<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ah, thank you. Two graphs superimposed over each other. I don't know
why I didn't see that the first time. I was assuming there was some
kind of implicit conversion between the ppmv numbers and the millions
of metric tons, like having inches and centimeters on the same graph.
The broken lines between 0 and 260 on the left-side scale should have
tipped me off, but I guess I was brain-dead last night.<br>
<br>
So, yes, I will have to "revise my analysis" - which is a nice way of
saying that I need to toss it out completely.<br>
<br>
The disparity in the numbers for the second graph still intrigue me,
though. I'm assuming that there hasn't been a 3 billion ton deficit in
carbon dioxide uptake every year for very long, or we'd be saying that
we have miraculously saved ourselves from a frozen planet. 730 billion
tons would be gone in less than 250 years, and we'd freeze long before
that. This appears to be a reaction to the raise in CO2 levels that is
just short of half as strong as our ability to pump excess CO2 into the
air. Why don't we hear about this? If it were me, and I had control
over the world's climatologists, I'd be forcing them to study the
various natural processes that are pumping CO2 into the air and the
ones that are naturally scrubbing it out. What is the relative size of
each process? Will it continue to increase? How will it change as the
earth warms and the other processes change? Are these changes linear?
Can we model them sufficiently to use them to predict future climate
change? What would happen if we simply stopped all burning of fossil
fuels? How far would CO2 levels drop?<br>
<br>
Focusing on this may be more productive than trying to get our
greed-addled politicians to become acquainted with common sense. I'm
excluding Tom, Shirley, Roger, and whoever else who has been involved
with our government who posts here in this, obviously ;)<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
nortons wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid0895BA0B-9730-4366-8C98-AEF2C189AC88@moscow.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vision2020-request@moscow.com">vision2020-request@moscow.com</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:56:36 -0700
From: lfalen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com"><lfalen@turbonet.com></a>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Spam] Questions about global warming
To: "Paul Rumelhart" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a>, Vision2020
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><vision2020@moscow.com></a>
Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:299be6223b3445045ac061b22a693163@turbonet.com"><299be6223b3445045ac061b22a693163@turbonet.com></a>
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:55:47 -0700
To: Vision2020 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>
Subject: [Spam] [Vision2020] Questions about global warming
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html">http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html</a> 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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================
End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 11, Issue 185
*******************************************
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>