CO2 emission from fossil fuels.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why is Mauna Loa such great source

IBdaMann wrote:any rational person will examine the Mauna Loa measurements and reduce them 20% to 30%

Into the Night wrote:that would be cooking the data, making it useless.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I guess someday you should read up on the pH scale, acid-base chemistry, and buffering.

Can you recommend a text book you trust? (reading needs books)

OPENSTAX, Chapter 14.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why is Mauna Loa such great source

noaa.gov: ... continuously monitoring ...since the 1950's. The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal...

IBdaMann wrote:any rational person will examine the Mauna Loa measurements and reduce them 20% to 30%

Why those numbers? Not 10% or 70%?

Into the Night wrote:that would be cooking the data, making it useless.

According to you all data is useless.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Guess the natural geological activity doesn't count, since we are only concerned with human activities....

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Guess the natural geological activity doesn't count, since we are only concerned with human activities....

Are you saying it's erupting all the time and so it's throwing the readings off?

https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements-advanced.htm

That would be predicated on believing Keeling was an idiot or liar part of a warmazombie conspiracy going back to the 1950s:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/charles_david_keeling_biography

And of course the running theme of no data is ever useable.

HarveyH55 wrote:
. It's one of those one-sided things that make me skeptical, and there are a lot.

tmiddles wrote:The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and is consistent with independently measurements from satellites."

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why is Mauna Loa such great source

noaa.gov: ... continuously monitoring ...since the 1950's. The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal...

IBdaMann wrote:any rational person will examine the Mauna Loa measurements and reduce them 20% to 30%

Why those numbers? Not 10% or 70%?

Into the Night wrote:that would be cooking the data, making it useless.

According to you all data is useless.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Guess the natural geological activity doesn't count, since we are only concerned with human activities....

Are you saying it's erupting all the time and so it's throwing the readings off?

tmiddles wrote:
https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements-advanced.htm

That would be predicated on believing Keeling was an idiot or liar part of a warmazombie conspiracy going back to the 1950s:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/charles_david_keeling_biography

tmiddles wrote:
And of course the running theme of no data is ever useable.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's one of those one-sided things that make me skeptical, and there are a lot.

The key is that if one station has a bad day you have all the others as a reference.

tmiddles wrote:
"The trend in CO2 at Mauna Loa is practically identical to the global trend

tmiddles wrote:
because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere.

tmiddles wrote:
The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations

tmiddles wrote:
and is consistent with independently measurements from satellites."

IBdaMann wrote:
You speak with the certainty of someone who has seen a valid dataset

Into the Night wrote:
Lie. i just have higher standards for data than you do.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:link
Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 ...40 0.995
That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Meh. RandU. How was it measured?

... I provided a link....a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 ...To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer...

But it's basically 4 screens full of the methodology layed out with photos so it's easier for you to just look:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

That method doesn't work...

Into the Night wrote:
1) The human skin is not one single temperature.
2) The room temperature makes a big difference.
3) The mood of a person can make a big difference.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:You claim the temperature can change so rapidly in THIS EXPERIMENT so as to make the data unusable.

1) The human skin is not one single temperature....

They are testing one spot consistently so that doesn't matter.

Yes it does.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Have you done emissivity testing professionally?

On occasion.

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You speak with the certainty of someone who has seen a valid dataset

Into the Night wrote:
Lie. i just have higher standards for data than you do.

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. You guys are full of it.

See the example below of ITN dismissing a professionally conducted study with raw data and methods provided in detial:
link & link

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:link
Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 ...40 0.995
That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Meh. RandU. How was it measured?

... I provided a link....a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 ...To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer...

But it's basically 4 screens full of the methodology layed out with photos so it's easier for you to just look:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

That method doesn't work...

Into the Night wrote:
1) The human skin is not one single temperature.
2) The room temperature makes a big difference.
3) The mood of a person can make a big difference.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:You claim the temperature can change so rapidly in THIS EXPERIMENT so as to make the data unusable.

1) The human skin is not one single temperature....

They are testing one spot consistently so that doesn't matter.

Yes it does.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Have you done emissivity testing professionally?

On occasion.

It doesn't matter what it is you guys will dismiss any data you don't happen to like as being invalid.

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure...

tmiddles wrote: Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. You guys are full of it.

Into the Night wrote:Present valid data as I have indicated in the Data Mine.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. You guys are full of it.

That puts the problem on your end...if you ever tried blaming your professor

IBdaMann wrote: doesn't even grasp what "repeatable" means.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Present valid data as I have indicated in the Data Mine.

'No

tmiddles wrote:
Explain why that data isn't valid based on your made up, personal perspective, from the "Data Mine". (but you got no case so I won't hold my breath).

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. You guys are full of it.

That puts the problem on your end...if you ever tried blaming your professor

You two are no ones professor

tmiddles wrote:
and I don't expect the insane to say "you know what I'm crazy" (it would ironically be a sane act). But I will continue to expose you.

tmiddles wrote:
How funny you'd try to use the scholastic environment as a reference!

tmiddles wrote:
You can't find a single text book on thermodynamics ever written that isn't a "warmazombie fraud".

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: doesn't even grasp what "repeatable" means.

Again the game of "I know something I'm not gonna tell".

tmiddles wrote:
It's because you got nothing!

tmiddles wrote:
A normal person, who is right, enjoys putting their winning hand down on the table.

Into the Night wrote:
... already answered. You have no intention of presenting valid data anyway.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
... already answered. You have no intention of presenting valid data anyway.

Not answered and the data I've presented is valid.

tmiddles wrote:
ITN describe what we know about the emissivity of human skin? Nothing? It cannot be known?

tmiddles wrote:
Just keep trying to kill any inquiry at all.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
ITN describe what we know about the emissivitmine human skin? Nothing? It cannot be known?

Repetitious questions already answered.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
ITN describe what we know about the emissivitmine human skin? Nothing? It cannot be known?

Repetitious questions already answered.

No answer was ever even attempted.

tmiddles wrote:
Your data mine is a joke and a bad one.

tmiddles wrote:
Not even you can describe it functionally.

Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious ...
Repetitious ....
Repetitious ...
Repetitious ...

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious ...
Repetitious ....
Repetitious ...
Repetitious ...

You are you are you are.

You're just a born fallacy there ITN.

olyz wrote:

olyz wrote:

At any temp and pressure, solute particles of gas entering the liquid solvent are balanced by solute particles leaving. Henry's law applies:

c=kp
c is concentration of solute (CO2) in solvent (H2O) in mole/liter, and p is partial pressure in atmospheres of CO2.
To determine k, note that solubility of CO2 at 1atm and 15degC is .045mol/liter.
.045mol/L=kx1atm
K=.045mol/(L-atm)

Partial pressure of 400ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere is its molar fraction times 1atm.
ppCO2=.0004x44/(.22x32+.78x28)=.0006

c=.045x.0006=2.7x10^-5 molsCO2/LiterH2O at 15degC

Water on earth= 1.386x10^18L
This converts to 75x10^7 tons CO2 dissolved in water when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 400ppmv

Yearly CO2 emmision from fossil fuel is 6ppmv.

Wanted to find how much of yearly production of 6.4ppmv CO2 from fossil fuel wound up in the ocean. Requires some more thought.

Some more thought.

c=kq Henry's law
q=molar fraction=weight fraction of CO2 in atmosphere.
dc=dq
dq=(1-f)dw
dw=weight fraction of CO2 added in one year by burning fossil fuel.
f=fraction of dw going into solution in ocean.

dc=fdwW/v
W=weight of atmosphere, mold
V=volume of ocean, liters

fdwW/V=k(1-f)dw
Solving for f gives

f=k/[(W/V)+k]
k=.045 mol/L-Atm
W=1.8x10^20 mol*
V=1.386x10^6 Liters
f=.00035

So of the 6.4ppmv CO2 from fossil fuel yearly, no significant portion is dissolved in the ocean. This doesn't mean that what is dissolved doesn't significantly increase ph. I haven't been able to find how ph varies with CO2 concentration.

*5.75x10^15 tons of atmosphere.
29gms/mol of atmosphere.
1gm/1.102x10^-6 tons

EDiT

olyz wrote:

olyz wrote:

olyz wrote:

At any temp and pressure, solute particles of gas entering the liquid solvent are balanced by solute particles leaving. Henry's law applies:

c=kp
c is concentration of solute (CO2) in solvent (H2O) in mole/liter, and p is partial pressure in atmospheres of CO2.
To determine k, note that solubility of CO2 at 1atm and 15degC is .045mol/liter.
.045mol/L=kx1atm
K=.045mol/(L-atm)

Partial pressure of 400ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere is its molar fraction times 1atm.
ppCO2=.0004x44/(.22x32+.78x28)=.0006

c=.045x.0006=2.7x10^-5 molsCO2/LiterH2O at 15degC

Water on earth= 1.386x10^18L
This converts to 75x10^7 tons CO2 dissolved in water when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 400ppmv

Yearly CO2 emmision from fossil fuel is 6ppmv.

Wanted to find how much of yearly production of 6.4ppmv CO2 from fossil fuel wound up in the ocean. Requires some more thought.

Some more thought.

c=kq Henry's law
q=molar fraction=weight fraction of CO2 in atmosphere.
dc=dq
dq=(1-f)dw
dw=weight fraction of CO2 added in one year by burning fossil fuel.
f=fraction of dw going into solution in ocean.

dc=fdwW/v
W=weight of atmosphere, mold
V=volume of ocean, liters

fdwW/V=k(1-f)dw
Solving for f gives

f=k/[(W/V)+k]
k=.045 mol/L-Atm
W=1.8x10^20 mol*
V=1.386x10^6 Liters
f=.00035

So of the 6.4ppmv CO2 from fossil fuel yearly, no significant portion is dissolved in the ocean. This doesn't mean that what is dissolved doesn't significantly increase ph. I haven't been able to find how ph varies with CO2 concentration.

*5.75x10^15 tons of atmosphere.
29gms/mol of atmosphere.
1gm/1.102x10^-6 tons

EDiT

I copied above from post "Ocean ph" because it addresses question raised earlier:
Measured yearly increase in CO2 is 2ppmv
Increase due to combustion of fossil fuel is 6.4ppmv
What accounts for the difference? It isn't the ocean.

olyz wrote:
Measured yearly increase in CO2 is 2ppmv
Increase due to combustion of fossil fuel is 6.4ppmv
What accounts for the difference? It isn't the ocean.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: After food crops are planted, and start growing well, they ought to be sucking a lot of CO2, and there should be natural dip in readings every year.

Wow this is really interesting! I had no idea
co2-is-making-earth-greener

In the last 35 year's "The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."
Natural feedback loop.

I don't think food crops are most plants though.