How to lie statistically?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

We've altered the rotation of the planet itself through dam building. We sure as shooting can influence the thin atmosphere above the planet with ease.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Greven
Near 100%.

That level of absolutism troubles me.

We are indisputably raising carbon dioxide levels.

I'm sure we are contributing, but I find it very hard to believe it is 100% our doing. I find the level of alarm around this phenomena equally as troubling as it always seems to revolve around money and when money gets involved the truth becomes whatever is convenient.

We are 100% behind rising CO2 levels. There is no debate about this.

The "debate" is trying to misrepresent science.

originally posted by: Greven
How the ever-loving hell do you get off calling CO2 a cooling gas???

Because it is! You're backwards in your argument. The Earth warms, more CO2 is generated, the Earth cools. It is what has preceded every ice age the planet has experienced. When those ice ages end, CO2 increases slowly again because we have a higher degree of biological growth, respiring Oxygen and creating CO2. It's called science, have you met?

You are denying physics itself.

LMAO. I'm not the one denying physics. I'm denying the abuse of science by a bunch of profit driven mongrels and their flock of worshippers. AGW has become the new world religion... a costly shame, both in terms of financial capital and in all of the actual knowledge that's been rejected in the name of this new ponzi scheme of controlling the masses.

originally posted by: Greven
We are 100% behind rising CO2 levels. There is no debate about this.

I will remain skeptical that we are responsible for 100% of the increase. It sounds far too convenient.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven
How the ever-loving hell do you get off calling CO2 a cooling gas???

Because it is! You're backwards in your argument. The Earth warms, more CO2 is generated, the Earth cools. It is what has preceded every ice age the planet has experienced. When those ice ages end, CO2 increases slowly again because we have a higher degree of biological growth, respiring Oxygen and creating CO2. It's called science, have you met?

You are denying physics itself.

LMAO. I'm not the one denying physics. I'm denying the abuse of science by a bunch of profit driven mongrels and their flock of worshippers. AGW has become the new world religion... a costly shame, both in terms of financial capital and in all of the actual knowledge that's been rejected in the name of this new ponzi scheme of controlling the masses.

Again, you are denying physics.

Let me repeat myself:

originally posted by: Greven
If we did not have greenhouse gases, the Earth as a whole would be approximately 255°K - below freezing. That's for today - the Sun is thought to have increased in its output as it has aged. Now, that 255°K would be for the whole of the atmosphere. Pressure determines mass; a good rule of thumb is that 50% of the remaining mass of the atmosphere will be below every 5.6km increase in altitude. Thus, 50% of atmospheric mass is within about 5.6km of the surface, 75% is within about 11.2km, 87.5% is within about 16.8km, and so on. More than 98% of the Earth's atmospheric mass is below about 33.6km.

UAH for example defines 'lower troposphere' to be from near the surface up to about 8km. Temperature falls with altitude above the surface in the troposphere (the lowest 75% of the atmosphere), as anyone who has been on top of a mountain will understand; this lapse rate is about -6.49 °K/km. Given a mean surface temperature of 288°K, you can guess the temperature for 3/4ths of the atmosphere and about how much mass it makes up. Let's do it roughly by taking the start temperatures and saying that's how much a particular section is (this is slightly inaccurate):
00km: 288.00°K @ 0%
01km: 281.51°K @ 11.3% * 288.00°K = 32.54400°K
02km: 275.02°K @ 10.2% * 281.51°K = 28.71402°K
03km: 268.53°K @ 09.3% * 275.02°K = 25.57686°K
04km: 262.04°K @ 08.4% * 268.53°K = 22.55652°K
05km: 255.55°K @ 07.5% * 262.04°K = 19.65300°K
06km: 249.06°K @ 06.7% * 255.55°K = 17.12185°K
07km: 242.57°K @ 06.1% * 249.06°K = 15.19266°K
08km: 236.08°K @ 05.4% * 242.57°K = 13.09878°K
09km: 229.59°K @ 04.8% * 236.08°K = 11.33184°K
10km: 223.10°K @ 04.2% * 229.59°K = 09.64278°K
11km: 216.65°K @ 03.8% * 223.10°K = 08.47780°K
77.7% of atmospheric mass totals to 203.91011°K

From 11km to 20km is the tropopause, where it's roughly the same temperature and where most remaining mass is:
Pause: 216.65°K @ 18.1% * 216.65°K = 39.21365°K
18.1% of atmospheric mass adds 39.21365°K

This leaves about 4.26% of atmospheric mass unaccounted for; the stratosphere is above the troposphere (by some definitions it includes the relatively constant tropopause) and actually goes up in temperature with height, averaging about 250.15°K. It also makes up almost all of the remaining atmospheric mass.
4.2% of atmospheric mass adds 10.5063°K

The total then is 253.63006°K, though it should be 255°K by the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation; probably this discrepancy is the stratospheric portion (warmer 9-11km range in some latitudes) or small errors in rounding from these calculations... but it's pretty close.

