CO2 Doesn't Matter

[Glen Contrarian]

Consider that it has taken us 136 years to increase CO2 from 290 ppm to 403 ppm, A 113 ppm increase.
During that same time, we have beat just about every bush looking for easy oil, and have recovered much of what we have found.
To actually double the CO2 level would require us to find and burn 147% more oil, in the next few decades,
as has been in the last 136 years.
It seems very unlikely we will be able to do so.
It is not that there are not large oil deposits still remaining, but rather the cost of recovery will exceed
the value of the oil.
As someone in this forum said, the stone age did not end for lack of stone.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. CO2 doesn't come just from oil - ever hear of "biofuels"? But anyway, you're making a great assumption that we're going to run out of oil anytime soon. Even back in the 1970's, I remember how people were freaking out about the world 'running out of oil'...but ever since then, we've kept finding more oil, and developing more ways to get at that oil.

In other words, you have no way of knowing when - or if - we're ever going to run out of oil.

But in the meantime, we're going to continue to use it, and we're going to continue to pump gigatonnes of CO2 into the air (and that's from just cars alone) every year. And the right wing will continue to pretend that it's no big deal...

...until things really start to look bad, at which point they'll try to blame the liberals for not "proving" it sooner.

 

[Jack Hays]

They're cut from the same cloth - both have demonstrated a pattern of violating ethics rules for their own gain. The only real difference is that Trump started out filthy rich, and Salby doesn't appear to have done so.

Your willingness to go ad hominem about someone you surely don't know, purely for ideological reasons, is disappointing.

 

[longview]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. CO2 doesn't come just from oil - ever hear of "biofuels"? But anyway, you're making a great assumption that we're going to run out of oil anytime soon. Even back in the 1970's, I remember how people were freaking out about the world 'running out of oil'...but ever since then, we've kept finding more oil, and developing more ways to get at that oil.

In other words, you have no way of knowing when - or if - we're ever going to run out of oil.

But in the meantime, we're going to continue to use it, and we're going to continue to pump gigatonnes of CO2 into the air (and that's from just cars alone) every year. And the right wing will continue to pretend that it's no big deal...

...until things really start to look bad, at which point they'll try to blame the liberals for not "proving" it sooner.

Where did I say we were going to run out of oil, you really need to quit making up stuff!
What I said was the cost of extracting and bringing the oil to the refineries, will exceed the cost
of the refineries producing their own feed stock.
While it is not necessary for the carbon in man made fuels to come from the atmosphere, it is likely the easiest,
and would have the added marketing advantage, of selling a carbon neutral fuel.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. CO2 doesn't come just from oil - ever hear of "biofuels"?

The CO2 from biofuel is a net zero, as the CO2 making the plants we turn into fuel comes from the atmosphere.

But anyway, you're making a great assumption that we're going to run out of oil anytime soon. Even back in the 1970's, I remember how people were freaking out about the world 'running out of oil'...but ever since then, we've kept finding more oil, and developing more ways to get at that oil.

In other words, you have no way of knowing when - or if - we're ever going to run out of oil.

But in the meantime, we're going to continue to use it, and we're going to continue to pump gigatonnes of CO2 into the air (and that's from just cars alone) every year. And the right wing will continue to pretend that it's no big deal...

...until things really start to look bad, at which point they'll try to blame the liberals for not "proving" it sooner.

If you say so...

 

[Jack Hays]

Why should I give my thoughts when you gave none?

Pierre Gosselin's summary is linked, and is a fair representation of my view. Besides, I went to the trouble to provide discussion material.

 

[Deuce]

The CO2 is trapped in the moisture. When it freezes, CO2 bubbles are created in the ice under new snowfall. The seasons cause some phase transitions, and the partial pressure of gasses are absorbed into the moisture. At a 0C state, this initial absorption is close to proportion of the atmospheric gasses. This creates a primarily CO2 atmosphere and other soluble gasses under the new snow that eventually gets trapped. Once trapped, they create bubbles that get smaller and smaller with pressure. These bubbles get squeezed by the pressure of new ice as it form on top over the centuries, and if you have read any concerns in ice core study material, they acknowledge they don't know how much CO2 is lost in the process.

It isn't trapping an atmosphere sample, but a soluble gas sample.

