Remember me
▼ Content

Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?



Page 5 of 5<<<345
05-12-2018 02:49
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...


Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.


Not what calculus does, Wake.

Try again.

I actually used it while you obviously cannot even add a bill to charge your customers.
05-12-2018 03:22
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...


Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.


Not what calculus does, Wake.

Try again.

I actually used it while you obviously cannot even add a bill to charge your customers.


Math is an evolution. The reason for inventing new math, was always to make calculations easier, to deal with more complex problems. Neither Algebra or Calculus, can only be used to solve one kind of problem. One might be better suited for certain types of calculations, than the other. Calculus was developed, after people had been using Algebra to solve many of the same problems, lot of work.

You can build a house, with a hammer, nails, hand saw for tools, but it takes a long time, lot of sweat, and might not look so pretty when done. Now, we have power tools, air compressors, work gets done fairly quick, precise, less labor, and more complex builds. Math is just a tool. Better tools, makes it easier to work on bigger more complex problems, quicker.
10-12-2018 22:31
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
The simple answer to the question "Why only 'Man-Made' CO?" is that the current natural carbon exchange of the atmosphere doesn't contribute new CO2. In fact, it removes CO2 to the rate of about 17 gigatons per year. Human's CO2 contribution is about 29 gigatons. This makes a net "flux" of about 12 gigatons of CO2 being added to the atmosphere every year instead, all of which can be traced to human emissions.

Note that this is where the "3%" claim is flawed: the carbon cycle moves about 1600 gigatons per year, and 60 ÷ 1600 = ~0.0375, so humans have contributed only 3.75% of all carbon within the carbon cycle, but the problem with human CO2 output is the flux, not the overall contribution.

Note: these numbers are over 10 years out of date, so those numbers have shifted, but not significantly.
11-12-2018 02:46
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
The main problem, is with the data, it's just a rough estimate, only a little better than a guess. No accurate, or actual instrument to measure such things, on a planetary scale. Best that could be done, is a few isolated measurements, then scale them up, considerably. You want to measure man-made CO2, you'd place sensors in the most active, industrial areas you can find. This is representative of the entire planet, since a few miles away, you'd get much lower readings. CO2 isn't evenly distributed, or a single thin layer, and it moves around, just like all the other gasses and vapors that make up the atmosphere. Last estimate I saw, was 0.04 %, about 400 ppm of the atmosphere is CO2, not a whole lot.
11-12-2018 05:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...


Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.


Not what calculus does, Wake.

Try again.

I actually used it while you obviously cannot even add a bill to charge your customers.


You were not using calculus, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2018 05:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...


Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.


Not what calculus does, Wake.

Try again.

I actually used it while you obviously cannot even add a bill to charge your customers.


Math is an evolution. The reason for inventing new math, was always to make calculations easier, to deal with more complex problems. Neither Algebra or Calculus, can only be used to solve one kind of problem. One might be better suited for certain types of calculations, than the other. Calculus was developed, after people had been using Algebra to solve many of the same problems, lot of work.

You can build a house, with a hammer, nails, hand saw for tools, but it takes a long time, lot of sweat, and might not look so pretty when done. Now, we have power tools, air compressors, work gets done fairly quick, precise, less labor, and more complex builds. Math is just a tool. Better tools, makes it easier to work on bigger more complex problems, quicker.

Yup. Math is a tool. It evolves as new proofs extend it from the founding axioms. It is a closed functional system. It has the power of prediction and the power of the formal proof inherent in it. Math loses the power of prediction when importing functionality from another Math Domain, such as the concept of random numbers being imported from the Full Discrete Math Domain.

Statistical math and probability math depend on random numbers. Thus, the power of prediction is not contained in these two branches of mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2018 05:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Leafsdude wrote:
The simple answer to the question "Why only 'Man-Made' CO?" is that the current natural carbon exchange of the atmosphere doesn't contribute new CO2. In fact, it removes CO2 to the rate of about 17 gigatons per year. Human's CO2 contribution is about 29 gigatons. This makes a net "flux" of about 12 gigatons of CO2 being added to the atmosphere every year instead, all of which can be traced to human emissions.