255°K is well below freezing, correct?

So, what started warming the planet? Water vapor below freezing?

The answer is CO2.

a reply to: Greven

Of course, the levels of CO2 the dinosaurs lived with was 5 x greater than today's too.

Of course, we get told that if things go up a tiny fraction more ... nothing will survive, but the dinosaurs and all the flora and fauna of those times (which includes some species still alive today -- sharks, crocodilians, etc.) seemed to thrive in it just fine.

So we will not destroy life on earth at all with more CO2.

How is CO2 measured?
When is it measured?
Where is it measured?
What do they use to measure CO2?
What variances are there in the equipment used to measure CO2?
How long have we measured CO2?
When we first started measuring CO2, was it as accurate as it is now?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Greven
We are 100% behind rising CO2 levels. There is no debate about this.

I will remain skeptical that we are responsible for 100% of the increase. It sounds far too convenient.

How about some math?

We know roughly how much carbon we burn, and it isn't that difficult to calculate changes in the atmosphere:

originally posted by: Greven
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), November 2014: 397.27 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, November 2015: 400.16 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2014 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,106.7812 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2015 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,129.4654 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 22.6842 Gt

originally posted by: Greven
We know about how much CO2 is produced by burning fuel, and about how much we burn each year:
Coal: 0.093303951 (lowest type ratio) tonnes CO2/million Btu * 153,000,000,000 million Btu in 2012 = 14,275,504,503 tonnes of CO2 = ~14 Gt of CO2
Oil: 0.071304721 (lowest type ratio) tonnes CO2/million Btu * 90 million barrels per day * 365 * 5.8 million Btu/barrel = 13,585,688,492 tonnes of CO2 = ~13 Gt CO2
Combined: 27 Gt CO2/yr
There are of course others, but the combined emissions are already in excess of the increase. I don't really feel like looking up the 2011-2012 values, but the change is as I recall lower than 2014-2015.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: burdman30ott6

We've altered the rotation of the planet itself through dam building. We sure as shooting can influence the thin atmosphere above the planet with ease.

Moment of inertia is a lot easier to alter than systemic manipulation of an entire energy transfer sphere, my friend. If I place a thumbtack on the rim of a tractor tire, I have just altered that tire's moment of inertia. Comparing the two demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. The IPCC and others have latched on to the average man's lack of knowledge and doe-eyed acceptance of anyone in an authority position telling them what to think, buttressed it with fear mongering, and here we are... with a bunch of well meaning idiots driving the bus towards a cliff because somebody wearing glasses and speaking off an overhead projector showed them a chart they made in 5 minutes using cherry picked data.

Are there variances in when it is measured?
Are there variances in how it is measured?


Is anyone even asking these questions?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

Of course, the levels of CO2 the dinosaurs lived with was 5 x greater than today's too.

Of course, we get told that if things go up a tiny fraction more ... nothing will survive, but the dinosaurs and all the flora and fauna of those times (which includes some species still alive today -- sharks, crocodilians, etc.) seemed to thrive in it just fine.

So we will not destroy life on earth at all with more CO2.

Humans have never existed on this Earth with the CO2 levels we have today.

Nobody claims life will not survive except Guy McPherson.

Jesus, lol.

Richard Alley's talk regarding CO2 as a driver of climate change over the Earth's history is worth watching.

www.youtube.com...

He actually does science beyond the internet. Of course, he's probably doing this for an Armani suit and Ferrari. In fact, it's an AGU talk - there's dozens of those dastardly scientists there, haha.

Arrhenius clearly showed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas nearly 150 years ago. It's old news.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If you were a Civil Engineer in South Florida where seasonal high tides cause coastal flooding every year, I think your opinion would be different.

Do you think the elevated CO2 levels that human activity caused and continues to add, will have no consequences?

I'm a Civil Engineer in the Cook Inlet region of Alaska, where we have 33+ foot tides, among the largest in the world. Erosion happens and has been happening for eons. Also, when you build in a GD floodplain, YOU FLOOD! Look at New Orleans... it's built in a river delta below the ground water table. That's not climate change, it's arrogant men believing they can build in the dumbest locations imaginable, then covering their asses for their own bad decisions with "Oh woe, boo hoo, the climate has changed, we must do something!" when mother nature slaps them on the ass.

CO2 is actually a cooling gas. The periods in which the Earth has had the highest concentrations (much, much higher than today) Earth has soon after experienced a glaciation period. We can scientifically and mathematically prove this via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the laws of thermodynamics. H2O in vapor form is responsible for overall increases in planet temperature, which is a self-correcting problem for nature. As the temps go up, CO2 output increases, and that CO2 cools the atmosphere... Literally everything the IPCC and Al Gore have told you is BS and yes, there are scores of scientists (real ones, not meterologists as is the case with the "consensus") who have stated exactly this.
www.forbes.com...
www.pbl.nl...

The whole thing is a farce designed to steal money from the developed world via fearmongering and humanity's tendency to believe anyone who speaks in an authoritarian voice while wearing a little lab coat and showing graphs.

There you go, citing crap again. That Forbes article is a clear case of cherry picking:

scienceblogs.com...

Anyone want to guess at the deception? Cherry-picking! It was a survey of largely industry engineers and geoloscientists in Alberta, home of the tar sands. In the study authors’ words:

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.

This is pretty classic denialist cherry-picking and and is one of the most common deceptive practices of denialists like Taylor.

Regarding the second link, the pdf, you need to stop letting the Heartland Institute interpret results for you. Here, from one of the authors own blogs, obviously refutes your point:

ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: Greven
There are of course others, but the combined emissions are already in excess of the increase.

Where does the rest go and if only one year's worth of consumption equates to the alleged overall increase (with a surplus) why isn't this astronomically higher from the previous century's cumulative number?

a reply to: Greven

So, what started warming the planet?

Intentionally complicating scenarios and responses has been proven to work on laypeople, as they ignorantly believe the speaker MUST know what they're talking about because it is confusing to the listener. In reality, the simplest, and most accurate, answer invariably leads one away from a scenario in which the money and energy of the People is taken from them. In other words, the answer is THE SUN. The sun warms the planet, biological process increase, CO2 increases, and the planet cools, CO2 decreases with fewer biological processes occurring in a colder world, and the sun warms the planet anew with water vapor increasing the greenhouse capacity of the atmosphere.

I'm not denying physics, I'm denying blatant lies being spit out with physics being abused as the rationale for those lies. Please, actually study physics for a change. Educate yourself on the laws of energy conservation and Stephan-Boltzmann's laws of radiation.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: burdman30ott6

We've altered the rotation of the planet itself through dam building. We sure as shooting can influence the thin atmosphere above the planet with ease.

Moment of inertia is a lot easier to alter than systemic manipulation of an entire energy transfer sphere, my friend. If I place a thumbtack on the rim of a tractor tire, I have just altered that tire's moment of inertia. Comparing the two demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. The IPCC and others have latched on to the average man's lack of knowledge and doe-eyed acceptance of anyone in an authority position telling them what to think, buttressed it with fear mongering, and here we are... with a bunch of well meaning idiots driving the bus towards a cliff because somebody wearing glasses and speaking off an overhead projector showed them a chart they made in 5 minutes using cherry picked data.

This sure is a lot of hand-waving and unwillingness to tackle substantive rebuttals.

What raised the Earth's temperature enough that water was no longer freezing and water vapor could exist?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kettu
And who wants polluted air and water? I certainly don't. Shouldn't we advance our technologies in the direction of cleaner resources as the world's population continues to grow?

Yes, but CO2 isn't a pollutant. This is where they've got you by the short hairs, people believe the lie that CO2 is a pollutant. It is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere (3%) and yes, if a man was locked in a room containing only CO2, they'd suffocate... but if I stuck your head into a tub containing only H2O, you'd suffocate, too... wanna claim H2O is a pollutant?

CO2 is merely the byproduct of a carbon based biological world which respires Oxygen. That's it. Trees breath it to remove the carbon and create oxygen the atmosphere uses it to drop the overall temperature. Earth is not static and never has been. The cycles have been occurring since time began and no, humankind isn't involved in the process any more than a grain of sand is involved in controlling the tides on a beach.

Clever - a little bit of circular reasoning there. AGW is bogus, therefore CO2 isn't harmful to humans, therefore CO2 isn't a pollutant. The problem is, the first is untrue, therefore the whole circle falls apart.

Everyone touts data.

But no one asks if the data is legit.

They just assume that it is.

Sorry folks, but postulating on potentially flawed data will lead to conclusions that may have no basis in reality.

originally posted by: redtic
There you go, citing crap again. That Forbes article is a clear case of cherry picking:

scienceblogs.com...

Oh goodie, you're quoting someone who only has gainful employment because people believe humans are warming the globe!!! He's obviously credible.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Greven
There are of course others, but the combined emissions are already in excess of the increase.

Where does the rest go and if only one year's worth of consumption equates to the alleged overall increase (with a surplus) why isn't this astronomically higher from the previous century's cumulative number?

There's a thing called the carbon cycle. It's a reason you see fluctuations in CO2 - the overall amount of CO2 in the carbon cycle exceeds our annual emissions by a large amount. However, prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 had been relatively stable on an annual average.

This also shows up in oxygen levels... which are also declining because we're burning so much carbon (which combines it with oxygen):

Some of this excess is being absorbed by the oceans, others by plants that are growing better (see the 'greening Earth' thing skeptics like to tout).