Global Warming

[DavidSSS]

Reducing the rise of atmospheric carbon concentration is pointless, we need to stop the rise and start to get carbon concentration in the atmosphere down.

We can't keep altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere and expect there to be no impact.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

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.

I did read it before posting. Emissions had already dropped at the time of the article, hence scientists looking for it to be reflected in the rate of change of CO2 (and suspecting the data already hinted at a slowdown).

There may well be a good answer out there, but the fact I haven't seen or heard one causes me doubt. It's becoming the elephant in the room. There is no shame in saying "We don't understand".

 

[Althom]

Thought this was an interesting article. Not sure if the predictions have actually occurred.
Australia is the runaway global leader in building new renewable energy | ANU College of Science

 

[AngryAnt]

Mmm well until someone credible can address my question with a reasonable answer or admits they simply don't know, I'll keep asking.

Your first graph answers your question Trump Simp. A small decrease in the rate of increase will be noise against the natural carbon cycle month to month. You would expect to see a slight decrease against the projected total CO2 concentration over time.

 

[DavidSSS]

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.

A recent article on Yale Climate Connections deals with just this issue, the hard reality of doing nothing is also a very costly reality:

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/...business-as-usual-and-better-for-the-economy/

DS

 

[Giardiasis]

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

Happy to be shown where I am wrong, I’m a stickler for logic, unlike yourself and communists. All relativists, even those in denial, think people that hold objective truths to be authoritarian. They are so stupid they can’t see the irony.

Oh well how decent of you to ignore insults, perhaps have a look at the amount of mud you sling about and that might answer why you would be someone used to have insults thrown your way. You just described yourself beautifully.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Your first graph answers your question Trump Simp. A small decrease in the rate of increase will be noise against the natural carbon cycle month to month. You would expect to see a slight decrease against the projected total CO2 concentration over time.

Well I'll put it another way that might be more to your liking. If climate is so sensitive to man's 3% of total carbon emissions, is it a concern that there has been no slowdown? Could we have passed a "tipping point"?

 

[Coburgtiger]

Well I'll put it another way that might be more to your liking. If climate is so sensitive to man's 3% of total carbon emissions, is it a concern that there has been no slowdown? Could we have passed a "tipping point"?

The old, the house is on fire anyway so let's throw petrol on it argument.

 

[AngryAnt]

Well I'll put it another way that might be more to your liking. If climate is so sensitive to man's 3% of total carbon emissions, is it a concern that there has been no slowdown? Could we have passed a "tipping point"?

Dude, as we know most of the time in recent geological time the Earth's carbon emissions have been pretty balanced. We know human emissions keep adding to that natural cycle and the correlation is amazingly clear - causation is too actually except for the denier school of thought.

Tipping point? Maybe. We are emitting, we are logging, we are causing large dead spots in the oceans, we are destroying natural carbon sinks as well as emitting. The tundras are releasing previously frozen methane, tropical rainforests are dwindling, kelp forests are disappearing.

Probably too small of a change and data set to draw any particular conclusions yet about the impact of human generated emissions for part of this year.

 

[DavidSSS]

Happy to be shown where I am wrong, I’m a stickler for logic, unlike yourself and communists. All relativists, even those in denial, think people that hold objective truths to be authoritarian. They are so stupid they can’t see the irony.

Oh well how decent of you to ignore insults, perhaps have a look at the amount of mud you sling about and that might answer why you would be someone used to have insults thrown your way. You just described yourself beautifully.

You really can't allow others to have opinions different to yours can you? Such an authoritarian - must think the right way, must follow the correct line.

You can bandy around nice words like logic and objective but it convinces no-one. You are the very definition of a stickler for ideological rigidity.

Dude, as we know most of the time in recent geological time the Earth's carbon emissions have been pretty balanced. We know human emissions keep adding to that natural cycle and the correlation is amazingly clear - causation is too actually except for the denier school of thought.

Tipping point? Maybe. We are emitting, we are logging, we are causing large dead spots in the oceans, we are destroying natural carbon sinks as well as emitting. The tundras are releasing previously frozen methane, tropical rainforests are dwindling, kelp forests are disappearing.

Probably too small of a change and data set to draw any particular conclusions yet about the impact of human generated emissions for part of this year.

Saw a report on the news tonight about people trying to save seagrass as it is dying off all over the place, and it is a substantial absorber of carbon. Add to this increased clearing of the Amazon and is it any wonder a small downturn in emissions (but still higher than just 4 years ago) is not having a big impact. Not only are we emitting billions of tonnes of carbon, we are reducing the capacity of the biosphere to absorb our emissions. It really isn't a great way to be approaching this problem.

DS

 

[Giardiasis]

You really can't allow others to have opinions different to yours can you? Such an authoritarian - must think the right way, must follow the correct line.

You can bandy around nice words like logic and objective but it convinces no-one. You are the very definition of a stickler for ideological rigidity.

It’s not up to me to allow anyone to have any sort of opinion. I don’t disallow or allow anything. Typical DavidSSS BS.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

The old, the house is on fire anyway so let's throw petrol on it argument.

I don't believe that. Just looking for an angle that appeals so that warmists actually take the CO2 data on board.

 

[DavidSSS]

Lee, it is you who are ignoring the CO2 data, we have reduced the CO2 emissions to the level of only 4 years ago.

You were expecting climate change to be solved by this?

DS

 

[DavidSSS]

It’s not up to me to allow anyone to have any sort of opinion. I don’t disallow or allow anything. Typical DavidSSS BS.

Then why do you keep telling people only your opinion is correct and logical and everyone else is wrong and illogical?

This is not allowing others to have their own opinions, it is belittling anyone else's opinions and typical authoritarian behaviour.

DS

 

[Giardiasis]

Then why do you keep telling people only your opinion is correct and logical and everyone else is wrong and illogical?

This is not allowing others to have their own opinions, it is belittling anyone else's opinions and typical authoritarian behaviour.

DS

I tell people when and how I think they are wrong in their reasoning, it is called having an argument. It’s something you yourself have done on numerous occasions.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Lee, it is you who are ignoring the CO2 data, we have reduced the CO2 emissions to the level of only 4 years ago.

You were expecting climate change to be solved by this?

That is not correct! Look at the Reuters graph posted earlier.

Don't put words in my mouth, nobody mentioned "solved". I am looking for a slowdown, the scientists are looking for a slowdown. There has been no slowdown.

 

[DavidSSS]

That is not correct! Look at the Reuters graph posted earlier.

Don't put words in my mouth, nobody mentioned "solved". I am looking for a slowdown, the scientists are looking for a slowdown. There has been no slowdown.

Why would there be a slowdown when it was out of control 4 years ago and the emissions have only dropped to that level?

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Why would there be a slowdown when it was out of control 4 years ago and the emissions have only dropped to that level?

One more time, that is incorrect.

https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/images/general/TemporaryReductionInCO2EmissionsDuringCOVID-19_Fig3_global_emissions_to_April2020.full.png

 

[DavidSSS]

That graph only goes to April and anyway, it only drops the emissions to about 2008 levels.

I seem to recall climate change caused by human alteration of the chemical composition of the atmosphere, was happening back then too.

Less than one year of a temporary drop in emissions down to a level where the damage of CO2 emissions was slightly lower, does not make for a solution.

We continue to pump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and it continues to have an impact.

Can you answer me this: how can altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere have no impact?

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

he's wanting to see a decline in the rate of increase. As i said, this will likely be masked by natural CO2 seasonal variations which have a bigger effect than the annual increase over a year - but you can see the increased concentrations if you look year on year.

It's all BS anyway - Lee has consistently rejected correlation over the longer timescale, now he wants to see correlation over a much shorter timescale to prove a point.