons makes its way back. Same with
> >> vegetation and soils - 120 from atmosphere to vegetation/soils,
> >> 119 goes
> >> back. Even the changing land-use figures are in our favor, by 0.2
> >> billion tons. This seems to mesh with the previous graph, i.e. if
> >> you
> >> stop all industrial process altogether than the amount of carbon
> >> in the
> >> atmosphere will drop by 3.2 billion tons every year. Since the
> >> article
> >> stated that certain greenhouse gases have increased by 25% since
> >> 1850,
> >> then there must have been 730 / 1.25 = 584 billions of tons of
> >> carbon in
> >> the air at that time. Thus, it would take (730 - 584) / 3.2 = 45.625
> >> years to get back to pre-industrial levels. Of course, these changes
> >> are probably not linear - I'm sure they all change with great
> >> complexity, which is why relying on those numbers in the other
> >> direction
> >> without better understanding them seems foolish.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying that we shouldn't be pressuring our government and
> >> that
> >> of other countries to lower that 6.3 number, but maybe we should
> >> also be
> >> trying to find ways to increase the differences in those different
> >> areas. The only way that comes to mind right off hand is to take
> >> much
> >> of our current vegetation and sink it to the bottom of the ocean
> >> so that
> >> when it grows back it will have to take it's carbon from the
> >> atmosphere. Of course, that's not a viable solution for a whole
> >> host of
> >> different reasons - but the idea is to "think outside the
> >> box" (gods I
> >> hate that phrase) and look for other solutions at the same time we
> >> are
> >> trying to convince those lunk-heads in charge that depending on
> >> fossil
> >> fuels is a Bad Idea for many different excellent reasons.
> >>
> >> Just to forestall some things: I am not saying that global warming
> >> isn't
> >> happening, obviously it is. I'm not saying we aren't having an
> >> effect
> >> on it, obviously we are. That's a change in my thinking since I
> >> started
> >> learning about this. I was skeptical at first that we could have
> >> such
> >> an enormous effect. While that 6.3 number is small compared to the
> >> amount of carbon going into the air from the oceans or from
> >> vegetation,
> >> it's much larger proportionally than I would have guessed. My
> >> position,
> >> if you would call it that, is that this whole process is so bloody
> >> complicated that we shouldn't be sounding the Trumpets of Doom and
> >> Gloom
> >> all the time until we have some better numbers and a model that we
> >> can
> >> use that has shown itself to be predictive. The above is talking
> >> just
> >> about the relatively simplistic carbon cycle, and doesn't even
> >> touch on
> >> the other greenhouse gases, their interactions, or what the various
> >> numbers given above are going to do as the earth warms even more
> >> or even
> >> what their current rates of change are at this moment.
> >>
> >> If we do need to sound the trumpets, think about this - what if we
> >> have
> >> set into motion a series of processes that will dump so much
> >> carbon from
> >> the atmosphere before they stop that we will *need* to keep up our
> >> anthropogenic changes or risk freezing to death? I'm not actually
> >> serious here, just trying to illustrate why "doom and gloom" doesn't
> >> really help the debate.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> > End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 11, Issue 185
> > *******************************************
> >
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative now.
It’s free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list