Carbon Dioxide Emissions Three Times Higher Than Expected

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On Jun 3, 8:55 pm, kT wrote:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1

So?
Three times insignificant still equals insignificant.
Much like your delusional posts, kunT.

Bawana wrote:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1

Three times insignificant still equals insignificant.

Devastating critique.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"Bawana" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 3, 8:55 pm, kT wrote:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1

So?
Three times insignificant still equals insignificant.
Much like your delusional posts, kunT.


It's official NASA policy that greenhouse gasses
are the most likely cause of global warming.


NASA Earth Observatory

Evidence for Global Warming

"Recent observations of warming support the theory
that greenhouse gases are warming the world. Over
the last century, the planet has experienced the largest
increase in surface temperature in 1,300 years. The
average surface temperature of the Earth rose 0.6 to
0.9 degrees Celsius (1.08°F to 1.62°F) between 1906
and 2006, and the rate of temperature increase nearly
doubled in the last 50 years. Worldwide measurements
of sea level show a rise of about 0.17 meters (0.56 feet)
during the twentieth century. The world's glaciers
have steadily receded, and Arctic sea ice extent
has steadily shrunk by 2.7 percent per decade
since 1978."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...g_update3.html


Is today's warming man-made?
By Andrew Dressler

As George Bush said at a recent press conference:
"the globe is warming. The fundamental debate:
Is it manmade or natural."

snipped

"If we look at the warming of the last few decades, we can
immediately rule out tectonic activity and orbital variations
because they are much much too slow to account for the
warming over a few decades. We can rule out volcanic
eruptions for a similar reason --- they affect the climate for
only a few years. Thus, volcanic eruptions are also likely
unrelated to the several-decades long temperature increase
we are experiencing.

We can rule out solar variability because we have high-accuracy
measurements of the output of the Sun from satellites since
the mid-1970s, and we havenot seen the increase in solar output
necessary to explain the temperature increase. This is not to
say that solar is playing no role, just that it cannot explain
the majority of the observed warming.

Finally, we have greenhouse gases. In this case, things work
out well. Both the timing and magnitude of today's warming are well
explained by greenhouse gases.

This is why scientists conclude that humans are likely responsible
for most of the warming of the last few decades. "
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange....-man-made.html

On Jun 3, 7:55 pm, kT wrote:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1

That is not what the report says ...

On Jun 3, 6:22 pm, Bawana wrote:
On Jun 3, 8:55 pm, kT wrote:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1

So?
Three times insignificant still equals insignificant.
Much like your delusional posts, kunT.

-- Avagodro's Number: 6.0221415×10^23
6.0221E+23 -- Molecules in one mole of any substance.
22.42 -- Ideal Gas Law: one mole of any gas at Standard Temperature
and Pressure (STP) occupies 22.42 liters of volume.
0.04460 -- One Liter portion of 22.42 liters (1/22.42)
280 -- Accepted peak limit of CO2 ratio of air parts per million
volume, PRE-Industrial.
383 -- Current year 2007 measured CO2 ratio of air parts per million
volume.
560 -- Double PRE-Industrial CO2 density in air.
3571.43 -- Ratio of air molecules containing 1 CO2 molecule in parts
of air, PRE-Industrial
2610.97 -- Ratio of air molecules containing 1 CO2 molecule in parts
of air, 2007 measured
1785.71 -- Ratio of air molecules containing 1 CO2 molecule in parts
of air, double PRE-Industrial
1.6862E+20 -- Number of CO2 molecules per mole of air, PRE-Industrial
2.3065E+20 -- Number of CO2 molecules per mole of air, 2007 measured
3.3724E+20 -- Number of CO2 molecules per mole of air, double PRE-
Industrial
7.5210E+18 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Liter of air, PRE-Industrial
1.0288E+19 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Liter of air, 2007 measured
1.5042E+19 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Liter of air, double PRE-
Industrial
1E-6 -- Number of cubic centimeters (µL) in one liter, milliliter.
7.5210E+12 -- Number of CO2 molecules per CC of air PRE-Industrial
1.0288E+13 -- Number of CO2 molecules per CC of air 2007 measured
1.5042E+13 -- Number of CO2 molecules per CC of air double PRE-
Industrial
1E-9 -- Nanoliter, (1e+6 µm³), 1 million cubic micrometers.
1E-12 -- Picoliter, 1 thousand cubic micrometers (10³ µm³)
7,520,962 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Picoliter (10³ µm³) of air,
PRE-Industrial
10,287,601 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Picoliter (10³ µm³) of air,
2007 measured
15,041,923 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Picoliter (10³ µm³) of air,
double PRE-Industrial
1E-18 -- Attoliter, (1e+6 nm³, one quintillionth liter), 1 million
cubic nanometers volume.
7.52 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Attoliter (1e+6 nm³) of air, PRE-
Industrial
10.29 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Attoliter (1e+6 nm³) of air, 2007
measured
15.04 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Attoliter (1e+6 nm³) of air,
double PRE-Industrial
1E-9 -- 1 nanometre, 10 ångströms, 1e-9 meters length.
1E-10 -- 1 ångström (Å) = 1e-10 metres length = 0.1 nm = 100 pm
1E-6 -- Micron, µm, 1e-6 meter, one-millionth of a meter length
1E-18 -- Cubic Micron, µm³ (1e-6 meter x 1e-6 meter x 1e-6 meter)
volume
1E-30 -- 1 cubic ångström (Å) = (1e-10 x 1e-10 x 1e-10 meters) volume
1E-6 -- 1 cubic decameter, one liter volume, (1e-2 x 1e-2 x 1e-2
meters)
1E+24 -- Number of cubic ångströms per liter volume.
132961.72 -- Number of cubic ångströms per CO2 molecule, PRE-
Industrial (1E+24/7.5210E+18)
97204.39 -- Number of cubic ångströms per CO2 molecule, 2007 measured
(1E+24/1.0288E+19)
66480.86 -- Number of cubic ångströms per CO2 molecule, double PRE-
Industrial (1E+24/1.5042E+19)
51.04 -- Vector distance spacing in ångströms of CO2 molecules PRE-
Industrial (cube root of ų)
45.98 -- Vector distance spacing in ångströms of CO2 molecules 2007
measured (cube root of ų)
40.51 -- Vector distance spacing in ångströms of CO2 molecules double
PRE-Industrial (cube root of ų)

Souls Black as Coal wrote:
On Jun 3, 6:22 pm, Bawana wrote:
On Jun 3, 8:55 pm, kT wrote:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1
So?
Three times insignificant still equals insignificant.
Much like your delusional posts, kunT.

-- Avagodro's Number: 6.0221415×10^23
6.0221E+23 -- Molecules in one mole of any substance.
22.42 -- Ideal Gas Law: one mole of any gas at Standard Temperature
and Pressure (STP) occupies 22.42 liters of volume.
0.04460 -- One Liter portion of 22.42 liters (1/22.42)
280 -- Accepted peak limit of CO2 ratio of air parts per million
volume, PRE-Industrial.
383 -- Current year 2007 measured CO2 ratio of air parts per million
volume.
560 -- Double PRE-Industrial CO2 density in air.
3571.43 -- Ratio of air molecules containing 1 CO2 molecule in parts
of air, PRE-Industrial
2610.97 -- Ratio of air molecules containing 1 CO2 molecule in parts
of air, 2007 measured
1785.71 -- Ratio of air molecules containing 1 CO2 molecule in parts
of air, double PRE-Industrial
1.6862E+20 -- Number of CO2 molecules per mole of air, PRE-Industrial
2.3065E+20 -- Number of CO2 molecules per mole of air, 2007 measured
3.3724E+20 -- Number of CO2 molecules per mole of air, double PRE-
Industrial
7.5210E+18 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Liter of air, PRE-Industrial
1.0288E+19 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Liter of air, 2007 measured
1.5042E+19 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Liter of air, double PRE-
Industrial
1E-6 -- Number of cubic centimeters (µL) in one liter, milliliter.
7.5210E+12 -- Number of CO2 molecules per CC of air PRE-Industrial
1.0288E+13 -- Number of CO2 molecules per CC of air 2007 measured
1.5042E+13 -- Number of CO2 molecules per CC of air double PRE-
Industrial
1E-9 -- Nanoliter, (1e+6 µm³), 1 million cubic micrometers.
1E-12 -- Picoliter, 1 thousand cubic micrometers (10³ µm³)
7,520,962 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Picoliter (10³ µm³) of air,
PRE-Industrial
10,287,601 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Picoliter (10³ µm³) of air,
2007 measured
15,041,923 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Picoliter (10³ µm³) of air,
double PRE-Industrial
1E-18 -- Attoliter, (1e+6 nm³, one quintillionth liter), 1 million
cubic nanometers volume.
7.52 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Attoliter (1e+6 nm³) of air, PRE-
Industrial
10.29 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Attoliter (1e+6 nm³) of air, 2007
measured
15.04 -- Number of CO2 molecules per Attoliter (1e+6 nm³) of air,
double PRE-Industrial
1E-9 -- 1 nanometre, 10 ångströms, 1e-9 meters length.
1E-10 -- 1 ångström (Å) = 1e-10 metres length = 0.1 nm = 100 pm
1E-6 -- Micron, µm, 1e-6 meter, one-millionth of a meter length
1E-18 -- Cubic Micron, µm³ (1e-6 meter x 1e-6 meter x 1e-6 meter)
volume
1E-30 -- 1 cubic ångström (Å) = (1e-10 x 1e-10 x 1e-10 meters) volume
1E-6 -- 1 cubic decameter, one liter volume, (1e-2 x 1e-2 x 1e-2
meters)
1E+24 -- Number of cubic ångströms per liter volume.
132961.72 -- Number of cubic ångströms per CO2 molecule, PRE-
Industrial (1E+24/7.5210E+18)
97204.39 -- Number of cubic ångströms per CO2 molecule, 2007 measured
(1E+24/1.0288E+19)
66480.86 -- Number of cubic ångströms per CO2 molecule, double PRE-
Industrial (1E+24/1.5042E+19)
51.04 -- Vector distance spacing in ångströms of CO2 molecules PRE-
Industrial (cube root of ų)
45.98 -- Vector distance spacing in ångströms of CO2 molecules 2007
measured (cube root of ų)
40.51 -- Vector distance spacing in ångströms of CO2 molecules double
PRE-Industrial (cube root of ų)

That's kinda overkill, dontcha think?

I think you had him at 'Avogadro'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro's_number (hint)

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:46:51 -0700, number6 wrote:

On Jun 3, 7:55 pm, kT wrote:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1

That is not what the report says ...

The report suggests that it will be impossible for all the developing
nations to cooperate in any emission reduction program, the partial
sentence, "Together, the developing and least-developed economies
(forming 80% of the world's population) accounted for 73% of global
emissions growth in 2004", tells the story, and years since may be even
worse.
Technology is helping North America not add significantly to the
increases, and will help much more in the future, while the developing
countries can't help but increase emissions even more (IF they can
afford the high prices of fossil fuels).

But emissions are not the issue in climate change issues concerning
global warming, and the cause of warming is still a non-issue because
the average global temperature is not the true indicator of "warming",
because the data history covers too short a time period, the ups and
downs are still not clearly identified and the error range has not been
established.

where do you make up this ****? lol
nasa, supreme court, harvard professor Schwartz. thousands of companies are
producing greener technology.. It would help if governments helped out but
they are up to their noses with oil and coal revenues which fund their
campaign so they talk and don't do much... No one sane in high posiition
doesn't believe in global warming. , Head of oil and heads of coal even
admit to it. and the dangers.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:46:51 -0700, number6 wrote:

On Jun 3, 7:55 pm, kT wrote:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1

That is not what the report says ...

The report suggests that it will be impossible for all the developing
nations to cooperate in any emission reduction program, the partial
sentence, "Together, the developing and least-developed economies
(forming 80% of the world's population) accounted for 73% of global
emissions growth in 2004", tells the story, and years since may be even
worse.
Technology is helping North America not add significantly to the
increases, and will help much more in the future, while the developing
countries can't help but increase emissions even more (IF they can
afford the high prices of fossil fuels).

But emissions are not the issue in climate change issues concerning
global warming, and the cause of warming is still a non-issue because
the average global temperature is not the true indicator of "warming",
because the data history covers too short a time period, the ups and
downs are still not clearly identified and the error range has not been
established.

On Jun 3, 9:52 pm, Whata Fool wrote:

Track ALL TIME HIGH AND LOW temperature records,
and if the all time high records outnumber the all time low records, I
will get more worried.

What do your tracking numbers read? YOU are tracking, aren't you?

I don't think you should worry at all about temperatures. The softball-
sized hail now falling in Louisiana will punch right through your roof
and leave gaping holes, but that's not what's going to git y'all. It's
the 100 miles per hour Dericheo that's gonna bow your roof off.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...e97a268f01094c
Cometh 10th MAJOR HURRICANE in 154 Days of 2007 -- GONU intensified
from Cat 2 to Cat 4 in 6

These are only the MAJOR HURRICANES, not the piddly tropical storms or
cats 1s & 2s. 132 miles per hour winds, gusts over 161 mph on the
latest. Latest Gonu went up two categories in 6 hours, typical rapid
intensification for the new era hurricanes. 8 out of the 10 canes of
2007 skipped right on by category 3, and only two majors stayed at cat
3 so far this year. 2007 will be the year of the cat 4 & cat 5 canes
-- sure looks like it so far.