Is that simple enough to comprehend?

And yet, the expected correlation from your theory doesn't exist.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And yet, the expected correlation from your theory doesn't exist.

You need to read more on the topic and/or explain to us why I am wrong.

 

[Deuce]

You need to read more on the topic and/or explain to us why I am wrong.

I did. Your claim was smaller slices would result in greater losses. This means higher resolution samples would show low CO2 concentrations (due to losses), but low resolution samples would not see the same losses and show higher CO2. This was your hypothesis. Can you show evidence to support your hypothesis?

 

[Deuce]

Pierre Gosselin's summary is linked, and is a fair representation of my view. Besides, I went to the trouble to provide discussion material.

Yes, the trouble of being your usual RSS feed self. Such effort. I will put in equal effort:

Nuh uh.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, the trouble of being your usual RSS feed self. Such effort. I will put in equal effort:

Nuh uh.

I understand your frustration, and if I too were committed to the position you advocate, I too would dodge the data. I empathize.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, the trouble of being your usual RSS feed self. Such effort. I will put in equal effort:

Nuh uh.

I confess I have no idea what "RSS" means. I'm surprised Professor Curry's interest did not pique your own.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I confess I have no idea what "RSS" means. I'm surprised Professor Curry's interest did not pique your own.

Really Simple Syndication

 

[Jack Hays]

Really Simple Syndication

Ah. So I'm supposed to be insulted?

 

[Deuce]

Ah. So I'm supposed to be insulted?

People use an RSS feed to automatically pull stories from certain sites and paste/access them. No commentary or analysis is part of this process. You are performing that function for WUWT and JC, spamming everything they write to this forum with

 

[Jack Hays]

People use an RSS feed to automatically pull stories from certain sites and paste/access them. No commentary or analysis is part of this process. You are performing that function for WUWT and JC, spamming everything they write to this forum with

Ah, but there is commentary and analysis. You just don't like it.

 

[Jack Hays]

People use an RSS feed to automatically pull stories from certain sites and paste/access them. No commentary or analysis is part of this process. You are performing that function for WUWT and JC, spamming everything they write to this forum with

And two more things:

It's not spamming. It's contribution to the forum as was intended.
If you think I present everything then you're unfamiliar with the sites.

 

[polgara]

I confess I have no idea what "RSS" means. I'm surprised Professor Curry's interest did not pique your own.

She always makes sense, without delivering an insult along with her comments, which is very much appreciated by her readers! :thumbs:

 

[Threegoofs]

She always makes sense, without delivering an insult along with her comments, which is very much appreciated by her readers! :thumbs:

Yes- I would put her right up there with Edgar Cayce.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes- I would put her right up there with Edgar Cayce.

LOL.

Your ignorance is showing again...

 

[Mithrae]

Later he shows that although humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier, growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not change at all.

Do you ever bother to fact-check the propaganda you spam?

A couple of credible estimates of increases in global carbon emissions are roughly 50% more in 2010 than in 1990 (20 years), or 60% more in 2014 than in 1990 (24 years).

In spite of that fact, you will swallow and regurgitate the claim of a 100% decade-to-decade increase without so much as batting an eye!

And growth in atmospheric CO2 concentrations didn't change at all?

PPM CO2 growth varies considerably from year to year; but your hero made this claim when the previous year's increase was the biggest on record! The average annual increase in the decade leading up to 2015 was 13.6% higher than the decade leading up to 2005, and 43% higher than the decade leading up to 1995 (20 years earlier).

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Year	Increase	Averages
1986	1.48		
1987	2.29		
1988	2.13		
1989	1.32		
1990	1.19	1.682	
1991	0.99		
1992	0.48		
1993	1.4		
1994	1.91		
1995	1.99	1.354	1.518
1996	1.25		
1997	1.91		
1998	2.93		
1999	0.93		
2000	1.62	1.728	
2001	1.58		
2002	2.53		
2003	2.29		
2004	1.56		
2005	2.52	2.096	1.912
2006	1.76		
2007	2.22		
2008	1.6		
2009	1.89		
2010	2.42	1.978	
2011	1.88		
2012	2.62		
2013	2.1		
2014	2.18		
2015	3.05	2.366	2.172

This kind of blind parroting of blatant falsehoods in the name of 'sceptic' propaganda is precisely what I've come to expect of Jack - being a "humble servant" of "the data" as he often puts it. Servants don't question, I suppose.

