NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

a reply to: raymundoko

Why ask questions that are not relevant to this thread? We are all hypocrites at some point, part of being human.

I try to present facts on our atmosphere's chemistry and get attacked by a bunch of pseudoscience Brawndo debates. I welcome good science.

Please try to offer solutions to the CO2 problem

None of this conversation is relevant to this thread. This thread is about NOAA changing climate data. They got caught, already admitted to it and fixed the changes...

a reply to: jrod

Edit: and I've already offered solutions on how to fix the anthropogenic co2 issue both in this thread and another thread I started.

a reply to: raymundoko

originally you said 4% or 10% of the extra CO2. Now you are saying half.....


Keep waffling and pretending that I am the one who is confused....


Where did you get this so called degree from?

a reply to: jrod

No, I said total co2 in the whole atmosphere...read it again.

And to be clear I said 4-5% of total co2 was the burning of fossil fuels. Another 2-3% is misc human activity.

So that is 25% of the increased co2. If you take I to account that 60% of our co2 is reclaimed instead of natural co2 you can up that to a little over half. You are showing a lack of comprehension.

a reply to: raymundoko

4% of 400ppm=16ppm

Got it.

I can do elementary math in my head.

a reply to: jrod

I said 4-5%. That's ~20PPM. Another 2-3% from misc. That's a total of ~28 PPM for about ~60 PPM due to human activity. (Accounting for misplaced reclamation)

Oh so I guess the polar ice caps are not melting after all, what a relief.

a reply to: raymundoko

What about the other 100ppm of CO2?

Can you please give this board some insight of where/how to account for that extra 100 ppm.

280ppm is the widely accepted pre industrial CO2 count....its been cited over and over again in these debates.

Over a 42% rise in CO2....

You mean 60 ppm? And I already gave you those articles...

According to the isotopes the other 60 is natural. The conundrum for the IPCC right now is why is the anthropogenic count so much lower than their models say it should be. I linked you 6 peer reviewed papers as well as the IPCC report which discuss that. Are you even reading the links? Do me a favor, try and find me a peer reviewed paper that shows a 120ppm count of anthropogenic co2.

a reply to: jrod

Edit: *hint, you won't. You will just find tons of papers on figuring out why anthropogenic co2 is so low and how to improve co2 tracking by isotope. And yet again you chant the 40% stat without knowing the isotopic ratios.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: raymundoko

Fail.

Show me a residence time calculation to prove your credentials.

Until then, no one will believe you have an advanced degree in this field.

If you are going to call out credentials please go ahead and demonstrate the convergence, of any of the publicly available power series available from the IPCC associated climate models, power series.

Then show that the acceleration (validated by the model power series) of the warming effects are proportionally related to the ppm C02.

Anyone can do division to demonstrate % changes, but if you want to call people out for not being accredited in the field you should at least demonstrate that with more than what you have provided in this thread.

-FBB

PS
I only reminded you of the, what appears to be, blatant historical temperature manipulation as the thread is about being caught manipulating data to support models.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I am not trying to prove global warming.

I want to separate fact from pseudoscience agenda based disinformation.

There is a problem with CO2.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I am not trying to prove global warming.

I want to separate fact from pseudoscience agenda based disinformation.

What isotope are you basing your PPM numbers off of?

I am all for clearing fact from disinformation.

-FBB

No.

You are trying to discredit the good science I present.

280ppm pre-industrial CO2

400ppm Today's CO2

120ppm rise in CO2

(120/280)*100%= 42.%

Over a 40% rise in CO2 in only a few hundred years

Source: Cosmos.

checkmate

originally posted by: jrod
No.

You are trying to discredit the good science I present.

280ppm pre-industrial CO2

400ppm Today's CO2

120ppm rise in CO2

(120/280)*100%= 42.%

Over a 40% rise in CO2 in only a few hundred years

Source: Cosmos.

checkmate

Your source is the cosmos? . . . .

Wow this ape learned to tie its shoes and now it thinks it knows science . . . . Wow just wwoooooowwwww.

Isotope
en.wikipedia.org...

Isotopes are variants of a particular chemical element such that, while all isotopes of a given element have the same number of protons in each atom, they differ in neutron number. The term isotope is formed from the Greek roots isos (ἴσος "equal") and topos (τόπος "place"), meaning "the same place". Thus, different isotopes of a single element occupy the same position on the periodic table. The number of protons within the atom's nucleus is called atomic number and is equal to the number of electrons in the neutral (un-ionized) atom. Each atomic number identifies a specific element, but not the isotope; an atom of a given element may have a wide range in its number of neutrons. The number of nucleons (both protons and neutrons) in the nucleus is the atom's mass number, and each isotope of a given element has a different mass number.

For example, carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14 are three isotopes of the element carbon with mass numbers 12, 13 and 14 respectively. The atomic number of carbon is 6, which means that every carbon atom has 6 protons, so that the neutron numbers of these isotopes are 6, 7 and 8 respectively.

Here is an article;
How we know the extra CO2 is man-made and other carbon isotope fun
www.dailykos.com...

Starting with the theory, then moving on to the evidence:

Plants have a bit more trouble using carbon-13 CO2 than carbon-12 CO2 in photosynthesis, so the burning of any plant-derived material (such as fossil fuels) will incrementally lower the C13 / C12 ratio in the atmosphere and incrementally lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere in addition to raising the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

As an example of a balanced equation for burning octane (think gasoline):
C8H18 (octane) + 12.5O2 --> 8CO2 + 9H2O (this shows that burning should raise CO2, lower O2, and the carbon-13 in octane or whatever else was burned ends up being carbon-13 CO2)

But honestly, if you are citing the cosmos as a source I can write your opinion and all of your evidence off without even a second (let alone first) look. No one I know involved in the sciences regards that show as anything other then a 3rd grade level "science" show.

For the record I tutor "climate science" students from my uni on the maths they use everyday.

-FBB

This is just proof you're in over your head...

What isotopes makes up the increased co2? You aren't showing science. You are showing grade school arithmetic. Yes, 40% increase, anthropogenic isotopes do not account for all of it. I've already linked this and you're just going in circles...I don't even think you know what checkmate means...

a reply to: jrod

Wow, you're right. I just realized he may not know what an isotope is and that's why he's so confused....

But you should check the current (2013/14) IPCC report as well as the nature and science papers I linked. Anthropogenic isotopes don't make up the entire increase, only directly and indirectly for about half of it.

Much research is being done now to determine why the count is so low yet co2 is increasing.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: raymundoko
Wow, you're right. I just realized he may not know what an isotope is and that's why he's so confused....

Nice try at trying to insult my intelligence. For someone with an advanced Master's degree, that is childish. Your tactics to discredit me are straight from the book.

Over a 40% rise in CO2 within a few hundred years?

What can we do to fix this?


Why can't you enlighten this forum and show a residence time calculation for CO2?

I need the refresher. If you can show a simple residence time calculation, then you are lying about your degree.

a reply to: jrod

I wasn't trying to discredit you...you are doing that yourself...

Now you're trying to change the subject back to "what can we do" when I also wen't over that....

Since you aren't reading any linked peer reviewed papers there's no point to continue this conversation with you.

Edit: just saw your edit. It's laughable. No residence time calculation is needed for this conversation as it isn't pertinent to any data I've posted.

Edit 2: jrod messaged me asking why I hate science...all I've linked is legit peer reviewed papers and IPCC reports. I'm done with this guy. He still doesn't understand what isotopes make up the increase.

Raymundoko, it is you who is arguing in circles, a la Brawndo! My position has stayed steady this entire thread.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: jrod

OK, so you mean indirect. This I can agree with. Deforestation, livestock etc. You kept wording it like burning fossil fuels was the cause of the increase, that is only a small part of it.

So you do agree that humans are likely the cause of the 40% rise of CO2.....

What are you trying to get out of this thread?

I am attempting to separate fact from pseudoscience. I do my own research, unlike you have suggested I do not blindly take information I read in the internet as fact.

Dr. Lazarus is still at FIT, would you like an email address and phone number as a reference?

a reply to: jrod

Dude Bro,

You are citing Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey ( en.wikipedia.org...:_A_Spacetime_Odyssey ) as a source. Second you wont even explain what isotope of C02 your are using as reference for your stats.

You keep chanting 40% and "science denial" like a religious mantra/prayer.

No one is going to take you seriously.

-FBB