I understand what you are saying, however what is your solution?? Real world solution. Clearly removing all taxes is not occurring, so you've stepped back, reviewed the problem and come up with a scenario that will never be implemented, so with all due respect, whats the point?
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
I understand what you are saying, however what is your solution?? Real world solution. Clearly removing all taxes is not occurring, so you've stepped back, reviewed the problem and come up with a scenario that will never be implemented, so with all due respect, whats the point?
So only “solutions” that are politically expedient regardless of their actual results is where meaning can be derived? I seek the truth and hold onto a sliver of hope that one day more people will come to their senses. I find it interesting to discuss these matters and the process of argument helps me to understand things better.
As a self proclaimed practical man, you appear more interested in political strategies to affect change, but that’s what I think is the waste of time. I’m resigned to the fact that I have no control over how society is structured or the decisions of politicians.
Understanding economics and ethics properly allows me to tailor my life to avoid the government as much as possible (and the people that defend it), to defend myself from its power and to become self sufficient as much as possible. It helps with investment decisions, retirement planning, teaching my children, so on.
I must've missed it. When should a slowdown in the increase of CO2 concentration be evident?
It isn't a wrong perspective, it is just a different perspective from the one you hold.
You are such an authoritarian, anyone who disagrees with your free market fundamentalism is not allowed to hold a different perspective, according to you they are just wrong. Do they need re-education?
DS
Dude, it was explained that in terms of overall concentrations the difference is miniscule over the course of the year, 0.6 of a % if I remember correctly, don't quote me on it. Guess you didn't read that or the source I posted.
You are better off sticking to your argument that even if we make changes it will take a long time for it to have an effect on CO2 concentrations. That's a different argument of course, and you didn't want to take that one either because then you have to confront the hard reality of the cost of doing nothing.
Lee, on page 351 of this thread Antman pointed out that a 9% decrease on 2019 emissions represents a larger volume of emissions than 2016, just 4 years ago. Human CO2 emissions have been impacting on the climate for a lot longer than 4 years, 2020's very slight reduction in emissions when compared to 2019 will have a very small impact.
What we need to do is to reduce emissions this year, next year and for many more years, and reduce emissions down to levels which no longer impact on the climate because we all know what the impact of our emissions are: melting ice sheet in Antarctica, bushfires, drought etc etc etc.
This is a massive market failure which we, as a community, need to fix.
DS
What we need to do is to reduce emissions this year, next year and for many more years, and reduce emissions down to levels which no longer impact on the climate because we all know what the impact of our emissions are: melting ice sheet in Antarctica, bushfires, drought etc etc etc.
This is a massive market failure which we, as a community, need to fix.
DS
You don't seem to grasp that I'm talking about the rate of increase of CO2 concentration, not CO2 concentration itself. It's well documented that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
When should the rate of increase slow?
What is the source for this claim? It's not easy to find charts showing "global human CO2 emissions", however I did find this one published by Reuters from data at Global Carbon Project.
Clearly a 9% decrease in 2020 is going to be clearly visible when the chart is updated. My simple question is: when will it will show on the Keeling Curve?
Coronavirus: in Hawaii’s air, scientists seek signs of economic shock on CO2 levels
Alister Doyle
Climate Home News
March 26, 2020
The Mauna Loa observatory at 3,397 metres is home to the Keeling Curve, tracking increasing carbon dioxide concentrations since 1958. Named after its late founder, Charles Keeling, it is widely viewed as the most iconic measure of humanity’s impact on global climate.
“There has never been an economic shock like this in the whole history of the curve,” Ralph Keeling, professor at the Scripss Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and son of Charles Keeling, told Climate Home News of the impact of the coronavirus.
He said scientists were now studying data from the mountain in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for signs that the economic slowdown linked to the coronavirus could reduce the rise in atmospheric carbon concentrations.
The coronavirus, which has killed more than 22,000 people by 26 March, is slowing the global economy and cutting the use of fossil fuels in cars, power plants and factories that emit carbon dioxide. “I can look out of my window now and the number of cars has dropped,” he said.
But there was a long way from reduced use of fossil fuels to a crisis that would affect carbon dioxide concentrations in the global atmosphere.
Keeling estimated that global fossil fuel use would have to decline by 10% for a full year to show up in carbon dioxide concentrations. Even then, it would be a difference of only about 0.5 parts per million.
Since 1958 there have been no world wars, for instance, that might abruptly depress economic activity and emissions and show up as a measurable impact on the curve, he said.
Recessions, like the 2008-09 financial crisis or even the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, did not cause a discernible drop. And other factors that have tended to drive the curve up more steeply, such as the economic rise of China this century, were not visible as sudden events.
This March 2020 data may hint at a slight slowdown in the rate of rise.
“It’s too early to say,” if it is related to coronavirus, Keeling said, adding there were big variations from year to year and that the March trend was similar to some previous years.
Current carbon concentrations “are approaching last year’s peak right now,” he said, at about 415 parts per million on 24 March, with big daily swings. If sustained, that is already in line with the record high, judged as a monthly average, of 414.7 ppm for the May 2019.
Carbon dioxide levels have risen from about 270 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and are at the highest in at least 800,000 years, according to the UN panel of climate scientists.
Carbon dioxide concentrations have their annual peak at the end of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, where North America, Asia and Europe make up most of the planet’s land masses. When spring arrives, plant growth on these continents soaks up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, slightly reducing levels.
Keeling likened economic activity affecting the atmosphere to a tap pouring water into a bathtub.
If you turn down the tap in a bathtub you can see there is less water coming in “but it takes a while to be able to see that the rising water level slows,” he said. “We’re still in that phase.”
On the other side of the world in Norway, Kim Holmen, international director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, says his team is also closely monitoring carbon dioxide levels at the Zeppelin station on a mountain on the Arctic island of Svalbard.
“The curve is not pointing upwards,” he said of carbon dioxide measurements in March, which are usually rising at this time of year. Still, he said that it would probably take months to know if it was related to coronavirus.
And he said there were many local factors affecting carbon levels, even in parts of the world isolated from industrial centres such as Hawaii or Svalbard.
Around Svalbard, for instance, “it has been colder this winter than the past 10 years,” Holmen said. That meant there had been more ice on the surrounding seas in the winter, putting a lid on waters that can release carbon dioxide into the air.
The UN wants steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to limit rising temperatures to goals set in the Paris Agreement of “well below 2C” above pre-industrial times while pursuing efforts for a stricter ceiling of 1.5C.
Emissions rose sharply after the financial crisis but Keeling expressed hopes that policy makers would help drive cuts in coming years, after the pandemic passes.
“We can hope that emissions stay down for the right reasons afterwards. This [coronavirus] is not the right reason,” he said.
Alister Doyle
Climate Home News
March 26, 2020
The Mauna Loa observatory at 3,397 metres is home to the Keeling Curve, tracking increasing carbon dioxide concentrations since 1958. Named after its late founder, Charles Keeling, it is widely viewed as the most iconic measure of humanity’s impact on global climate.
“There has never been an economic shock like this in the whole history of the curve,” Ralph Keeling, professor at the Scripss Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and son of Charles Keeling, told Climate Home News of the impact of the coronavirus.
He said scientists were now studying data from the mountain in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for signs that the economic slowdown linked to the coronavirus could reduce the rise in atmospheric carbon concentrations.
The coronavirus, which has killed more than 22,000 people by 26 March, is slowing the global economy and cutting the use of fossil fuels in cars, power plants and factories that emit carbon dioxide. “I can look out of my window now and the number of cars has dropped,” he said.
But there was a long way from reduced use of fossil fuels to a crisis that would affect carbon dioxide concentrations in the global atmosphere.
Keeling estimated that global fossil fuel use would have to decline by 10% for a full year to show up in carbon dioxide concentrations. Even then, it would be a difference of only about 0.5 parts per million.
Since 1958 there have been no world wars, for instance, that might abruptly depress economic activity and emissions and show up as a measurable impact on the curve, he said.
Recessions, like the 2008-09 financial crisis or even the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, did not cause a discernible drop. And other factors that have tended to drive the curve up more steeply, such as the economic rise of China this century, were not visible as sudden events.
This March 2020 data may hint at a slight slowdown in the rate of rise.
“It’s too early to say,” if it is related to coronavirus, Keeling said, adding there were big variations from year to year and that the March trend was similar to some previous years.
Current carbon concentrations “are approaching last year’s peak right now,” he said, at about 415 parts per million on 24 March, with big daily swings. If sustained, that is already in line with the record high, judged as a monthly average, of 414.7 ppm for the May 2019.
Carbon dioxide levels have risen from about 270 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and are at the highest in at least 800,000 years, according to the UN panel of climate scientists.
Carbon dioxide concentrations have their annual peak at the end of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, where North America, Asia and Europe make up most of the planet’s land masses. When spring arrives, plant growth on these continents soaks up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, slightly reducing levels.
Keeling likened economic activity affecting the atmosphere to a tap pouring water into a bathtub.
If you turn down the tap in a bathtub you can see there is less water coming in “but it takes a while to be able to see that the rising water level slows,” he said. “We’re still in that phase.”
On the other side of the world in Norway, Kim Holmen, international director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, says his team is also closely monitoring carbon dioxide levels at the Zeppelin station on a mountain on the Arctic island of Svalbard.
“The curve is not pointing upwards,” he said of carbon dioxide measurements in March, which are usually rising at this time of year. Still, he said that it would probably take months to know if it was related to coronavirus.
And he said there were many local factors affecting carbon levels, even in parts of the world isolated from industrial centres such as Hawaii or Svalbard.
Around Svalbard, for instance, “it has been colder this winter than the past 10 years,” Holmen said. That meant there had been more ice on the surrounding seas in the winter, putting a lid on waters that can release carbon dioxide into the air.
The UN wants steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to limit rising temperatures to goals set in the Paris Agreement of “well below 2C” above pre-industrial times while pursuing efforts for a stricter ceiling of 1.5C.
Emissions rose sharply after the financial crisis but Keeling expressed hopes that policy makers would help drive cuts in coming years, after the pandemic passes.
“We can hope that emissions stay down for the right reasons afterwards. This [coronavirus] is not the right reason,” he said.
No it was the wrong perspective if one wanted to understand the real problem at hand. For example if someone wanted to understand whether murder was possible in the Soviet Union, one shouldn’t look at it from the perspective that murder is impossible in paradise.
People are free to hold different opinions and be wrong. Just as I am free to state as such. I’m not immune to being wrong, it would be good if you could try and demonstrate that instead of resorting to childish blather.
It was written in March during the early stages of the pandemic, pre-lockdowns. They pointed out that we were entering conditions that had not been seen in modern times, yet clearly they did not expect a 9% decrease in emissions over the course of 2020.
Nine months on, with the Keeling Curve oblivious, I am left only with questions.
Its very simple.
Effect of Covid on human CO2 production was/is minor enough (in terms of proportion, amount and critically, longevity) to be not much more than statistical noise.
We need permanent, global change. Not six months of people driving less.
Because there is no other correct perspective than yours huh? You really do make communists look flexible, gotta follow that correct line other wise you are WRONG.
Authoritarian.
Given your rantings I would have thought that there would be no murder in your free market utopia.
Pot, kettle, black - authoritarian.
I'll just ignore the personal insults safe in the knowledge that they stem from your inability to make sense and, of course, the fact that authoritarians often resort to insults as they seek to exert power because they have nothing else.
DS
As the article states, "Scientists [are] now studying data... for signs that the economic slowdown linked to the coronavirus could reduce the rise in atmospheric carbon concentrations". Developments since have done nothing to convince me.
Mmm well until someone credible can address my question with a reasonable answer or admits they simply don't know, I'll keep asking.
Does this line help?
the estimate was that a 10% drop for an entire year would have a small effect, so I guess a 9% decrease for 8months will have an even smaller impact, or lead to no drop.
