Remember me
▼ Content

Estimated cumulative emissions


Estimated cumulative emissions02-12-2017 18:53
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
"...Cumulative emissions matter, because the total amount of carbon dioxide that can be released into the atmosphere is limited if we are to avoid dangerous climate change...

Why is the trillionth tonne of carbon important?

Emissions of carbon dioxide since 1750 comprise just over half a trillion tonnes of carbon, and are estimated to have caused just under 1 °C of global warming. Emitting a further half trillion tonnes will commit us to a most likely warming of around 2 °C, widely regarded as the threshold for the most serious global impacts of climate change.

The trillionth tonne could be released in less than 40 years time, or, if we take the measures necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, it could never be released.

The fate of this tonne of carbon sums up the climate challenge..."


http://www.trillionthtonne.org
Edited on 02-12-2017 18:55
02-12-2017 21:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Carbon is a fuel. Carbon dioxide is a gas that comes out of burning that fuel.

Carbon dioxide has no ability to warm the Earth. All it does is help cool the surface.
02-12-2017 21:38
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
Well yeah its a miracle when you think about it, enough to shock ones eyelids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
02-12-2017 22:33
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
monckton wrote:
Well yeah its a miracle when you think about it, enough to shock ones eyelids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs


"Yet another new scientific paper has been published that questions the current understanding of the Earth's globally averaged surface temperature and its relation to the theoretical greenhouse effect.

These ["drastically different temperature distributions" using the same global energy budget parameters, described in detail in the paper] values demonstrate that the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann provides inappropriate results when applied to globally averaged skin temperatures."

Imagine that another paper slaying man-made global warming that says that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation can only approximate real conditions.

This should drive nightmare up the wall since that's the only arrow in his quiver.

Must be a "holy link" since it doesn't say that you cannot define climate change without a circular argument.
02-12-2017 22:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
Well yeah its a miracle when you think about it, enough to shock ones eyelids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs


"Yet another new scientific paper has been published that questions the current understanding of the Earth's globally averaged surface temperature and its relation to the theoretical greenhouse effect.

These ["drastically different temperature distributions" using the same global energy budget parameters, described in detail in the paper] values demonstrate that the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann provides inappropriate results when applied to globally averaged skin temperatures."

Imagine that another paper slaying man-made global warming that says that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation can only approximate real conditions.

This should drive nightmare up the wall since that's the only arrow in his quiver.

Must be a "holy link" since it doesn't say that you cannot define climate change without a circular argument.


The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature. It calculate radiance from a known temperature. You must know the emissivity of the radiating surface to use it.

We do not know either the emissivity or the temperature of Earth. It is not possible to determine either one. It is not a probability equation. It is completely accurate. If you know the emissivity of a surface, you can use the S-B law to calculate the radiance emitted from that surface, or the current temperature of that surface by measuring its radiance. The equation does not account for reflected or refracted light coming from some other source.

To determine emissivity, you first must accurately know it's temperature (which acts as a reference) while you measure a reference radiance and comparing that measurement to an ideally black and an ideally white surface.

Emissivity and absorptivity are the same thing. Albedo is the inverse of either of the first two.

The S-B law is certainly not the only 'arrow in my quiver', as you put it. It is just the one that YOU are making a big deal about because you don't understand it and are constantly trying to change it.

Recently, you started making the same kind of errors with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Again, you keep trying to change it to suit your purposes.

Since you have now claimed that you can define 'climate change' without the use of a circular definition...let's hear it. I suspect that you're lying again, bigot.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2017 23:00
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
"..we-can-be-one ...."
03-12-2017 16:56
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
Well yeah its a miracle when you think about it, enough to shock ones eyelids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs


"Yet another new scientific paper has been published that questions the current understanding of the Earth's globally averaged surface temperature and its relation to the theoretical greenhouse effect.

These ["drastically different temperature distributions" using the same global energy budget parameters, described in detail in the paper] values demonstrate that the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann provides inappropriate results when applied to globally averaged skin temperatures."

Imagine that another paper slaying man-made global warming that says that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation can only approximate real conditions.

This should drive nightmare up the wall since that's the only arrow in his quiver.

Must be a "holy link" since it doesn't say that you cannot define climate change without a circular argument.


The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature. It calculate radiance from a known temperature. You must know the emissivity of the radiating surface to use it.

We do not know either the emissivity or the temperature of Earth. It is not possible to determine either one. It is not a probability equation. It is completely accurate. If you know the emissivity of a surface, you can use the S-B law to calculate the radiance emitted from that surface, or the current temperature of that surface by measuring its radiance. The equation does not account for reflected or refracted light coming from some other source.

To determine emissivity, you first must accurately know it's temperature (which acts as a reference) while you measure a reference radiance and comparing that measurement to an ideally black and an ideally white surface.

Emissivity and absorptivity are the same thing. Albedo is the inverse of either of the first two.

The S-B law is certainly not the only 'arrow in my quiver', as you put it. It is just the one that YOU are making a big deal about because you don't understand it and are constantly trying to change it.

Recently, you started making the same kind of errors with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Again, you keep trying to change it to suit your purposes.

Since you have now claimed that you can define 'climate change' without the use of a circular definition...let's hear it. I suspect that you're lying again, bigot.


