Quote:
Originally Posted by onon
Yes you do. The only way you can bridge the gap between emissions and co2 rise in 2006 is if the estimates for emissions are overvalued and the estimates of co2 rise are undervalued.
|
You're missing the concept of an error rate. An error rate implies that
any value within the range of error has equal likelihood of occurence. I could just as well argue your numbers are overvalued or undervalued.
Quote:
|
I have said that you can do this for individual years using very liberal error rates for both co2 emissions and co2 level measurements, but when you extend this analysis over X years you don't get to multiply the error rate by X too.
|
Oh, so now they're "liberal" error rates? Before, you agreed you could
"easily accept a given year's value may be off by .5ppm." But now that you've been shown how those
equally likely values would prove you wrong 50% of the time, they're suddenly "liberal". You're funny.
Quote:
|
The error rate is not linear with the number of years, so what emerges is that over such periods of time is not possible for human co2 emissions to be less than the atmospheric co2 rise.
|
Of course, like I said, go out a million years if you need to prove your point. See, I'm not married to any one conclusion, so you don't have to convince me. I will require you use at least some semblence of scientific method though.
Quote:
|
My point is that it is not, you require a specific case where the co2 emissions and rise are both off by a signficant amount in a certain direction.
|
As do you. You require the numbers to be a certain amount in a certain direction. Again, you miss the concept of error ranges.
Quote:
|
You talk about possibility, but not probability.
|
That's true. Do you have any standard deviations for these numbers? Do you have any confidence levels? Do you have any distribution data? I mean, if you claim to be "99.99% sure", then you must have some statistical data that brings you to that conclusion. Unless, of course, you're simply taking the word of press releases you read on the internet. Naw, that couldn't be the case.
Quote:
|
I can see that the 2006 figures being off by so much and off in the direction you need has low probability - there is a far better chance that 2006 did see emissions more than co2 rise.
|
*sigh* The numbers are not "off". Those with an open mind will grasp this. I only continue writing for them.
Quote:
|
But furthermore for a period of 10 years or more the probability of human emissions being less than the co2 rise falls even further.
|
And if we go out a billion years the probability of the CO2 rise being greater than human emissions grows. But, you just feel free to extend it or cut it off wherever you like to alleviate any internal dissonance facts may cause with your desired conclusion.
Quote:
|
Why would it be poor maths?
|
I explained why:
"You're arguing we can take one measurement, of a highly complex and wildly variable system, and extrapolate that over a ten year period."
Quote:
|
I don't need to do that because even the last 10 year period makes it clear humans have emitted more.
|
Of course, because 10 years gave you the answer you needed, so you stopped there. Good science.
Quote:
|
Are you implying that isn't justified?
|
Yes, it isn't justified. Onon, are measurements taken every 10 years, or every hour?
Quote:
|
Because we don't calculate the emissions over 10 years as emissions in 2006 minus emissions in 1997
|
Ahhh, but we calculate the change in CO2 concentrations over 10 years?
Quote:
|
As I pointed out, you get more than that figure just by using the actual figures. Over 260GtC in 10 years.
|
What actual figures? Have you provided a source to actual anthropogenic emissions over the past 10 years that I missed?
Quote:
|
Natural background noise is not eliminated. You only have to look at the measurements taken over a single year to see it.
|
Uhhh, the measurements are taken every hour, simultaneously with two different flasks. Those two measurements do not match. If they are off by more than .5ppmv then both measurements are discarded (or one is kept depending upon the subjective judgement of the researcher). Both measurements are recording the same air, ergo the difference can only be explained as a measurement error. You should read your sources.
Quote:
|
But as the table says, a minimum of 3.1GtC of that 6GtC must be put in "Storage in the atmosphere" within 90% confidence interval. Setting it at 0GtC is going to fall well outside that 90% confidence interval.
|
First of all, the table doesn't say any amount
must be put anywhere. Just because something is outside the 90% confidence level doesn't mean it is an impossible occurence.
Quote:
|
No Im not. The second part of the table is titled "Partitioning among reservoirs", ie you have to partition the amount of human emissions amount the reservoirs. You don't get to partition a higher number than human emissions among the reservoirs.
|
*sigh* I'm not arguing we are partitioning a higher number than human emissions among the reservoirs. I'm arguing that all of it could be partitioned without using the atmosphere.
Quote:
|
So you are claiming that mathematically, statistically, logically and intuitively you can spend $15.5 of $9 given to you....
|
Given the probabilities and possibilities of the problem you presented, yes.
Quote:
|
The important thing is that the table is including them as anthropogenic emissions. The 2nd part of the table would have lower values if they had left land use changes out.
|
How so? You can't have two variables dependent upon each other in the same equation. Are you arguing the researchers first determined the emissions values, then simply plugged some numbers into the partitions in order to make their equation work?
Quote:
|
Given that it's a 90% condifence interval you don't have much room to go outside them. You certainly have no scope for going 16 times outside the confidence interval by saying the atmosphere took zero (which falls way outside the 3.1-3.5 90% confidence range). It's not the case that any value outside that range has 10% chance. A value less than 3.1 has 5% chance (the other 5% is for above 3.5). And the further you go down from 3.1 the lower the probability goes.
|
Yet still possible, making your absolute and definitive statements false.