Musing about numbers presented in IPCC AR6

[longview]

IPCC AR6
I was reading through the IPCC AR6 report and came across this table.

Knowing that the recorded CO2 level has increased by ~135 ppm from 280 ppm to 415 ppm, I was wondering about how many ppm that 2390 GtCO2 would be?
I found one answer for no less than Skeptical Science.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that
1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Using our 44 over 12 rule, this means 1ppm = 7.8 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

135 ppm times 7.8 GtCO2 per ppm equals 1053 GtCO2, or 44% of what was emitted, actually showed up in the increased CO2 level.
Thoughts?

 

[Deuce]

IPCC AR6
I was reading through the IPCC AR6 report and came across this table.
View attachment 67354129
Knowing that the recorded CO2 level has increased by ~135 ppm from 280 ppm to 415 ppm, I was wondering about how many ppm that 2390 GtCO2 would be?
I found one answer for no less than Skeptical Science.

135 ppm times 7.8 GtCO2 per ppm equals 1053 GtCO2, or 44% of what was emitted, actually showed up in the increased CO2 level.
Thoughts?

Nature absorbs a lot of the carbon we emit. It's in the plants. And the animals that eat the plants. And me, who eats the animals.

 

[Deuce]

IPCC AR6
I was reading through the IPCC AR6 report and came across this table.
View attachment 67354129
Knowing that the recorded CO2 level has increased by ~135 ppm from 280 ppm to 415 ppm, I was wondering about how many ppm that 2390 GtCO2 would be?
I found one answer for no less than Skeptical Science.

135 ppm times 7.8 GtCO2 per ppm equals 1053 GtCO2, or 44% of what was emitted, actually showed up in the increased CO2 level.
Thoughts?

Well shit man. I guess "you're welcome?"

 

[longview]

Well shit man. I guess "you're welcome?"

It means that if we cut emissions by ~44% we will be at a point where the CO2 level will stop increasing!

 

[Deuce]

It means that if we cut emissions by ~44% we will be at a point where the CO2 level will stop increasing!

Nope.

 

[longview]

Nope.

That is what the data says!

 

[Lord of Planar]

It means that if we cut emissions by ~44% we will be at a point where the CO2 level will stop increasing!

Not necessarily, because that number must be integrated over more than one year.

 

[longview]

Not necessarily, because that number must be integrated over more than one year.

True, but the 44% was integrated over 250 years.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now this does suggest Longview is correct, within small error limits:

Science tells that we need a 45 per cent cut in emissions by 2030 to reach carbon neutrality by mid-century. Today’s report implies an increase of 16 per cent in emissions in 2030 compared to 2010 levels.

Statement by the Secretary-General on the report by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change | United Nations Secretary-General

Today’s report from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on the Nationally Determined Contributions of all Parties to the Paris Agreement shows that the world is on a catastrophic pathway to 2.7-degrees of heating. This is breaking the promise made six years ago to pursue...

www.un.org

 

[Threegoofs]

It means that if we cut emissions by ~44% we will be at a point where the CO2 level will stop increasing!

And why do you care if you think CO2 is not the main driver of global warming, and is really just ‘plant food’ that will lead to a paradise of food production?

Or did your position change with this thread? Or is it some other denier position you just never get around to disagreeing with?

Asking for a friend,

 

[longview]

And why do you care if you think CO2 is not the main driver of global warming, and is really just ‘plant food’ that will lead to a paradise of food production?

Or did your position change with this thread? Or is it some other denier position you just never get around to disagreeing with?

Asking for a friend,

Where did I say that CO2 was not the majority contributor to recent warming?
Simple forcing alone would account for more than 50%, if the IPCC’s estimates are correct!

 

[Threegoofs]

Where did I say that CO2 was not the majority contributor to recent warming?
Simple forcing alone would account for more than 50%, if the IPCC’s estimates are correct!

Oh- it’s the other deniers who say that and you never comment.

My bad.

 

[longview]

Oh- it’s the other deniers who say that and you never comment.

My bad.

Oh I comment, I just do not usually say anything like CO2 is not responsible for the majority of the warming since 1880,
using the current set of forcing formulas from the IPCC.
Consider that IPCC AR6 says,

Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011–2020 than 1850–1900,

Everyone agrees that the CO2 level has increased form ~280 ppm to 415 ppm in that time,
so 5.35 X ln(415/280) X .3 = 0.63°C, more than half of 1.09°C!

 

[Buzz]

Where did I say that CO2 was not the majority contributor to recent warming?

How about here...

We cannot say with any certainty how much the aerosol dimming and brightening have impacted recent warming,
as the effect was mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. But the scale of the change is greater than the stated forcing from
increases in greenhouse gasses. Earlier works included stations around the world and many reported similar decreases and increases.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

If from 1992 to 2001, they found an increase by the globe of 6 W m2, I do not think
a global 10 W m-2 from ~1985 to 2010, is out of the question!
In any case even the increase of 6 W m-2 between 1992 and 2001, is much larger than
the IPCC claimed greenhouse gas forcing of 2.72 W m-2 since 1750.

Or here...

It looks like aerosols, whatever the cause, have decreased a lot since the mid 1980's, and that has increased the sunlight reaching the ground.
In some studies, the brightening is a larger effect than the forcing from added greenhouse gasses.
Wild et al. [2009] found a global increase from 1992 to 2005 of 5.1 Wm-2 per decade.
The IPCC says that total forcing since 1750 is 2.29 Wm-2.

And I'm sure I could find more.

What's the matter, long... have you told so many lies that you can't keep them straight anymore?

 

[Glitch]

IPCC AR6
I was reading through the IPCC AR6 report and came across this table.
View attachment 67354129
Knowing that the recorded CO2 level has increased by ~135 ppm from 280 ppm to 415 ppm, I was wondering about how many ppm that 2390 GtCO2 would be?
I found one answer for no less than Skeptical Science.

135 ppm times 7.8 GtCO2 per ppm equals 1053 GtCO2, or 44% of what was emitted, actually showed up in the increased CO2 level.
Thoughts?

Except that we already know the IPCC AR6 is a deliberate lie. As NASA's GISS data between 1880 and 2010 only shows a 0.51°C overall increase. Every year the IPCC adds to their lie, and every year you continue to push their propaganda like a good little government slave. So much for your credibility.



Anyone who takes anything you post as credible has serious mental issues. You can't even be bothered to cite a credible source, which is pathetic.

 

[longview]

How about here...

Or here...


And I'm sure I could find more.

What's the matter, long... have you told so many lies that you can't keep them straight anymore?

Discussions outside the parameters of the current set of forcing formulas from the IPCC, are not the same thing!

 

[longview]

Except that we already know the IPCC AR6 is a deliberate lie. As NASA's GISS data between 1880 and 2010 only shows a 0.51°C overall increase. Every year the IPCC adds to their lie, and every year you continue to push their propaganda like a good little government slave. So much for your credibility.

View attachment 67354933

Anyone who takes anything you post as credible has serious mental issues. You can't even be bothered to cite a credible source, which is pathetic.

Try to follow what I am saying, based on what the IPCC is presenting, and formulas from known alarmist sites,
the annual CO2 growth is only 44% of the long term CO2 emissions.
This means that reducing emissions by ~44% would get to a place of nearly zero CO2 annual growth.
Mine is not a comment about perceived dangers or not of CO2 emissions, only that a goal of zero annual growth,
is within reach by simply fixing our energy problem, and some conservation efforts we should be doing anyway.
Here is an example, A home in Alaska that is properly insulated, likely uses 1/3 of the energy to heat as a home without good insulation.
While that is likely good for the environment, it is very good for the homeowner who does not have to pay as much (or split as much wood).

 

[Buzz]

Discussions outside the parameters of the current set of forcing formulas from the IPCC, are not the same thing!

That is just another lie. You have on numerous occasions made a big deal about the brightening from reduced aerosols and how you think that has caused more recent warming than from the forcings from CO2. It makes little difference where the 'formulas' you used came from. You always came up with the same false conclusion. And that first quote of yours was from a thread specifically about AR6 and its formulas.

So, please... let's not pretend you haven't frequently claimed brightening has caused more recent warming than CO2.

Try to follow what I am saying, based on what the IPCC is presenting, and formulas from known alarmist sites,
the annual CO2 growth is only 44% of the long term CO2 emissions.
This means that reducing emissions by ~44% would get to a place of nearly zero CO2 annual growth.
Mine is not a comment about perceived dangers or not of CO2 emissions, only that a goal of zero annual growth,
is within reach by simply fixing our energy problem, and some conservation efforts we should be doing anyway.

What evidence do you have that if humans reduced our emissions by 44% that the Earth's absorption will remain the same?

 

[flogger]

Except that we already know the IPCC AR6 is a deliberate lie. As NASA's GISS data between 1880 and 2010 only shows a 0.51°C overall increase. Every year the IPCC adds to their lie, and every year you continue to push their propaganda like a good little government slave. So much for your credibility.

View attachment 67354933

Anyone who takes anything you post as credible has serious mental issues. You can't even be bothered to cite a credible source, which is pathetic.

And this sort of modest variation is obviously well within the normal natural variation of recent millennia in both its level and rate of change as the ice core data from both poles amply illustrates.

Today we are somewhere in the middle for the post glacial temperature record so all the rest is just so much (highly lucrative) BS frankly.

mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

Follow the money ....... and its Its now up to $2.3 Trillion per annum since this survey was done back in 2015 ..... and rising

joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/

What exactly is it we have gotten for these multi trillions over the years given (if the alarmists are to be believed) the temperature stubbornly continues to rise ?

Maybe the rise in funding and the rise in temperatures are related ....... if you catch my drift

 

[Glitch]

And this sort of modest variation is obviously well within the normal natural variation of recent millennia in both its level and rate of change as the ice core data from both poles amply illustrates.

Today we are somewhere in the middle for the post glacial temperature record so all the rest is just so much (highly lucrative) BS frankly.

mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

Follow the money ....... and its Its now up to $2.3 Trillion per annum since this survey was done back in 2015 ..... and rising

joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/

What exactly is it we have gotten for these multi trillions over the years given (if the alarmists are to be believed) the temperature stubbornly continues to rise ?

Maybe the rise in funding and the rise in temperatures are related ....... if you catch my drift

Despite all this hype about this carbon dioxide nonsense, the current interglacial period has been cooler than the last three interglacial periods. We haven't even reached the peak temperature that we achieved 8,000 years ago, which were 1°C to 2°C higher than today.

We still appear to be in the early half of the Holocene interglacial period, because the vast majority of the world's glaciers are still receding. When the majority of the world's glaciers start advancing, then we will know that this interglacial period is coming to an end. End it must, as the 50+ interglacial periods came and went before this one. Ice ages last a minimum of 10 million years, most of them for much longer, and we are only 2.58 million years into this planet's fifth ice-age.

I've known since the 1970s that leftists were using first Global Cooling, then Global Warming, and now Climate Change as a vehicle for their Marxist redistribution of wealth. It is very obvious when their only solution is to impose massive taxes. Obama and his Marxist administration spent billions on Africa in an effort to prevent them from industrializing and enjoying the same standard of living as the rest of the first world. AGW is nothing more than pure Marxist ideology.

 

[longview]

That is just another lie. You have on numerous occasions made a big deal about the brightening from reduced aerosols and how you think that has caused more recent warming than from the forcings from CO2. It makes little difference where the 'formulas' you used came from. You always came up with the same false conclusion. And that first quote of yours was from a thread specifically about AR6 and its formulas.

So, please... let's not pretend you haven't frequently claimed brightening has caused more recent warming than CO2.

What evidence do you have that if humans reduced our emissions by 44% that the Earth's absorption will remain the same?

Buzz, the discussion you are pushing yourself into, is not about energy imbalance at all, but about how much CO2 has been emitted,
vs how much the CO2 levels have increased, between 1850 and 2019.
The IPCC says Humans have 2390 GtCO2, and I used the conversion formula of GtCO2 to ppm from skeptical science of 1ppm = 7.8 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere,
because it is a known alarmist site.
The emission level would have CO2 levels increase by 2390/7.8 =306.4 ppm, but the recorded CO2 levels have increased by 135 ppm, (44%).
While we do not know if Earth's absorption will remain the same, it is likely to continue what it has done over the last 169 years!

 

[Threegoofs]

Despite all this hype about this carbon dioxide nonsense, the current interglacial period has been cooler than the last three interglacial periods. We haven't even reached the peak temperature that we achieved 8,000 years ago, which were 1°C to 2°C higher than today.

We still appear to be in the early half of the Holocene interglacial period, because the vast majority of the world's glaciers are still receding. When the majority of the world's glaciers start advancing, then we will know that this interglacial period is coming to an end. End it must, as the 50+ interglacial periods came and went before this one. Ice ages last a minimum of 10 million years, most of them for much longer, and we are only 2.58 million years into this planet's fifth ice-age.

I've known since the 1970s that leftists were using first Global Cooling, then Global Warming, and now Climate Change as a vehicle for their Marxist redistribution of wealth. It is very obvious when their only solution is to impose massive taxes. Obama and his Marxist administration spent billions on Africa in an effort to prevent them from industrializing and enjoying the same standard of living as the rest of the first world. AGW is nothing more than pure Marxist ideology.

Hilarious.

 

[watsup]

Despite all this hype about this carbon dioxide nonsense, the current interglacial period has been cooler than the last three interglacial periods. We haven't even reached the peak temperature that we achieved 8,000 years ago, which were 1°C to 2°C higher than today.

We still appear to be in the early half of the Holocene interglacial period, because the vast majority of the world's glaciers are still receding. When the majority of the world's glaciers start advancing, then we will know that this interglacial period is coming to an end. End it must, as the 50+ interglacial periods came and went before this one. Ice ages last a minimum of 10 million years, most of them for much longer, and we are only 2.58 million years into this planet's fifth ice-age.

I've known since the 1970s that leftists were using first Global Cooling, then Global Warming, and now Climate Change as a vehicle for their Marxist redistribution of wealth. It is very obvious when their only solution is to impose massive taxes. Obama and his Marxist administration spent billions on Africa in an effort to prevent them from industrializing and enjoying the same standard of living as the rest of the first world. AGW is nothing more than pure Marxist ideology.

Denier misinformation, as usual. Conspiracy theories in the last paragraph.

 

[Glitch]

Denier misinformation, as usual. Conspiracy theories in the last paragraph.

As if you ever had a clue. When was the last time you posted something which had any intelligence?

 

[watsup]

As if you ever had a clue. When was the last time you posted something which had any intelligence?

Do you consider “filthy leftist” to be intelligent discussion? Or misinformation and conspiracy theories as in post #20? Three Goofs even laughed at that one.