Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-18-2022, 06:00 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,309 times
Reputation: 1710

Advertisements

Quote:
I didn't even click the video.
funny, I dont think you read any of the links or text and dont even click on your own links LOL.

Atari2600, I really am curious where your info on even just cars comes from?

Im pretty sure you didnt read it anywhere, or you could produce the link to where. Honestly, where did that come from?

FYI, I will fact check for you. Lets assume you meant transportation, not just cars (which would somewhat silly to just wonder what "cars" did)

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...as%20emissions.

Quote:
In 2020, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation accounted for about 27% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
I will make the assumption that transportation world wide accounts for the same 27 percent of green house emissions.

In 2010, the total Human CO2 emissions was 35 Gton. Transportation was 27 percent of that or 9.45 Gton. Volcanoes produce .13 to .44 Gton.

So in 2010, transportation produced (by itself.. not considering any other source) over 21 to 72 times as much CO2 as volcanoes. Looks like you were a huge amount wrong again.

Seriously, where did your wildly incorrect info come from?

Oh.. you said "cars".. So we have to exclude trucks and busses, etc.. LOL.

Ref https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/vo...affect-climate

GLM, please see my post on the article again and the poor accuracy rating wattsupwiththat gets. Maybe you can defend that article with some references? We have seen over and over way inaccurate things posted here when no reference is given.

Your very un-reliable source wattsupwiththat.. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

Conspiracy level.. Strong (one down from Tin Foil Hat rating)
Pseudo Science level - Strong (one down from Quackery)
Accuracy - LOW.. (at least its not VERY low)


You arent somehow on their payroll? Just asking..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2022, 04:50 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,251 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747
Keeping in mind Einstein's famous comment about "only one adverse study can prove me wrong"....

Here's what we have --

The GHG Theory says certain molecules are capable of delaying the exit to space of more energy than others. (There are theoretical arguments against that, but we'll ignore them for now.)

There is NO experimental evidence that that is true.

There is observational evidence that [co2] is positively correlated with atm temps --when the time spans are selectively chosen (ie- cherry picked). The is no correlation when the time span is on the order of 10s of 1000s of yrs. There is no correlation when the time spans are on the order of a decade....There is only a positive correlation when the time span is on the order of a few selective decades, but even then, not all such intervals.

We will not consider computer models-- models merely reflect what the modeler told it to say-- If you program a computer to say that 2 + 2 = 5, then it's no surprise to find that it tells you when asked that 2 + 2 +1 = 6.

Ice core studies show that [co2] rise or fall with temps, but DELAYED by 800 yrs, ie- they must be a result, not a cause of the temp changes.

[co2] has been rising quickly over the time span roughly corresponding to the Industrial Age- prior to that, there was essentially no use of fossil fuels. This period has also experienced a warming of ~1degC in average temps.

Half of the fossil fuel ever burned has been burned in the last 20 yrs-- but [co2] levels have risen steadily at ~2ppm/y for the last 150 yrs-- strongly suggesting the rising co2 has little to do with fossil fuel use.

In summary, we have only cherry picked statistical evidence that co2 is important in the recent warming observed, and several pieces of observational data that it is not important....How does one ignore that negative evidence when trying to support The GHG Theory, and in particular, that rising co2 levels & warming is man made?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2022, 05:42 AM
 
Location: New York Area
35,045 posts, read 16,987,357 times
Reputation: 30163
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
Yes, agree with you. Decades of dire predictions, from the coming ice age to global warming to climate change.

More fires, water shortages, coastline flooding, rolling blackouts, etc.

So has everyone moved to a location that will be safer and better for your family and the environment? A place that has water, where you can grow food, where you don't need to use so much a/c or heat? Where you can survive the coming changes?

If not, why not?
Mega-flood events in California predicted in the latest fear-porn reports, see Climate Change 2022, are moderately common in history, and trace back to events that Spanish fisherman identified in the 1500's or 1600's. Some "mega-flood" events apparently happened in the winter of 1861-2. I personally remember news coverage of them in winter 1968-9 and, if I'm not mistaken, 1982-3. For whatever reason some intense El Niños did not have this result, including 2015-6. El Niños differ on where their warmest water occurs, and there are other atmospheric interactions.

My point is that these devastating events occur regardless of human intervention. Nothing that Abe Lincoln could have changed much, even though California had just been admitted to the Union. Or for that matter his predecessors starting with James Buchanan and going back to George Washington. I suppose we could have shown concern in some way. Maybe mandated mask-wearing?

I don't think the IPPC could have helped much. I'll admit to not reading much of the IPPC report linked above. A brief quote from their "recommendation" (link): "With adaptation finance needs estimated to be higher than those presented in AR5, enhanced mobilization of and access to financial resources are essential for implementation of adaptation and to reduce adaptation gaps (high confidence). Translation to commonly understood English: "We want more mah-nee."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2022, 07:09 AM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,309 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
Ice core studies show that [co2] rise or fall with temps, but DELAYED by 800 yrs, ie- they must be a result, not a cause of the temp changes
.

I know your smart enough to to understand how a green house gas works and that if you increase the concentration of the gas, more energy will get trapped resulting in warming. Exactly what we have done in the last couple hundred years. This is the forcing function and is a very simple concept.. There is a forcing function and a feedback function of CO2. Ive shown you links to this about a million times.. Its about the simplest concept of this whole subject.

Which is why I asked.. Are you somehow on the wattupwiththat payroll or maybe the Heartland institute? Now or in the past? Just asking..

Not to mention.. you dont have a good track record of accuracy with posts that dont have a reference, we can pull up a few posts just in this thread. Didn't see any references.

For the other post.. we understand
Quote:
I'll admit to not reading much of the IPPC report

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-19-2022 at 07:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2022, 08:56 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,251 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
.

I know your smart enough to to understand how a green house gas works...

??? We're not arguing about HOW it works in the theory...We arguing about its EFFECT in the REAL WORLD.

simple logic-- A cause must PRECEDE an event.... co2 elevations occur AFTER warming according to the geologic record-- both ice core and sediment isotope data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2022, 11:42 AM
 
880 posts, read 564,432 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
funny, I dont think you read any of the links or text and dont even click on your own links LOL.

Atari2600, I really am curious where your info on even just cars comes from?

(snip)

You arent somehow on their payroll? Just asking..



Hi Walt... I'm not putting much effort into this because there is literally nothing I could ever provide to you that would convince you. I strongly believe that what this is to you, is more of a religion than it is anything scientific or otherwise.


First of all, I'm talking about the United States, second, I can't even begin to understand why you would send me links from the EPA. The EPA, and the commission, is currently under the control of President Biden's administrative staff. As with everything else, these agencies do not act independently, and are not relevant organizations with which to be providing facts.


The first example of complete nonsense is their comment about 2020. This was put there intentionally as a direct misrepresentation to counter the study that was released at the end of the year by Stanford University... I couldn't find it, and not going to spend much time.


I did find this one, which summarizes exactly the point I was trying to make:


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carbon-...wns-worldwide/


During the lockdowns in 2020, carbon emissions dropped 17%. Understand, the lockdowns meant trains, plains, cargo ships, and cars... all completely stopped. For a month or more... everything came to a complete standstill.


The article talks about this as an unbelievable success for the lockdowns in saving the environment. Obviously, that's the take there because it's CBS. But the hidden reality is that WHEN literally every single mode of transportation was completely shut down around the world, including ships, planes, cars, and trains... carbon emissions dropped a measly 17%.



Completely forget the fact that China is the major supplier of all the rare-Earth elements and specific components that are used in electric vehicles, and that Democrats (and several Republicans) are lobbied ad-nauseum by China to push electric vehicles in place of gas-powered vehicles... for which we can produce and refine our own energy.



Ignoring ALL of that inconvenient fact, you still need to account then for the totally insignificant reduction in carbon emissions when literally every vehicle/train/ship/plane completely stopped operating. Where is the rest of the emissions coming from then?


... exactly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2022, 03:47 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,309 times
Reputation: 1710
Atari2600, please read post 14 in this thread for your inconvenient fact..

We seem to be going in a circle now.. LOL..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2022, 12:43 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,251 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747
You post 14 makes no sense--The fact remains that co2 levels have been rising linearly (~2ppm/y) since the 1950s. It was 300 in 1960 and is 420 now...+120ppm/60 y = 2ppm/y...a total change of 120/300 = 0.4 or 40%. https://oslo-production.s3.amazonaws...co2_levels.png

Fossil fuel consumption also rose during that period in a roughly linear fashion from 40,000TW-hr/yr to 130,000TW-hr/y.... a +90,000TW-hr/yr increase...90/40 = 1.5 or 150% increase. https://www.researchgate.net/profile...apted-from.png Historical global fossil fuel consumption in terawatt-hours: 1800-2016. Adapted from Smil, V. (2017). Energy transitions: Global and National Perspectives & BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Available at: http://vaclavsmil.com/2016/12/14/ene...dated-edition/.


If a set portion of fossil fuel derived co2 were to remain in the atm to cause it to rise each yr, the yearly increase should reflect the increased fuel use...BUT IT DOESN'T rise progressively each year...The yearly rise in co2 levels remains constant, not measurably dependent on the fossil fuel usage. ---Intuition tells us that if we burn more fossil fuel, it MUST contribute to the atm[co2]...and I'm sure it does...BUT-- the point is, it's such a small amount, we can't even measure it....and our accuracy is down to 1ppm.

edited to add, because sometimes the trivially obvious must be stated out loud so nobody misses it-- Altering our fossil fuel use will NOT measurably alter atm [co2], therefore, WILL NOT affect global temperatures.

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 08-20-2022 at 01:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2022, 01:49 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,309 times
Reputation: 1710
I couldnt follow the intution part of that post. Looks like your still trying to convince someone that humans are not the cause of the CO2 in the atmosphere? You and the guy in the wuwt (denial web site with the low accuracy rating) article.

Here is what was addressed in post 14. From Atari2600
Quote:
Ignoring ALL of that inconvenient fact, you still need to account then for the totally insignificant reduction in carbon emissions when literally every vehicle/train/ship/plane completely stopped operating. Where is the rest of the emissions coming from then?
So why didn't the CO2 planet measured PPM level drop during the pandemic?

First, from this https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3 CO2 output for the year 2020 dropped by 6.4 percent.

CO2 in the atmosphere has a long lifetime so accumulates each year. I will use the numbers from that link as I think they are accurate and currently the CO2 concentration is 417 PPM and is increasing by 2.6 PPM each year. How long does CO2 last in the atmosphere? https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/t...0human%20lives.

Quote:
Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives
.

So in 2020, we normally would have an increase of 2.6 PPM. But because of the lockdown, there was a reduction of 6.4 percent. So instead of 2.6 PPM, we only had 2.43 PPM increase for the year. Ie, the increase for the planet CO2 was 0.166 PPM less than normal because of Covid.

Remember that CO2 accumulates because what was there last year is still around this year. With the planet CO2 level at 417 PPM, how much difference did the .166 les CO2 make?
Quote:
That change is a miniscule one part in over 2500. Its only a change of 0.039 percent.
So.. the total PPM for the year was only 0.039 percent less in 2020 because of Covid.

0.039 percent.. that is an incredibly small difference. The original question was why there was an insignificant change in CO2 levels because of the pandemic. This is why.

FYI, this also illustrates that even if we completely stopped CO2 production, what we have put in the atmosphere is going to be here for a long time.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-20-2022 at 02:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2022, 05:29 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,251 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post


How long does CO2 last in the atmosphere? https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/t...0human%20lives.

.

.
There's your problem-- The IPCC estimates residence time of CO2 as 100 yrs-- clearly an outlier estimate compared to the 36 published research papers on the subject. The vast majority call it 1-10 yrs-- shown here in graphic form for easy appreciation of the huge discrepancy. https://skepticalscience.com/dodgy_d...ence_time.html That graph is reproduced in several other meta-analyses-->

Here's several other papers & summaries coming to the same conclusions. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=avast&q=rs...+of+co2&ia=web

In reference to my "intuitive" comment... It seems reasonable that human produced co2 from fossil fuels should wind up in the atm-- that's where our exhaust pipes put the exhaust.....If co2 levels are affected to a noticeable degree by human co2 production, then annual co2 levels should rise by more and more each year as we use more and more fossil fuel each year... But they don't. The just keep rising at that same 2ppm each year, regardless of how much fuel we've burned....The logical deduction is that the exhaust gas doesn't add all that much to the total co2 cycling each year....

Don't forget that at least 60% of it is absorbed by the oceans, and we know that the higher the [co2], the more that is used in photosynthesis and that's a second order math relationship, not a linear one....another example of negative feedback keeping things stable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top