quote:
Er.....no.....it is more the case that claims that you know where all the CO2 in the atmosphere has come from are nonsense, thus you do NOT know what portion is man made. I am not aware of there being a little RFID tag on every carbon atom that says ' good carbon ' or ' nasty man made carbon '. Carbon is just carbon, and you have no idea whether it has come from man or from some deep sea hydrothermal vent among the thousands yet to be discovered.
Fascinating. If you can write that in the form of a scientific paper and get it past peer review, I might just take it seriously.
But you would have to do a lot to convince a community that has used carbon dating for decades that the very principle essential to carbon dating, a red lable on the carbon saying exactly when and how the carbon got there (otherwise known as Carbon 14 %age) does not exist.
quote:
The estimate that man has put 240 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere is just that.....an ESTIMATE. Nobody has been standing there with a measuring guage at every factory or home.
So we have starting figures that are an estimate, baseline rates ( what the climate would be without the CO2 ) that are an estimate, increase rates that are an estimate, projected rates that are an estimate, other contributing factors that are an estimate...........and yet you're telling me that you have every single CO2 molecule tagged as to its impact over and above a mean alternative climate that is iteself also an estimate !
The word 'codswallop' springs to mind.
And once again we have nothing more than denial.
(Can't possibly estimate amount of CO2 released, can we?)
3 ways.
1) by directly measuring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere less the amount attributable to all other natural sources. These measurments can be done and if we use a reasonably accurate assumption that CO2 density is uniform around the world (surface area of the globe [= 4/3 pi r^3] * average measured density per unit hight * hight of atomsphere) and we do similar calculations with all the natural CO2 sources, we get a crude figure that will be increasingly accurate depending on how well we take our measurments.
2) Same as above, except we use the Carbon 14 isotope to directly measure exactly what %age of CO2 occured naturally and what %age occured through the burning of [millions of years old] fossil fuels.
3) We simply calculate how much fuel has been burned efficiently and how much inefficiently. Elementary molar calculations can tell us exactly how much CO2 is released from a known mass of fuel for efficient and innefficient burning. It's now just a question of working out the mass of each fuel burned efficiently and innefficiently.
We can distinguish between efficient and innefficient simply by knowing the make and model of the burners. We can work out how much of that fuel goes to each type of burner each year by working out how much overall fuel has been burned that year and the ratio of efficient to innefficient burners that year. The errors are most likely to come from the latter factor, but as infrustructure does not change quickly, changes over a year can be approximated to linear, so a single calculation each year should be enough to get a very good result.
All that's left now is calculating how much fuel of each type of fuel is burned by each country. But energy deals are not exactly a state secret. Hey presto, we have a value which can be very accuarate.
So, Science being what it is, I would assume it has at least considered both methods, and if they both work (ie survive peer review), or other methods are discovered, then science will try them all until all methods used reach the same answer.
You need a more open mind about what science can and cannot do.
quote:
Which Hollywood movie was that in ?
No movie, the Stern report written by one of Britains leading economists.
quote:
Aren't you being a bit elitist in your psychic assumptions? By the way, I hope your money's not invested with the economic experts' advice. Gambling on the advice from economic experts is almost as bad as betting trillions of taxpayers' dollars on a scheme to control the weather.
Logical fallacy of equivication. Economists do not actually gamble on stocks and shares; that's done by brokers and stock traders on the advice of analysists who are not members of the economic accademic community.
It's not so much that you have misunderstood an economic principle, it's that you have misunderstood the principle of economics.
quote:
Where is your evidence that they "coped" rather than just "survived"?
quote:
Er.....no....it was you who stated that " They died ( mostly )"
Now excuse me, but the difference between coping and surviving is considerably less than the difference between coping and being dead. People who are dead neither cope or survive......I think I can say that without having to qualify with a 90% confidence level.
This is not the first time you've done this.
You bang on and on about how science has not got enough evidence and how you require a full presentation of all the evidence despite that you will have no chance of understanding it.
Then, when that evidence is presented, you bang on about how the scientific method can never really know anything.
Then you make an outrageous claim.
And when somebody asks YOU for evidence, they get .... nothing. Empty set [dry science joke you will not understand]. The most you ever give to justify what is essentially a scientific claim is a WITTY response (or at least HALF of one) with no back bone.
but I'm sure you'd rather I owned up if I'm being unfair).
