Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 emission from fossil fuels.



Page 2 of 2<12
07-09-2019 23:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.
08-09-2019 00:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.

Hooray!!! Source: Openstax

How about the Openstax book?:
University Physics Volume 2
08-09-2019 00:32
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
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.


Guess the natural geological activity doesn't count, since we are only concerned with human activities....
08-09-2019 02:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.
Edited on 08-09-2019 02:26
08-09-2019 02:58
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
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.


I'm not saying that Mauna Loa is erupting all the time, but there is a lot of volcanic activity in that whole area. A lot of gas is vented daily though, and just the on the islands either. If you look at the Hawaiian islands from a different perspective, the volcanoes, you'll get a different story, from the climatology perspective. It's one of those one-sided things that make me skeptical, and there are a lot.
08-09-2019 04:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.

"The trend in CO2 at Mauna Loa is practically identical to the global trend because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere. The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and is consistent with independently measurements from satellites."
Edited on 08-09-2019 04:07
08-09-2019 07:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and is consistent with independently measurements from satellites."

You speak with the certainty of someone who has seen a valid dataset eliciting valid conclusions.

Please share.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-09-2019 09:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.


Lie. i just have higher standards for data than you do. Much higher. See the Data Mine.

The air is not undisturbed at Mauna Loa. It is not remote either. It is surrounded by human activity all along the coast just a short distance away. Vegetation is extensive on the island too. There's even a plant that only grows on the mounts of Hawaii, called a Silversword.

Putting a CO2 monitoring station on top of an active volcanic range is stupid.


The Parrot Killer
08-09-2019 09:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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?

No. It is inconsistent.
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

Keeling was a believer in the Church of Global Warming.
tmiddles wrote:
And of course the running theme of no data is ever useable.

Lie.


The Parrot Killer
08-09-2019 09:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.

Lousy references. Each station is reporting a different value.
tmiddles wrote:
"The trend in CO2 at Mauna Loa is practically identical to the global trend

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2.
tmiddles wrote:
because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere.

No, it does not.
tmiddles wrote:
The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations

Argument from randU fallacy. There are not that many stations capable of monitoring CO2. NOAA operates three, Mauna Loa, Scripps Institute and one in Maine.
tmiddles wrote:
and is consistent with independently measurements from satellites."

Satellites cannot measure absolute values of CO2. Under the best of conditions, they can see relative differences of CO2, but that's all. They are also affected by cloud cover since liquid water absorbs the same frequencies of light the satellite is using to measure CO2.


The Parrot Killer
08-09-2019 23:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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...

Edited on 08-09-2019 23:12
08-09-2019 23:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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...


Present valid data as I have indicated in the Data Mine.


The Parrot Killer
08-09-2019 23:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote: Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. You guys are full of it.

That puts the problem on your end. I don't know how far you got in school but I can assure you that if you ever tried blaming your professor for your data/support/assignment being chit, it wouldn't work well for you.

Only a dumbass would blame others for not understanding basic data requirements. Only a dumbass would expect others to just believe everything on the internet and then blame them when they don't.

See the example below of tmiddles still not providing a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a colder body to a warmer body. See how tmiddles doesn't even grasp what "repeatable" means.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-09-2019 11:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:Present valid data as I have indicated in the Data Mine.
'No
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).

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 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.

How funny you'd try to use the scholastic environment as a reference! You can't find a single text book on thermodynamics ever written that isn't a "warmazombie fraud".

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

Again the game of "I know something I'm not gonna tell". It's because you got nothing! A normal person, who is right, enjoys putting their winning hand down on the table.
09-09-2019 19:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Present valid data as I have indicated in the Data Mine.
'No

Okay. But I already knew that.
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).

Repetitiouis question already answered. You have no intention of presenting valid data anyway.
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

Contextomy fallacy.
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.

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

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

Repetitious question already answered.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: doesn't even grasp what "repeatable" means.

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

Contextomy fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
It's because you got nothing!

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

2nd law of thermodynamics.

I win.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 22:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.

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

Just keep trying to kill any inquiry at all.
09-09-2019 22:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.

Lie. The data is not valid because you say it is. See the Data Mine.
tmiddles wrote:
ITN describe what we know about the emissivity of human skin? Nothing? It cannot be known?

Repetitious questions already answered.
tmiddles wrote:
Just keep trying to kill any inquiry at all.

You are not inquiring. You are repeating questions that have already been answered.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 00:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.

Your data mine is a joke and a bad one.

Not even you can describe it functionally.
10-09-2019 02:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.

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

Repetitious bulverism.
tmiddles wrote:
Not even you can describe it functionally.

Repetitious void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 02:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious ...
Repetitious ....
Repetitious ...
Repetitious ...

You are you are you are.

You're just a born fallacy there ITN.
10-09-2019 02:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious ...
Repetitious ....
Repetitious ...
Repetitious ...

You are you are you are.

You're just a born fallacy there ITN.


Childish response. Grow up, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
12-09-2019 17:21
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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.
12-09-2019 19:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.

It is not possible to measure the global CO2 in the ocean.
Fossils don't combust. We don't use them for fuel.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-09-2019 19:37
13-09-2019 07:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.


Did you factor in plant growth? Harvey had that good question.

From other thread:
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.

Edited on 13-09-2019 07:37
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate CO2 emission from fossil fuels.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
Man-Made CO2?2630-08-2019 22:36
▲ 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