<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Dr. Yury and list</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1. I need to take issue again with your statement today (below) of “..<i>0.01% of CO2 per year to what exists in nature”</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="font-style: italic; white-space: pre;"> </span>2. On 25 September, I wrote this responding to your same number given on 23 September:</div><div><i><font size="2">I think you have made two errors with your number below of “0.01% per year”. So I ask for your source.</font></i></div><div><i><font size="2"><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Using round approximate numbers to make the computations simpler:<br><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>a. Present (2014) atmospheric CO2 concentration of 400 ppm<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>b. Ten years ago (2004) “ “‘ “ of about 378, so the slope is about 2.2 ppm/year (call it 2 for simplicity, but getting closer to 3 ppm/yr recently)<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>c. Dividing 2 ppm/yr by 400 ppm gives 0.005 or 0.5% per year. (would get a larger number if using something less than 400)<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>d. But this is not the right computation. We should be comparing to the excess CO2 - not the total CO2. The organization <a href="http://350.org">350.org</a> is suggesting that we need to remove 50 ppm from the atmosphere (it will get worse). But this would then give 2/50 = .04 or 4% worse very year. Or 100% in 25 years - the year 2039.<br><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span> The ratio of 4% per year to your 0.01% per year is a factor of 400 difference. I look forward to your computation<br></font></i><br><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3. On 27 September, you kindly responded this way:</div><div><i style="font-size: small;">14 billion tons / year of coal, oil and gas is produced in the world (data from the International Energy Agency). It is about 10 billion tons of carbon. </i></div><div><div><font size="2"><i>We will get 36 000 000 000 tons / year of CO2, if all the carbon is burned. (Part of the fossil organic matteris converted into polymeric material does not rot, but we neglect)<br clear="all"></i></font></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="2"><i>The content of carbon dioxide in the oceans 36 000 000 000 000 tons in terms of carbon. This is 132 000 000 000 000 tons of carbon dioxide <br>(Wikipedia "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the Earth")</i></font></div><div><font size="2"><i> </i></font></div><div><font size="2"><i>I'm not saying that the content of carbon dioxide in nature invariably. The breath of the world ocean onlyhas an amplitude of 30 billion tonnes. Variable values are emissions of volcanoes and other natural phenomena. I affirm that the anthropogenic factor is greatly exaggerated. Glaciers are melting now.Ancient Roman road in Greenland are exposed at the site of glaciers.</i></font></div><div><font size="2"><i> </i></font></div><div><font size="2"><i><br></i></font></div><div><font size="2"><i><br></i></font></div></div></div></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>4. I missed this last response, so I apologize for not commenting earlier. I would have wanted to continue arguing against your 0.01% value given below. So, I now make these additional comments:<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>a. Yes, percentages are a valid way of comparing.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>b. Your computation has indisputable numbers (4 vs about 40,000 GtC giving 1/10,000 = .01%) </div><div> (see <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Carbon_cycle.jpg">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Carbon_cycle.jpg</a>)</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>c. Correct ratio - but not helpful, useful, or important in climate terms. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span> Add that in ocean terms, it is the surface ocean that is important for climate - also gone up about the same 30-40% as C in the atmosphere. <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And these percentages, especially in a short time, are clearly important,</div><div> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>d. I should have asked for you to not only give your rationale but also comment on mine - given above - in your terms of <i><font size="2"> “..the anthropogenic factor is greatly exaggerated.</font></i><font size="2"><i>”</i></font></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></div><div>Ron</div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Nov 26, 2014, at 6:24 AM, yury yud <<a href="mailto:yudyury@gmail.com">yudyury@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><span>Richard,</span></div><div><span>Climate change</span> <span>is the normal state</span> <span>of the earth.</span> <span>It</span> <span>was</span> <span>cooling and warming</span><span>.</span> <span>Novels</span> <span>of the 19th century</span> <span>say that</span> <span>the Dutch</span> <span>winter</span> <span>skating</span> <span>move</span> <span>through the channels</span><span>.</span> <span>These channels</span> <span>do not freeze</span> <span>now</span><span>.</span><br><span>Human impact on the</span> <span>climate,</span> <span>this is a deliberate</span> <span>mistake</span> <span>interested people.</span> <span>Emissions</span> <span>have local importance</span><span>, where</span> <span>a high density of</span> <span>population and industry</span><span>.</span> <span>They</span> <span>do not have</span> <span>global significance</span><span>.</span> <span>All emissions</span> <span>can</span> <span>add</span> <span>0.01</span><span>%</span> <span>of CO2 per year</span> <span>to what</span> <span>exists in nature</span><span>.</span><br clear="all"></div><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Yury Yudkevich</div>
<div> <a href="mailto:yudyury@gmail.com" target="_blank">yudyury@gmail.com</a></div></div></div></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<br><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>