Inconvenient climate change math

[KLATTU]

I agree. It's the US

the US? How do you figure that?
Isn't AGW a global phenemenon? And doesn't China make the US a minor player in carbon emissions ,relatively speaking?
I mean I think I know where you are going. They are the good guys because they are going green but , even if you are naive enough to believe their propaganda they aren't even coming close to being green enough to make a difference They are murdering the planet with carbon and they have no intention of stopping.

 

[vegas giants]

the US? How do you figure that?
Isn't AGW a global phenemenon? And doesn't China make the US a minor player in carbon emissions ,relatively speaking?
I mean I think I know where you are going. They are the good guys because they are going green but , even if you are naive enough to believe their propaganda they aren't even coming close to being green enough to make a difference They are murdering the planet with carbon and they have no intention of stopping.

Yet we have much more co2 emissions than they do per capita


Deny that

 

[KLATTU]

Yet we have much more co2 emissions than they do per capita


Deny that

so what? Does the earth's atmosphere care about ' per capita'?

 

[vegas giants]

so what? Does the earth's atmosphere care about ' per capita'?

You're asking which country is the problem


It's obviously us

 

[KLATTU]

You're asking which country is the problem


It's obviously us

Oh right . Obviously.
China will become 50+% of the top 10 within 5 years.

Smirky smirks.

 

[vegas giants]

Oh right . Obviously.
China will become 50+% of the top 10 within 5 years.

Smirky smirks.

Not per capita they won't



We own that

 

[eohrnberger]

How to tell that the climate alarmists aren't serious

It's the math! I ask you: if someone proposes a (ridiculous) solution to an

www.americanthinker.com

"Today, China accounts for 42% of the emissions from the top 10 CO2 emissions–producers. If man-made climate change is the existential problem of our time, you would assume that China would be a mandatory participant in the climate accords to cut emissions, but you would be wrong. China is not. As a matter of fact, China plans to increase its CO2 emissions, and by one account, it would average 13,800 over the next five years (the estimate for China's CO2 emissions are 12,900 to 14,700 Million MtCO2e).
China will become 50+% of the top 10 within 5 years, and overall emission will increase 4% from the top 10, and that assumes that India and Russia follow through on their commitments.

What do these data really tell us? China's projected increase in emissions will overwhelm the projected decrease in emissions if the other top 9 achieve their 15% goals."

So....let's review. The chances that China's CO2 emissions will increase as projected-highly likely.
The chances that the other 9 countries will reach their 15 % decrease -Highly unlikely.
Highly unlikely because that would mean liberals would have to turn their AC down in the summer and heat down in the winter. And take the bus. WE all know that ain't happenin.

Isn't it common sense to apply your efforts to where it will lead to the greatest effect, gains?
Seems the 'Climate Change Mafia' missed that little bit of common sense.

 

[Glitch]

How to tell that the climate alarmists aren't serious

It's the math! I ask you: if someone proposes a (ridiculous) solution to an

www.americanthinker.com

"Today, China accounts for 42% of the emissions from the top 10 CO2 emissions–producers. If man-made climate change is the existential problem of our time, you would assume that China would be a mandatory participant in the climate accords to cut emissions, but you would be wrong. China is not. As a matter of fact, China plans to increase its CO2 emissions, and by one account, it would average 13,800 over the next five years (the estimate for China's CO2 emissions are 12,900 to 14,700 Million MtCO2e).
China will become 50+% of the top 10 within 5 years, and overall emission will increase 4% from the top 10, and that assumes that India and Russia follow through on their commitments.

What do these data really tell us? China's projected increase in emissions will overwhelm the projected decrease in emissions if the other top 9 achieve their 15% goals."

So....let's review. The chances that China's CO2 emissions will increase as projected-highly likely.
The chances that the other 9 countries will reach their 15 % decrease -Highly unlikely.
Highly unlikely because that would mean liberals would have to turn their AC down in the summer and heat down in the winter. And take the bus. WE all know that ain't happenin.

The article is not wrong. The Marxist redistribution of wealth fraud that has become the exclusively leftist AGW religious movement is in the math, and always has been.

It doesn't matter which country produces the most or the least atmospheric CO2. The grand total amount world-wide is so small that it cannot possible influence the climate in any way.

We are talking about an atmosphere that already contains three trillion metric tons of CO2, and that only accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere. Then, according to the EPA's estimates, we are emitting another 36 billion metric tons of atmospheric CO2 world-wide, or 1.2% of the total CO2 already in the atmosphere. Which accounts for a grand total of 0.0005% of the total atmosphere.

Furthermore, we have observed empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 increases 800 ± 200 years after mean surface temperatures increase, and therefore atmospheric CO2 cannot be the driver behind the changes in temperature. The current increases in atmospheric CO2 is the result of the Medieval Warming that occurred between 950 and 1250, not anything humans could have contributed today.

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, Mar 2003 (free preprint)

 

[Lord of Planar]

Isn't it common sense to apply your efforts to where it will lead to the greatest effect, gains?
Seems the 'Climate Change Mafia' missed that little bit of common sense.

Yep.

They are so hellbent of making carbon taxes common. We should be focusing on real pollution and real environmental hazards. Not this fantasy of theirs.

 

[Steve Case]

We produce more co2 per capita. We are the problem

Members of the World Economic Forum produce more CO2 per person than any other group on the planet, so they are "The Problem"
You could narrow it down to one person on the planet who personally is responsible for more CO2 emissions than anyone else.

 

[Steve Case]

The article is not wrong. The Marxist redistribution of wealth fraud that has become the exclusively leftist AGW religious movement is in the math, and always has been.

It doesn't matter which country produces the most or the least atmospheric CO2. The grand total amount world-wide is so small that it cannot possible influence the climate in any way.

We are talking about an atmosphere that already contains three trillion metric tons of CO2, and that only accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere. Then, according to the EPA's estimates, we are emitting another 36 billion metric tons of atmospheric CO2 world-wide, or 1.2% of the total CO2 already in the atmosphere. Which accounts for a grand total of 0.0005% of the total atmosphere.

Furthermore, we have observed empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 increases 800 ± 200 years after mean surface temperatures increase, and therefore atmospheric CO2 cannot be the driver behind the changes in temperature. The current increases in atmospheric CO2 is the result of the Medieval Warming that occurred between 950 and 1250, not anything humans could have contributed today.

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, Mar 2003 (free preprint)

The current increases in atmospheric CO2 is the result of the Medieval Warming that
occurred between 950 and 1250, not anything humans could have contributed today.

Yes indeed, amazing that it's not pointed out more often.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The current increases in atmospheric CO2 is the result of the Medieval Warming that
occurred between 950 and 1250, not anything humans could have contributed today.

Yes indeed, amazing that it's not pointed out more often.

I would like to agree with you but I cant. The proxy data doesn't support your assessment.

 

[vegas giants]

Members of the World Economic Forum produce more CO2 per person than any other group on the planet, so they are "The Problem"
You could narrow it down to one person on the planet who personally is responsible for more CO2 emissions than anyone else.

They do? Prove it

 

[Glitch]

I would like to agree with you but I cant. The proxy data doesn't support your assessment.

I just demonstrated that the proxy data did support my assertion. Didn't you read the paper?

 

[KLATTU]

Not per capita they won't



We own that

Yes , I'm sure the atmosphere cares about per capita. Smirky smirks.
By your 'logic' , if,say, the country of monaco had a higher per capita production of CO2 ,THEY would be the biggest problem???

 

[vegas giants]

Yes , I'm sure the atmosphere cares about per capita. Smirky smirks.
By your 'logic' , if,say, the country of monaco had a higher per capita production of CO2 ,THEY would be the biggest problem???

Are they?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I just demonstrated that the proxy data did support my assertion. Didn't you read the paper?

What I have said does not contradict that study.

I have know for ages that CO2 does follow the earths temperature and lags by about the 800 years indicated. However, at no time in any proxy data has the CO2 levels exceed 320 ppm in over 800 years. The article describes the times before our industrialization. Our additions are another factor yet, that nature didn't have to contend with in past intergacial periods. If nature was the cause of the greenhouse gas levels we see today, then nature wouldn't be trying to absorb what we add to the earth system.

In the past, as we enter an ice age, the interracial periods were normally from about 270 to 310 ppm. This is the atmospheric levels when equalized with the oceans and the rest of the biosphere. When the temperature of the oceans decrease, they can absorb more CO2, but the lag of about 800 years is highly influenced by the circulation time of the ocean. During our past ice ages, the ocean surface decreases, and the oceans absorb more. Proxies of the past indicate CO2 levels dropped to about 180 ppm.

Since we have industrialized, we have caused an unnatural imbalance, and nature simply cannot absorb it as fast as we emit it.

They are talking of T-III. T-I is the ice age we came out of.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1177840

Your link also says we need to distinguish between natural and unnatural:

 

[Glitch]

What I have said does not contradict that study.

I have know for ages that CO2 does follow the earths temperature and lags by about the 800 years indicated. However, at no time in any proxy data has the CO2 levels exceed 320 ppm in over 800 years. The article describes the times before our industrialization. Our additions are another factor yet, that nature didn't have to contend with in past intergacial periods. If nature was the cause of the greenhouse gas levels we see today, then nature wouldn't be trying to absorb what we add to the earth system.

Our additions, as I also demonstrated amounts to 5 ppmV at best out of the 417 ppmV, or 1.2%.

The proxy data goes back more than 400,000 years. Of course it includes other interglacial periods, such as:

• the Eemian Interglacial that occurred between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago; and
• the La Bouchet Interglacial that occurred between 242,000 and 230,000 years ago; and
• the Purfleet Interglacial that occurred between 337,000 and 300,000 years ago; and
• the Hoxnian Interglacial that occurred between 424,000 and 374,000 years ago.

Although, you are correct in that the proxy data from Antarctica does not show a CO2 increase above 380 ppmV during the last 440,000 years. In all fairness, atmospheric CO2 did not reach 380 ppmV until 2005 and the paper was published in 2003.

In the past, as we enter an ice age, the interracial periods were normally from about 270 to 310 ppm. This is the atmospheric levels when equalized with the oceans and the rest of the biosphere. When the temperature of the oceans decrease, they can absorb more CO2, but the lag of about 800 years is highly influenced by the circulation time of the ocean. During our past ice ages, the ocean surface decreases, and the oceans absorb more. Proxies of the past indicate CO2 levels dropped to about 180 ppm.

Since we have industrialized, we have caused an unnatural imbalance, and nature simply cannot absorb it as fast as we emit it.

They are talking of T-III. T-I is the ice age we came out of.

View attachment 67433419

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1177840

Your link also says we need to distinguish between natural and unnatural:

View attachment 67433422

The Quaternary Ice Age began 2.58 million years ago when mean surface temperatures suddenly dropped by between 8°C and 10°C from the mean average of 22°C ± 1°C. What you have been incorrectly calling an "ice age" is actually a very long period of glaciation. Which typically last for ~100,000 years, before giving way to the much shorter interglacial periods. Mean surface temperatures may increase by 2°C to 4°C during these interglacial periods, but we are still very much in an ice age. The current mean surface temperature of 14.8°C demonstrates that fact. If we were not in an ice-age mean surface temperatures would once again be 22°C ± 1°C.

If the past four ice ages are any indication, then you can expect the Quaternary Ice Age to last for at a minimum of another 37.42 million years. The shortest of the four prior ice ages was the Andean-Saharan Ice Age that lasted 40 million years, beginning 460 million years ago during the Ordovician and lasting until 420 million years ago until the Silurian. They attribute the Ordovician-Silurian extinction event to that ice-age.

You are not taking into consideration the extremely small amounts were are talking about here. First off, atmospheric CO2 is only 0.04% of the total atmosphere, which accounts for less than 3% of the total radiative forcing. Then factor in that humans contribute only 1.2% of that 0.04%, or 0.0005% total. Anyone who could possibly believe that 5 ppmV of atmospheric CO2 could have any influence on the planet's climate is not playing with a full deck. They are clearly pushing a political agenda, because it has absolutely nothing to do with science and reality.

 

[Bodecea]

How to tell that the climate alarmists aren't serious

It's the math! I ask you: if someone proposes a (ridiculous) solution to an

www.americanthinker.com

"Today, China accounts for 42% of the emissions from the top 10 CO2 emissions–producers. If man-made climate change is the existential problem of our time, you would assume that China would be a mandatory participant in the climate accords to cut emissions, but you would be wrong. China is not. As a matter of fact, China plans to increase its CO2 emissions, and by one account, it would average 13,800 over the next five years (the estimate for China's CO2 emissions are 12,900 to 14,700 Million MtCO2e).
China will become 50+% of the top 10 within 5 years, and overall emission will increase 4% from the top 10, and that assumes that India and Russia follow through on their commitments.

What do these data really tell us? China's projected increase in emissions will overwhelm the projected decrease in emissions if the other top 9 achieve their 15% goals."

So....let's review. The chances that China's CO2 emissions will increase as projected-highly likely.
The chances that the other 9 countries will reach their 15 % decrease -Highly unlikely.
Highly unlikely because that would mean liberals would have to turn their AC down in the summer and heat down in the winter. And take the bus. WE all know that ain't happenin.

It's too late to do anything about climate change.

 

[KLATTU]

It's too late to do anything about climate change., I think whatever is going to be done needs to factor in the reality that it won't make much of a difference if China is not on board in a big way

It's too late to do anything about climate change.

Are they?

doesn't matter.

Let’s face it, a whole bunch of companies in the world have chosen to say, ‘I’m going to be net zero by 2050, we know they don’t have a clue how they’re going to get there. And most of them are not on track to get there.”

Maybe that’s because no one else knows either because with current technology it isn’t possible. That’s certainly true of governments in the U.S. and Europe, which have committed to zeroing out their CO2 emissions by 2050 but haven’t implemented the policies or developed the technologies to get there. Not that it would make much difference if they did as long as China and India continue to build coal plants to fuel their economic growth.

 

[vegas giants]

doesn't matter.

Let’s face it, a whole bunch of companies in the world have chosen to say, ‘I’m going to be net zero by 2050, we know they don’t have a clue how they’re going to get there. And most of them are not on track to get there.”

Maybe that’s because no one else knows either because with current technology it isn’t possible. That’s certainly true of governments in the U.S. and Europe, which have committed to zeroing out their CO2 emissions by 2050 but haven’t implemented the policies or developed the technologies to get there. Not that it would make much difference if they did as long as China and India continue to build coal plants to fuel their economic growth.

China and India are building green power faster than we are

 

[KLATTU]

China and India are building green power faster than we are

So what? They are also emitting carbon faster than we are.
Oh by the way. I forgot to source that quote.

“Let’s face it, a whole bunch of companies in the world have chosen to say, ‘I’m going to be net zero by 2050,’” he said. “And you and I, we know they don’t have a clue how they’re going to get there. And most of them are not on track to get there.”

Maybe that’s because no one else knows either because with current technology it isn’t possible. That’s certainly true of governments in the U.S. and Europe, which have committed to zeroing out their CO2 emissions by 2050 but haven’t implemented the policies or developed the technologies to get there. Not that it would make much difference if they did as long as China and India continue to build coal plants to fuel their economic growth.


That was John Kerry that said that.

I see you've been fooled by China.

China is Not “Going Green”: How Energy Lies at the Base of Chinese Expansion in the Indo-Pacific

The South China Sea has become one of the world’s most significant – and most worrying – geopolitical flashpoints in…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

While the CCP’s substantial renewable investments do indeed account for some of China’s energy consumption, they are far outstripped by its use of oil, natural gas, and, most importantly, coal. In fact, China’s use of fossil fuels has only accelerated in recent years. It consumes 50 percent more crude oil in 2021 than it did in 2010, ten times as much natural gas as of 2021 than it did in 2001, and still relies on coal for well over half of its energy consumption. By 2022, China is expected to outstrip the U.S. as the world’s largest oil and petrochemical refiner. For comparison’s sake, renewables account for approximately 3 percent of the PRC’s total energy consumption.

China isn't going green because they're woke to climate change like the good guys ( Democrats) They are doing it because they have a huge pollution problem and a huge problem with dependence on foreign oil.

 

[vegas giants]

So what? They are also emitting carbon faster than we are.
Oh by the way. I forgot to source that quote.

“Let’s face it, a whole bunch of companies in the world have chosen to say, ‘I’m going to be net zero by 2050,’” he said. “And you and I, we know they don’t have a clue how they’re going to get there. And most of them are not on track to get there.”

Maybe that’s because no one else knows either because with current technology it isn’t possible. That’s certainly true of governments in the U.S. and Europe, which have committed to zeroing out their CO2 emissions by 2050 but haven’t implemented the policies or developed the technologies to get there. Not that it would make much difference if they did as long as China and India continue to build coal plants to fuel their economic growth.


That was John Kerry that said that.

I see you've been fooled by China.

China is Not “Going Green”: How Energy Lies at the Base of Chinese Expansion in the Indo-Pacific

The South China Sea has become one of the world’s most significant – and most worrying – geopolitical flashpoints in…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

While the CCP’s substantial renewable investments do indeed account for some of China’s energy consumption, they are far outstripped by its use of oil, natural gas, and, most importantly, coal. In fact, China’s use of fossil fuels has only accelerated in recent years. It consumes 50 percent more crude oil in 2021 than it did in 2010, ten times as much natural gas as of 2021 than it did in 2001, and still relies on coal for well over half of its energy consumption. By 2022, China is expected to outstrip the U.S. as the world’s largest oil and petrochemical refiner. For comparison’s sake, renewables account for approximately 3 percent of the PRC’s total energy consumption.

Emitting carbon more than we are?


Maybe because they have a billion more people than we do.

Each



Hahahahahaha

 

[KLATTU]

Emitting carbon more than we are?


Maybe because they have a billion more people than we do.

yes that is pretty much my ( and Kerry's ) whole point. More people , more carbon emissions.

 

[vegas giants]

yes that is pretty much my ( and Kerry's ) whole point. More people , more carbon emissions.

And more money spent on green energy