But I guess it was too much to hope that Longview, Lord of Planar and Jmotivator (folk who all really should know better) would take up the initiative of pointing out these blindingly obvious falsehoods, instead of (or at least in addition to!) tag-teaming Glen in defence of the charlatan?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Just the facts,
Fact #1 deforestation,
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds | NASA

Fact #2
The chemistry that produces three times the unit mass of CO2 for each mass unit of fuel burned,
is reversible, so each pound of biomass grown requires 3 lbs of CO2 to create.
The greening earth is making a lot of biomass!

Here is the nature Climate Change link:

Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Yeah, it's helping green the earth...but as the earth grows warmer, the warmest parts become less arable, less able to sustain plant and animal growth. Posting our hopes on greening due to CO2 is worse than useless, for while the planet will green somewhat, there's no direct correlation between CO2 level and greening - there's precisely zero indication that the planet will green enough to handle the additional gigatonnes of CO2 we pump out every year.

And how do we know this? Simple. If the planet were able to handle the extra CO2, then the CO2 level would not be rising.

But it is.

Hopes on greening? Speculation based on confirmation bias without reading the topic?

Fron the Nature article:

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services1, 2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning).


------

Trends from the three long-term satellite LAI data sets consistently show positive values over a large proportion of the global vegetated area since 1982

------

The contributions of CO2 fertilization and climate change are reliable according to the optimal fingerprint analysis, whereas the effects of LCC and nitrogen deposition should be interpreted with caution. Our estimation of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation growth is more prominent than Los6, probably owing to the different attribution approaches.
​

25% to 50% greening vs. 4% browning is a significant net positive increase!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you ever bother to fact-check the propaganda you spam?

Do you?

A couple of credible estimates of increases in global carbon emissions are roughly 50% more in 2010 than in 1990 (20 years), or 60% more in 2014 than in 1990 (24 years).


In spite of that fact, you will swallow and regurgitate the claim of a 100% decade-to-decade increase without so much as batting an eye!

Various data sources will have different estimates. We dont know which set he used, or its reliability.

And growth in atmospheric CO2 concentrations didn't change at all?

I think we can agree Jack misspoke, because "not at all" is an obvious mistake.

PPM CO2 growth varies considerably from year to year; but your hero made this claim when the previous year's increase was the biggest on record! The average annual increase in the decade leading up to 2015 was 13.6% higher than the decade leading up to 2005, and 43% higher than the decade leading up to 1995 (20 years earlier).

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Why are you cherry picking a single location?

His example appears to go through 2013, and 2013 was the highest at the time, using a global data-set instead of your single station cherry picked example.

Annual Mean Global Carbon Dioxide Growth Rates

Salby's graph shows a near fit of the trend, but if you look closely, the annual 2.1 ppm/yr is not an exact fit. Graphically it shows how close they are to the same trend line. If I take the global data I linked, the ten years of 1994 to 2003 has an average annual growth of 18.57 ppm. 2004 to 2013 is 20.2. the second decade is only 8.8% greater than the first, and this can be considered negligible since it will be inside the error range when averaging and weighting several sites.

It also depends on the dataset used. He may have used a dataset that is closer to the annual average of 2.1 ppm.

To flat out dismiss this guy show you are clearly biased and incapable of proper skeptical science methodology.

This kind of blind parroting of blatant falsehoods in the name of 'sceptic' propaganda is precisely what I've come to expect of Jack - being a "humble servant" of "the data" as he often puts it. Servants don't question, I suppose.

Which is worse? Blind parroting of those someone trusts, or what you are doing. Using your confirmation bias as fact?

But I guess it was too much to hope that Longview, Lord of Planar and Jmotivator (folk who all really should know better) would take up the initiative of pointing out these blindingly obvious falsehoods, instead of (or at least in addition to!) tag-teaming Glen in defence of the charlatan?

I do research material. You need to step your game up before you criticize me. You are very, very hypocritical right now.

 

[Jack Hays]

Do you ever bother to fact-check the propaganda you spam?

A couple of credible estimates of increases in global carbon emissions are roughly 50% more in 2010 than in 1990 (20 years), or 60% more in 2014 than in 1990 (24 years).

In spite of that fact, you will swallow and regurgitate the claim of a 100% decade-to-decade increase without so much as batting an eye!

And growth in atmospheric CO2 concentrations didn't change at all?

PPM CO2 growth varies considerably from year to year; but your hero made this claim when the previous year's increase was the biggest on record! The average annual increase in the decade leading up to 2015 was 13.6% higher than the decade leading up to 2005, and 43% higher than the decade leading up to 1995 (20 years earlier).

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Year	Increase	Averages
1986	1.48		
1987	2.29		
1988	2.13		
1989	1.32		
1990	1.19	1.682	
1991	0.99		
1992	0.48		
1993	1.4		
1994	1.91		
1995	1.99	1.354	1.518
1996	1.25		
1997	1.91		
1998	2.93		
1999	0.93		
2000	1.62	1.728	
2001	1.58		
2002	2.53		
2003	2.29		
2004	1.56		
2005	2.52	2.096	1.912
2006	1.76		
2007	2.22		
2008	1.6		
2009	1.89		
2010	2.42	1.978	
2011	1.88		
2012	2.62		
2013	2.1		
2014	2.18		
2015	3.05	2.366	2.172

This kind of blind parroting of blatant falsehoods in the name of 'sceptic' propaganda is precisely what I've come to expect of Jack - being a "humble servant" of "the data" as he often puts it. Servants don't question, I suppose.

But I guess it was too much to hope that Longview, Lord of Planar and Jmotivator (folk who all really should know better) would take up the initiative of pointing out these blindingly obvious falsehoods, instead of (or at least in addition to!) tag-teaming Glen in defence of the charlatan?

When I'm on the same side as Judith Curry I'm willing to risk your criticism.

This is a very well crafted and clearly presented talk. However, Salby talks exceedingly slow (but this may have contributed to the ease of understanding the talk). He makes a number of very interesting points. He closes with some skeptic-pleasing comments on CO2 emissions policies. He clearly has a different perspective on the carbon budget than does the IPCC.

The talk is well worth listening to.

 

[Quaestio]

Do you ever bother to fact-check the propaganda you spam?

A couple of credible estimates of increases in global carbon emissions are roughly 50% more in 2010 than in 1990 (20 years), or 60% more in 2014 than in 1990 (24 years).



In spite of that fact, you will swallow and regurgitate the claim of a 100% decade-to-decade increase without so much as batting an eye!

And growth in atmospheric CO2 concentrations didn't change at all?

PPM CO2 growth varies considerably from year to year; but your hero made this claim when the previous year's increase was the biggest on record! The average annual increase in the decade leading up to 2015 was 13.6% higher than the decade leading up to 2005, and 43% higher than the decade leading up to 1995 (20 years earlier).

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network



This kind of blind parroting of blatant falsehoods in the name of 'sceptic' propaganda is precisely what I've come to expect of Jack - being a "humble servant" of "the data" as he often puts it. Servants don't question, I suppose.

But I guess it was too much to hope that Longview, Lord of Planar and Jmotivator (folk who all really should know better) would take up the initiative of pointing out these blindingly obvious falsehoods, instead of (or at least in addition to!) tag-teaming Glen in defence of the charlatan?

I was surprised even Judith Curry would post such easily refuted blatantly false claims from Murry Salby. Luckily, she has now posted an article showing how Salby's claims are completely wrong.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/12/...of-fossil-fuel-emissions-and-atmospheric-co2/

 

[Quaestio]

When I'm on the same side as Judith Curry I'm willing to risk your criticism.

This is a very well crafted and clearly presented talk. However, Salby talks exceedingly slow (but this may have contributed to the ease of understanding the talk). He makes a number of very interesting points. He closes with some skeptic-pleasing comments on CO2 emissions policies. He clearly has a different perspective on the carbon budget than does the IPCC.

The talk is well worth listening to.

So are you now on the 'same side' as Judith Curry now that she has posted an article showing how Salby's claims are completely wrong?

https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/12/...of-fossil-fuel-emissions-and-atmospheric-co2/