Estimated cumulative emissions

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Estimated cumulative emissions

Estimated cumulative emissions02-12-2017 19:53
monckton★★★☆☆ (436)	"...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 19:55
02-12-2017 22:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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 22:38
monckton★★★☆☆ (436)	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 23:33
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	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 23:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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 Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

03-12-2017 00:00
monckton★★★☆☆ (436)	"..we-can-be-one ...."
03-12-2017 17:56
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	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 23:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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 Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-12-2017 23:36
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	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 23:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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 Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2017 00:12
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	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 06:22
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"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 20:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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 Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2017 22:16
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	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.
05-12-2017 00:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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 Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Estimated cumulative emissions:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The EPA's ambitious plan to cut auto emissions to slow climate change runs into skepticism	1	06-08-2023 20:31
economic output emissions intensity vs global emissions / global GDP	92	20-11-2022 23:16
Because global warming from emissions is real...	147	19-03-2022 17:57
Oilfield Greenhouse Gas Emissions	34	24-03-2021 16:22
Sea Levels to rise by 1m by 2100 if global emissions target missed!!	2	28-06-2020 16:57