Global Warming for Dummies

[shaunbhoy]

I declare BB a comfortable winner in this debate. PJC to his credit does at least try to source reference material to support his stance, but as there is so much "dodgy-dossier" type material falling out of the back of the AGW bandwagon, he loses a lot of street cred before he has even begun.
SG snipes away from the sidelines like a dutiful house-elf with about as much clue about any of this as the average pot plant, and with his inane yet persistent wittering undermines what little progress pjc might ever make. Well done sg!!! PJC must feel like he has an anvil tied to his ankle as he argues on and on. Maybe you and AtW could get together and compose some sort of "Lunch" thread? That would seem to be a more reasonable benchmark for you both to aiming for!

[sasguru]

I declare BB a comfortable winner in this debate. PJC to his credit does at least try to source reference material to support his stance, but as there is so much "dodgy-dossier" type material falling out of the back of the AGW bandwagon, he loses a lot of street cred before he has even begun.
SG snipes away from the sidelines like a dutiful house-elf with about as much clue about any of this as the average pot plant, and with his inane yet persistent wittering undermines what little progress pjc might ever make. Well done sg!!! PJC must feel like he has an anvil tied to his ankle as he argues on and on. Maybe you and AtW could get together and compose some sort of "Lunch" thread? That would seem to be a more reasonable benchmark for you both to aiming for!

Ah I was wondering when the newly promoted CUK Chief Village Idiot would arrive. Now don't you have a deadly boiler to fix that has been sitting in your house for 8 years?

[shaunbhoy]

Ah I was wondering when the newly promoted CUK Chief Village Idiot would arrive. Now don't you have a deadly boiler to fix that has been sitting in your house for 8 years?

A fairly rapid response sg. Now had you taken a bit longer it might have been worth reading................then again probably not. It would simply have passed through your "Quality Checking" department more than once....and still have remained utterly worthless. Until some kindly passing surgeon comes up with a way of inserting some form of intellectual capacity into that hollow receptacle just adjacent to where your chin should be, you will simply remain a prolific yet valueless contributor to the forum.

[BlasterBates]

airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much)

And that's what the contribution to Global warming is!!!

not the other figure, but then you've never really grasped the basic theory on AGW.

[doodab]

And that's what the contribution to Global warming is!!!

not the other figure, but then you've never really grasped the basic theory on AGW.

Er, no it's not.

Airborne fraction of CO2 = the fraction of CO2 emissions that stays in the atmosphere. As the total amount of CO2 emissions increases, 43% of that amount increases as well.

43% of 100 tons = 43 tons
43% of 200 tons = 86 tons

Hence the amount of CO2 that is present in the atmosphere is increasing. It's this amount that we are supposed to worry about.


Question for you BB. If something goes down 10% and then goes up 10% how much has it changed?

[DimPrawn]

Er, no it's not.

Airborne fraction of CO2 = the fraction of CO2 emissions that stays in the atmosphere. As the total amount of CO2 emissions increases, 43% of that amount increases as well, hence the amount that is present in the atmosphere is increasing.

43% of 100 tons = 43 tons
43% of 200 tons = 86 tons

Question for you BB. If something goes down 10% and then goes up 10% how much has it changed?

Where's me calculator?

[BlasterBates]

Of course they don't! It is well-understood (and a feature of all climate models) that Carbon, whether manmade or naturally-emitted is in flux between the oceans, atmosphere, biological sources and sinks and long term stores such as carboniferous rocks. aka The Bern Carbon Cycle.

The Knorr paper is about measurements of the airborne fraction - that is the fraction of CO2 that is not immediately absorbed by the sinks (mainly the ocean). Some projections (not all) show it rising, and Knorr finds it stable, other studies (example ) come to different conclusions.

Which is interesting, but to simplify - Combined with continuing or increasing emissions, Knorr's stable AF shows that we are in trouble, a rising fraction means even bigger trouble.

Ok I formulated it wrongly, the point being that the additional CO2 above beyond the amount that is naturally produced goes into the atmosphere and stays there. i.e. CO2 was in balance until man came along. This study changes that and indicates far lower amount is in the airborne fraction than previously thought.

[sasguru]

Poor BB! A few claw-hammers short of a full tool-box.

[DiscoStu]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why I should give a toss if AGW should prove to be real.

[shaunbhoy]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why I should give a toss if AGW should prove to be real.

Cue sg and some pointlessly unfunny toolbox-related analogy.