Note that this is where the "3%" claim is flawed: the carbon cycle moves about 1600 gigatons per year, and 60 ÷ 1600 = ~0.0375, so humans have contributed only 3.75% of all carbon within the carbon cycle, but the problem with human CO2 output is the flux, not the overall contribution.

Note: these numbers are over 10 years out of date, so those numbers have shifted, but not significantly.


Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 00:04
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
A decade or so ago, the greatest discovery on earth, 'Cold Fusion' was made by a couple of scientists, Pounds and Fleshman (I think?). I believe their paper, even passed peer review. Unfortunately, no one was ever able to repeat the experiments, nor could the give a live demonstration. Look really good on paper, math worked, just turned out to be climate science. Always wondered what happened to those two guys, discredited, doesn't mean they weren't still scientist. I just remember there was a year or so of intense discussion and debate, lots of believers, and lots of people with equations, claiming it impossible (which it was). Just sort of reminded me, how similar it is to Global Warming. It could work... But it doesn't...
12-12-2018 21:15
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
Leafsdude wrote:
The simple answer to the question "Why only 'Man-Made' CO?" is that the current natural carbon exchange of the atmosphere doesn't contribute new CO2. In fact, it removes CO2 to the rate of about 17 gigatons per year. Human's CO2 contribution is about 29 gigatons. This makes a net "flux" of about 12 gigatons of CO2 being added to the atmosphere every year instead, all of which can be traced to human emissions.

Note that this is where the "3%" claim is flawed: the carbon cycle moves about 1600 gigatons per year, and 60 ÷ 1600 = ~0.0375, so humans have contributed only 3.75% of all carbon within the carbon cycle, but the problem with human CO2 output is the flux, not the overall contribution.

Note: these numbers are over 10 years out of date, so those numbers have shifted, but not significantly.


You have to be careful with your claims. The initial calculations of how much CO2 man is making was from the amount of fossil fuels are mined or pumped. This appeared to be a decent method. The trouble is that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is a small fraction of that.

So then they, grabbing at straws, claimed that the oceans were acting as a CO2 reservoir. But as things turn out, the recovery of Earth from the Little Ice Age is causing the oceanic temperatures to rise. This means that the oceans are in fact releasing CO2 at a much larger volume than man could ever hope to do. So rather than a reservoir it is acting as a source.

So where is all of this CO2 going to? Well, the only place it can go is into the greening of the Earth. The added CO2 has brought the Earth back from the brink of an ecological disaster caused by too little CO2. Trees are again growing further and further north where they did before the Little Ice Age.

The retreating glaciers are revealing tree stumps and carbon 14 dating shows that they were frozen and then the tops broken off of the stumps only 1,000 years ago. As the Greenland glaciers retreat they are showing the farms that once were there until the Little Ice Age drove Greenland inhabitants back to Iceland where the warmth of the Gulf Stream off-shoots keeps it warm enough to grow enough food to survive.

DO NOT blame man for numbers that are FAR too large for man to have any control of.
12-12-2018 22:13
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
Not to mention only part of the coal and oil is used for fuel. Oil, is used for a lot of stuff, not just gasoline, although I've had a car or two, that didn't seem to know the difference. We get a lot of other products from oil, besides lubricants too, like plastics, medicines, long list. True, gets distilled, and different parts get used for different things, but fuel isn't but a part of each barrel, but I've got a hunch that's not really accurately figured in, since the oil pumped out of the ground, doesn't conform to just one specific ratio of what's in it. There are several grades, but they still won't know, until the separate it, just how much, of which fuels they've got.

This is the kind of stuff the drives me crazy, they give numbers, but those numbers aren't exactly accurate or true, for what they claim them to be. It science fiction, when they just add the interesting parts, and leave out the damning details.
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Oceans absorb almost a third of global CO2 emissions, but at what cost?220-03-2019 04:36
There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.312-03-2019 13:23
411.66 PPM: Scientists Alarmed by Early Rise in Atmospheric CO2209-03-2019 16:55
High CO2 levels can destabilize marine layer clouds106-03-2019 22:01
Creating coal from CO2 - undoing fossil fuel burning to save the climate505-03-2019 21:50
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact