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 08-21-2022, 07:23 AM
 
880 posts, read 563,967 times
Reputation: 1690

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Atari2600, please read post 14 in this thread for your inconvenient fact..

We seem to be going in a circle now.. LOL..



So what you're saying is... you have no explanation for how during the lockdowns, there was only a 17% drop in carbon emissions across the globe... in which case every vehicle, plane, train, and ship were stopped.


Exactly as I thought Walt.




The reality is, no one takes this seriously anymore. For the last 40 years, there's been nothing but end-of-the-world drama... none of which has come to fruition. You're using outdated models and incorrect data from almost 100 years ago to state that the world has increased an average temperature of 1 degree. Please recognize how ridiculous this is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2022, 11:20 AM
 
1,102 posts, read 1,248,713 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
Exactly as I thought Walt.
\

Good grief... I even wrote that all again even simpler in post 192. Curious.. did you just not read it or not understand?

Summary again
Quote:
So.. the total PPM for the year was only 0.039 percent less in 2020 because of Covid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2022, 11:45 AM
 
1,102 posts, read 1,248,713 times
Reputation: 1710
I usually learn something new in these threads.. just learned something new on carbon cycle.. Another somewhat complex subject which will be lost on some but will be interesting to others.

Quote:
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-->
GLM, did you read your own link?

Quote:
In this case, the diagram was taken from an article at Watts Up With That,
Remember the miss information site watts up with that gets a poor rating for accuracy, GLM's link gives another example of why the poor accuracy rating. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

Quote:
So clearly what has happened is that the author of the diagram has done exactly what the IPCC have warned against, which is to confuse residence (turnover) and adjustment time. As the IPCC WG1 report makes a point of clarifying this issue, the confusion would have been avoided if time was taken to actually read what was written in the IPCC report
The miss information site takes advantage again of a subject that is a little complicated to deceive the gullible.

Quote:
The turnover [residence] time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years. This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean. This short timescale must not be confused with the time it takes for the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change. This adjustment time, corresponding to the lifetime in table 1.1 is of the order 50-200 years, determined mainly by the low exchange of of carbon between surface waters and deep the ocean, The adjustment time is important for the discussion on global warming potential, c.f. Section 2.2.7". [emphasis mine]
We are not concerned about an individual CO2 molecule, its the overall concentration in the atmosphere influencing trapping heat that is important here. Its the concentration that would be measured for example at Moana Loa. It is the time that the atmosphere CO2 level takes to come to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks are removed (such as transportation coming to a stop as happened during the pandemic). This is the adjustment time we care about here.

And adjustment time is 50 to 200 years per the link GLM posted. Covid lockdown lasted maybe 3 months.

And why the total PPM for the year was almost not measurable (only 0.039 percent less) in 2020 because of Covid.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-21-2022 at 11:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2022, 11:54 AM
 
Location: The High Desert
16,069 posts, read 10,726,642 times
Reputation: 31427
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
a)

After 52 years of Earth Day, can you say you live any differently, dress any differently, garden any differently, eat any differently now than you did 52 yrs ago due to "climate change?"
Uh, yeah.
Living here in the high desert, we all do. We are in a 1200-year drought. Even before that we could see evidence of climate change. We are seeing fewer new seedings of some native plants. Residential water usage is about the same now as it was then in spite of huge population increases. I have rain barrels for watering some garden plants. I have not heard a lawn mower in nine years. Having a green lawn is nonsense in this climate. My newer car is getting much better milage. I use an evaporative cooler in the summer and not AC. Houses are more efficient. Agricultural water usage is still a problem in places, and we need more efficient farming methods and crops. Fracking uses way too much water. We need to use desalination to tap into brine aquifers in some places. Solar and wind power are more common. Many homes use solar. I actually do eat differently in recent years, but I still wear clothes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2022, 12:43 PM
 
1,102 posts, read 1,248,713 times
Reputation: 1710
Sort of funny..

Quote:
you have no explanation for how during the lockdowns, there was only a 17% drop in carbon emissions across the globe... in which case every vehicle, plane, train, and ship were stopped.
I had assumed that an intelligent question of "if CO2 dropped by some percent for the year, why didn't the planet CO2 measurements show this?"

That is a good question and an explanation given in the last few post.

But.. I guess all that was really asked here is if EVERY bit of transportation stopped, why did the CO2 level only drop 17 percent.


Wasn't a question I would have thought important as its easy to google what percent of CO2 is caused by transportation and of course every bit of transportation did not stop. You know.. you were still allowed to drive at that time and there was still a fair amount of driving going on. You didnt spread Covid by driving.

FYI, had you actually looked at the details of the link that Atari2600 posted,
Quote:
Lockdowns could lead to an annual carbon emissions decline of up to 7%
. For some short period of time, it was "estimated" that 17 percent reduction. Ok.. sort of interesting to know.

I have no idea why this is important at all LOL.. My bad assuming a more pertinent question was asked.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-21-2022 at 12:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2022, 03:53 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,237 posts, read 5,114,062 times
Reputation: 17722
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
Uh, yeah.
Living here in the high desert, we all do. We are in a 1200-year drought......

What caused the last drought? It didn't need fossil fuels to cause it....What made things return to a more wet condition? Any reason to think this one won't cycle thru naturally also?

When it does, won't your minor life-style changes go back to their previous state?...Not that you had to change very much-- you went from very dry to somewhat drier. It's not like you lived in a swamp and now in a desert.


Walt-- one more try-- In 1960, we burned 40,000TW-hr of fossil fuel and the atm [co2] went up by 2ppm...In 2020 we burned 130,000 TW-hr (3.25x more than in 1960) of fossil fuel...Shouldn't the atm[co2] have gone up by 2ppm x 3.25 = 6.47ppm?...Even more if your residence time argument is correct.

Atari-- the covid lockdown argument doesn't hold water because human caused co2 additions to the atm are very small in the first place, and 17% less than that is no big deal--too small to even measure. ---No change was seen -- that's consistent with my argument, but doesn't prove it. -- Had we seen a big fall in [co2], then I'd have to re-think my position...and more importantly, we'd have a way to measure the human influence on co2 levels.

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 08-21-2022 at 04:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2022, 04:55 PM
 
1,102 posts, read 1,248,713 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
Walt-- one more try-- In 1960, we burned 40,000TW-hr of fossil fuel and the atm [co2] went up by 2ppm...In 2020 we burned 130,000 TW-hr (3.25x more than in 1960) of fossil fuel...Shouldn't the atm[co2] have gone up by 2ppm x 3.25 = 6.47ppm?...Even more if your residence time argument is correct.
Uhm... always fact check GLM..

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...ioxide%20rises.

Quote:
In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.8± 0.1 ppm per year. Over the next half century, the annual growth rate tripled, reaching 2.4 ppm per year during the 2010s. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
Looks like in the 60's, rate of CO2 concentration growth per year was .8 ppm per year. You said 2 ppm.

You are only wrong in the number you made up this time by a factor of 2/.8 = 250 percent..

If we use real numbers.. From here https://www.statista.com/statistics/...co2-emissions/

CO2 emissions in 1960 was about 9.39 B metric tons.
CO2 emissions in 2010 was about 33.34 B metric tons

So emissions increased in this time period by a factor of 3.5 times.

CO2 PPM in 1960 increasing by .8 PPM.
CO2 PPM in 2010's increasing by 2.4 PPM

So CO2 atmosphere concentration rate increased by a factor of 3

If your argument method is correct (cant assume its completely linear), there actually is a fair correlation between emissions and rate of change of CO2.

Did you also happen to notice the comment that the CO2 concentration rate is increasing a HUGE 100 times faster than anytime in the ice core history. How would you try and deceive someone that this 100 times faster rate is natural?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2022, 03:37 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,237 posts, read 5,114,062 times
Reputation: 17722
Perhaps you should fact check
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...Hawaii-USA.png The official record right there for all to see.-- +2ppm/y (+/-0.5ppm) every year since <1960.

What was that you were saying about WUWT & Lies? Please document your position.

when you try to discredit the messenger, you insult the intelligence of readers, acting as if you need to protect us stupid people from making our own decisions about the credibility of sources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2022, 08:08 AM
 
1,102 posts, read 1,248,713 times
Reputation: 1710
Uhmm... as always, I gave a reference of where my info came from. Here it is again..

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...ioxide%20rises

Quote:
In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.8± 0.1 ppm per year. Over the next half century, the annual growth rate tripled, reaching 2.4 ppm per year during the 2010s. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
In both the link you provided and the link I provided, there is a change in slope from 1960 until now.

I have to point out again a critical piece of info here. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases even in the last 17000 years. Do we need to point out again that the only (and obvious) way to explain that is humans burning fossil fuel. Volcanoes did NOT cause this LOL, please fact check this if you think so as its so far off from reality.

How about watts up with that accuracy (whom we just saw post some stuff intended to decieve people regarding CO2 increases being mostly natural). I personally have seen over and over junk science on that web site. But what about other sources?

https://adfontesmedia.com/watts-up-w...d-reliability/

These guys give wuwt an accuracy score of 25.5 out of 64.

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)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...rvative-group/

Quote:
Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program

In the area of climate change, the leaked documents revealed that the group funds vocal climate skeptics, including Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), and New Zealand geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month). They've also pledged $90,000 to skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts, who blogs at WattsUpWithThat.com.
Too bad the funding for wuwt is not completely transparent.. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...land-institute

You can bet there is a lot of $$ to be raked in from the fossil fuel industry trying to influence voters that we should keep the fossil fuel companies profits high

Quote:
FUNDING DETAILS
Leaked documents revealed Watts was paid $44,000 by Heartland Institute in January – with a further $44,000 promised later this year – to set up a website "devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA's web site."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...land_Institute

Quote:
funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."[4]
need more..

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ktanks-network

https://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-b...s-climate.html

https://thinkprogress.org/george-wil...-4c7e51b93b36/

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-22-2022 at 08:24 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2022, 08:22 AM
 
1,102 posts, read 1,248,713 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
I have never seen the deception sites like wuwt try and explain this. Our burning of fossil fuel easily explains this. Im curious how the folks on the fossil fuel funded denial marketing have dealt with this?
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