And yet more word play from a person that doesn't understand what he is talking about. Why don't you tell us about the meaning of the word "is" and how I don't know how to use it?
03-12-2017 22:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
Well yeah its a miracle when you think about it, enough to shock ones eyelids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs


"Yet another new scientific paper has been published that questions the current understanding of the Earth's globally averaged surface temperature and its relation to the theoretical greenhouse effect.

These ["drastically different temperature distributions" using the same global energy budget parameters, described in detail in the paper] values demonstrate that the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann provides inappropriate results when applied to globally averaged skin temperatures."

Imagine that another paper slaying man-made global warming that says that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation can only approximate real conditions.

This should drive nightmare up the wall since that's the only arrow in his quiver.

Must be a "holy link" since it doesn't say that you cannot define climate change without a circular argument.


The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature. It calculate radiance from a known temperature. You must know the emissivity of the radiating surface to use it.

We do not know either the emissivity or the temperature of Earth. It is not possible to determine either one. It is not a probability equation. It is completely accurate. If you know the emissivity of a surface, you can use the S-B law to calculate the radiance emitted from that surface, or the current temperature of that surface by measuring its radiance. The equation does not account for reflected or refracted light coming from some other source.

To determine emissivity, you first must accurately know it's temperature (which acts as a reference) while you measure a reference radiance and comparing that measurement to an ideally black and an ideally white surface.

Emissivity and absorptivity are the same thing. Albedo is the inverse of either of the first two.

The S-B law is certainly not the only 'arrow in my quiver', as you put it. It is just the one that YOU are making a big deal about because you don't understand it and are constantly trying to change it.

Recently, you started making the same kind of errors with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Again, you keep trying to change it to suit your purposes.

Since you have now claimed that you can define 'climate change' without the use of a circular definition...let's hear it. I suspect that you're lying again, bigot.


And yet more word play from a person that doesn't understand what he is talking about. Why don't you tell us about the meaning of the word "is" and how I don't know how to use it?


HAHAHAHA! I'm not going to define every word in the English language for you, bigot.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2017 22:36
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Into the Night wrote: HAHAHAHA! I'm not going to define every word in the English language for you, bigot.


Most especially since you don't understand them. The manner with which you used the word "bigot" identifies you as a queer. This is backed up by the mentally deranged manner with which you attack anyone you consider to be using real science pro or con. Do you wave with a limp wrist as well?
03-12-2017 22:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: HAHAHAHA! I'm not going to define every word in the English language for you, bigot.


...deleted Mantra 2...10...1...13...10...1...


Attempted redefinition of a compositional error as a sexual orientation.
Attempted redefinition of science as a mental disorder.
Compositional error involving people (homosexuals) as the class and a behavior (limp wrists) as the element making it a bigoted statement.

You presented no argument, bigot. Only fallacies.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2017 23:12
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: HAHAHAHA! I'm not going to define every word in the English language for you, bigot.


...deleted Mantra 2...10...1...13...10...1...


Attempted redefinition of a compositional error as a sexual orientation.
Attempted redefinition of science as a mental disorder.
Compositional error involving people (homosexuals) as the class and a behavior (limp wrists) as the element making it a bigoted statement.

You presented no argument, bigot. Only fallacies.


I correctly identified you then. And again you have been assaulting anyone that you think could take the spotlight off of you and your idiotic claims that you know anything about science.
04-12-2017 05:22
litesong
★★★★★
(2041)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: ....assaulting....
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" identifies with the word, "assault", with emphasis on the first three letters.
04-12-2017 19:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: HAHAHAHA! I'm not going to define every word in the English language for you, bigot.


...deleted Mantra 2...10...1...13...10...1...


Attempted redefinition of a compositional error as a sexual orientation.
Attempted redefinition of science as a mental disorder.
Compositional error involving people (homosexuals) as the class and a behavior (limp wrists) as the element making it a bigoted statement.

You presented no argument, bigot. Only fallacies.

...deleted Mantra 1...lie...2...1...2...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2017 21:16
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: HAHAHAHA! I'm not going to define every word in the English language for you, bigot.


...deleted Mantra 2...10...1...13...10...1...


Attempted redefinition of a compositional error as a sexual orientation.
Attempted redefinition of science as a mental disorder.
Compositional error involving people (homosexuals) as the class and a behavior (limp wrists) as the element making it a bigoted statement.

You presented no argument, bigot. Only fallacies.

...deleted Mantra 1...lie...2...1...2...


No argument presented.


More cutting by the gay blade.
04-12-2017 23:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: HAHAHAHA! I'm not going to define every word in the English language for you, bigot.


...deleted Mantra 2...10...1...13...10...1...


Attempted redefinition of a compositional error as a sexual orientation.
Attempted redefinition of science as a mental disorder.
Compositional error involving people (homosexuals) as the class and a behavior (limp wrists) as the element making it a bigoted statement.

You presented no argument, bigot. Only fallacies.

...deleted Mantra 1...lie...2...1...2...


No argument presented.


...deleted Mantra 1...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Estimated cumulative emissions:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Errors in CO2 Emissions?1312-04-2017 01:02
How the EPA Could Help Cut Carbon Emissions 17% By 2020? Crown Eco Capital Blog Management009-04-2013 05:08
When (if at all) did human co2 emissions begin to affect the climate?416-02-2011 03:05
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact