Climate gate debunked

Lorddave, I was about to post similar calculations. Mine resulted in the answer that we produce .002% of the CO₂ in the atmosphere every year. Now, since this has been happening for about 200 years, we an extrapolate that we've produced .2% of the CO₂ in the atmosphere, which is significant.

Lorddave, I was about to post similar calculations. Mine resulted in the answer that we produce .002% of the CO₂ in the atmosphere every year. Now, since this has been happening for about 200 years, we an extrapolate that we've produced .2% of the CO₂ in the atmosphere, which is significant.

It may or may not be significant depending on how much CO2 we need to cause "global warming".

Also, that's only CO₂. Water vapour is a much more significant greenhouse gas.

Lorddave, I was about to post similar calculations. Mine resulted in the answer that we produce .002% of the CO₂ in the atmosphere every year. Now, since this has been happening for about 200 years, we an extrapolate that we've produced .2% of the CO₂ in the atmosphere, which is significant.

How do you figure .2% per year?  I figured 1% per year, roughly. 

Quote from: Tausami on October 29, 2011, 10:13:05 AM

Lorddave, I was about to post similar calculations. Mine resulted in the answer that we produce .002% of the CO₂ in the atmosphere every year. Now, since this has been happening for about 200 years, we an extrapolate that we've produced .2% of the CO₂ in the atmosphere, which is significant.

How do you figure .2% per year?  I figured 1% per year, roughly.

Because I am tired and was using kilograms and tonnes interchangeably. I'll go back and redo it.

Redone. My new calculations say that the is about 1763698096000 tons of CO₂ in the atmosphere, or ~1600000000000 tonnes. Given ~33000000000 pounds of CO₂ annually, that's 2% a year.

The fact that you stated just the ones in the silos makes you wrong.  Even if you took every single one from every country launched by land and sea and air it still wouldnt be enough to destroy the world.  Not even close.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-i-learnt-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb/

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_atomic_bombs_will_it_take_to_destroy_the_world

http://io9.com/5277702/could-our-nuclear-arsenal-really-destroy-the-world


You should try and find a better analogy.  That one wasn't very good.

Perhaps I wasn't being specific enough. Only a few high yield nuclear weapons is enough to bring on a nuclear winter, and while that isn't exactly 'destroying the world', it's a significant climactic event.

In either case, the analogy was meant to portray the insignificance of size.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on October 29, 2011, 08:48:13 AM

The fact that you stated just the ones in the silos makes you wrong.  Even if you took every single one from every country launched by land and sea and air it still wouldnt be enough to destroy the world.  Not even close.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-i-learnt-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb/

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_atomic_bombs_will_it_take_to_destroy_the_world

http://io9.com/5277702/could-our-nuclear-arsenal-really-destroy-the-world


You should try and find a better analogy.  That one wasn't very good.

Perhaps I wasn't being specific enough. Only a few high yield nuclear weapons is enough to bring on a nuclear winter, and while that isn't exactly 'destroying the world', it's a significant climactic event.

In either case, the analogy was meant to portray the insignificance of size.

Since we're talking about climate and global environmental issues and not physically blowing up all the rock on Earth, here is a quote from one of the articles wardogg posted:

So, it seems unlikely that one nuke — or several — of today's technology could do harm to the planet (though the environmental effects are quite a different story).

So it seems that using all the nukes in the world will not be an insignificant environmental issue.

Destroy the biosphere then. Or rather, destroy the biosphere for our type of life for a few thousand years.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on October 28, 2011, 09:02:33 AM

So little space, yet 33 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, and growing.  I wonder what effects that is having on the CO2 in earths atmosphere.

In fairness that graph is meaningless without showing what the temperature line represents.

There was no temperature line in that graph.  It was only showing the increase in CO2 ppm global averages.  Here's a graph showing average global temperatures:



Next to a graph showing CO2 averages, this one goes further back than the previous: