The World is SAVED!!! But wait...???

[healthmyths]

Great ! The world is saved by having a commitment to :
...limiting the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100.
News from The Associated Press

BUT......
I'm confused. I want some "experts" not any of you "guessers" or opinionators... with NO facts to tell me why this is NOT correct.


Fact 1)
Carbon emissions reach 40 billion ton high:
World faces 'dangerous climate change' - and China, the US and India are the worst offenders
China, US, India push world carbon emissions up
Fact 2)
Earth's trees number 'three trillion'
Earth's trees number 'three trillion' - BBC News

Fact 3)
A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.
Tree Facts | American Forests

So multiply 3 trillion trees time 48 lbs divide by 2,000 lbs per ton equals 72 billion tons...

PLUS in addition to the above absorption of carbon dioxide ...
Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.)

During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually.
How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up?

So NOT only do trees and grassland have the capacity of 72 billion tons but the oceans absorb another 2.5 billion or a total of 74 billion captured carbon dioxide.


So if the earth through our dastardly mean evil businesses, cars, (even Obama’s Paris jaunt will send more CO2 into the atmosphere than 31 American homes‘ energy usage for an entire year.
The president’s trip is equivalent to burning 368,331 pounds of coal or 797 barrels of oil, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon footprint calculator.
Obama’s Trip To The UN ‘Global Warming’ Summit Emits More CO2 Than Driving 72 Cars For A Year) including Obama emitted 40 billion tons a year, it was absorbed by the 72 billion capacity of the oceans/trees/grasslands.

Prove me wrong... Please... I truly am a person of open mindedness and if someone can convince me of these two major questions:
Question 1) How come with 72 billion tons of CO2 absorption capacity we are concerned about 40 billion tons emitted.
Question 2) Why the concern of "global warming" only recorded accurately over the last 30 years since we've had digital thermometers and computerized recording systems that negate human eyeball reading mercury thermometers and hand written several time recordings for the previous 125 years.
Facts because before digital thermometers this was the method of tracking temperatures.

Honestly Please tell me how that the "averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012,
How much has the global temperature risen in the last 100 years? | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
could be accurately recorded with the above thermometers and the ADMISSION that 12.5% of the earth's land mass was not included?

When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia

Explain to me those two major reasons I have a problem with "global warming" by people that are "experts" in calculating "global warming" in light of the FACT humans can't discriminate 1.5˚ differential
AND we've calculated a 32 billion extra capacity for CO2 absorption.
EXPLAIN not from global warming evangelists. Or people calling me a "denier". I want the FACTS!

 

[paulitician]

A massive World Government Globalist takeover. It's always been about that. Now the taxes and control. But many 'Global Warming' fanatics have aready declared it was too late to defeat the Global Warming Boogeyman. So why do they keep forcing this scam on everyone?

The planet warms, the planet cools. We'll either survive or we won't. It's not very complicated. In the end, it's really all about World Government domination. Always has been.

 

[mamooth]

Woohoo! Globalist conspiracy theories! No, I don't expect the hardest core deniers to ever give up their conspiracy nonsense, as it's not like the real world can back them up.

And Healthmyths, your rambling is too rambling, disjointed, incomplete and cherrypicked to waste time on. If you'd like to learn about CO2 sources and sinks, here's a link to get you started.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks

Remember, if the whole world says you're totally wrong, it almost certainly means you're totally wrong, and that you therefore need to do more research. Assuming a global conspiracy is not rational.

 

[healthmyths]

Woohoo! Globalist conspiracy theories! No, I don't expect the hardest core deniers to ever give up their conspiracy nonsense, as it's not like the real world can back them up.

And Healthmyths, your rambling is too rambling, disjointed, incomplete and cherrypicked to waste time on. If you'd like to learn about CO2 sources and sinks, here's a link to get you started.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks

Remember, if the whole world says you're totally wrong, it almost certainly means you're totally wrong, and that you therefore need to do more research. Assuming a global conspiracy is not rational.

In other words you can't seem to fathom simple math:
72 billion tons CO2 per year can be absorbed by 3 Trillion trees.
Earth emits 40 billion tons.
Seems simple enough. Where is the problem?
The other thing you have yet to explain is how can 100,000s of readings of thermometers THAT YOU can't distinguish 1.5˚ differential, come up with the earth warmed 1.5˚ since 1880 ?

From your link:
Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
The major sources of emissions have been coal* (34%), oil (25%), gas (10%), cement (2%) and land-use (29%).
2,000 giga tons is 2 trillion tons ( 2,000 X 1,000,000,000) would you agree?

From another link:How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.


WHICH IS IT???? If YOUR great scientific MINDS can't agree... 2 trillion tons very 520 billion tons... THAT is a gigantic ERROR!!!
How in the hell can anyone believe then these people who can't even come close to agreeing on a simple fact: WHICH is correct???
I mean this is a margin of 300% difference! 2 trillion tons versus 520 billion????

So until you clear up this massive discrepancy I am even MORE convinced global warming idiots are believing crap!

Clear up this 300% difference and then I'll have a better acceptance of the argument that you guys can be trusted with declaring a 1.5˚ increase in global warming over
the last 125 years!

The fact is you can ONLY show statistics regarding CO2 "buildup" from ONE source:
"Science" has stated:
The world's most current data for atmospheric CO2 is measured at the Mauna Loa Observatoy in Hawaii.
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, so observations of concentrations from a single site like the Mauna Loa Observatory are an adequate indicator of world trends for atmospheric CO2.
Current Data for Atmospheric CO2 | CO2 Now | Current CO2

This place is the ONLY place in the world where the entire basis that CO2 emissions have increased.
At Mauna Loa, the remote location, undisturbed air, and minimal influences of human activity and vegetation are ideal for monitoring consituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change.

"minimal influences of human activity..(no utilities in other words...) and "vegetation" (low amount of plant life to absorb CO2)
so based on this ONE and only site in the entire world WE have "scientific consensus" that CO2 is increasing over the ENTIRE
world.
BullCrap!

 

[healthmyths]

I really can't believe this!
I've re-read it several times!
Scientific American states in this link: How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

YET here is another "Scientific" source: A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
Skeptical Science a biased defender of Global Warming fallacies...
Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.


The tonne (i/tʌn/) (British and SI; SI symbol: t) or metric ton (in the United States) is a non-SImetric unit of mass equal to 1,000 kilograms;[1][2][3][4] or one megagram (Mg); it is equivalent to approximately 2,204.6pounds,[5]1.10 short tons (US) or 0.984 long tons (imperial). Although not part of the SI per se, the tonne is "accepted for use with" SI units and prefixes by the International Committee for Weights and Measures, along with several other units like the bar, litre and day.[citation needed]
So one "tonne" is equal to 2,204 pounds.
That means a gigatonne is 1 billion tons right.
2,000 gigatonnes is would be 2,000 times 1,000,000,000 or 2 trillion tons!

Folks WHICH is it???? Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

WHICH IS IT from these two respected and revered "Scientific" sources??? Who is right???

 

[Zander]

The world is saved!!

By a vague and aspirational agreement that is not legally binding !!

WOOHOOO!!!!

 

[mamooth]

Folks WHICH is it???? Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

Both.

The big number is total emissions.

The small number is what remains after carbon sinks.

Don't you feel stupid now? You should. After all, I just told you that assuming a great global conspiracy instead of understanding you made a mistake would be a very stupid thing. And yet you just ran right off and did exactly that.

You should take this humiliation to heart, and learn your lesson to quit it with the kook conspiracy theories. But I'm pretty certain you won't. You've clearly downed too much of the koolaid.

 

[healthmyths]

Folks WHICH is it???? Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

Both.

The big number is total emissions.

The small number is what remains after carbon sinks.

Don't you feel stupid now? You should. After all, I just told you that assuming a great global conspiracy instead of understanding you made a mistake would be a very stupid thing. And yet you just ran right off and did exactly that.

You should take this humiliation to heart, and learn your lesson to quit it with the kook conspiracy theories. But I'm pretty certain you won't. You've clearly downed too much of the koolaid.

Sorry wrong answer!
Again here are the sources... WHERE ARE YOURS???

How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

From year 1750 to 1960, additional 250 000 million tonnes CO2, or at the rate of 1190.48 million tonnes per year are added into atmosphere.
From year 1960 to 2007, another 570 000 million tonnes of CO2 are dumped into atmosphere, at much higher rate:
Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?

So let's add this up: 250,000 million from 1750 to 1960
570,000 million from 1960 to 2007 or a total of 820,000 million tons. That's 820 billion tons!

So far we've got 2 trillion,
820 billion
520 billion
337 billion
FOLKS which is it???
The importance is if we can't even agree on a simple number how can we agree that there is a problem???
From 337 billion to 2 trillion tons is a huge range for ERROR and we are basing our entire existence that these people generating these numbers are right???

 

[Billy_Bob]

Folks WHICH is it???? Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

Both.

The big number is total emissions.

The small number is what remains after carbon sinks.

Don't you feel stupid now? You should. After all, I just told you that assuming a great global conspiracy instead of understanding you made a mistake would be a very stupid thing. And yet you just ran right off and did exactly that.

You should take this humiliation to heart, and learn your lesson to quit it with the kook conspiracy theories. But I'm pretty certain you won't. You've clearly downed too much of the koolaid.

Sorry wrong answer!
Again here are the sources... WHERE ARE YOURS???

How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

From year 1750 to 1960, additional 250 000 million tonnes CO2, or at the rate of 1190.48 million tonnes per year are added into atmosphere.
From year 1960 to 2007, another 570 000 million tonnes of CO2 are dumped into atmosphere, at much higher rate:
Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?

So let's add this up: 250,000 million from 1750 to 1960
570,000 million from 1960 to 2007 or a total of 820,000 million tons. That's 820 billion tons!

So far we've got 2 trillion,
820 billion
520 billion
337 billion
FOLKS which is it???
The importance is if we can't even agree on a simple number how can we agree that there is a problem???
From 337 billion to 2 trillion tons is a huge range for ERROR and we are basing our entire existence that these people generating these numbers are right???

No one has been able to specifically quantify human emissions or their effect on the globe. They simply can not determine what is man made and what is actually naturally occurring in response to warming and biomass increase.

We know that CO2 follows temperature by 50-800 years. This lag also occurs in response to cooling. For a short duration after warming has stopped we will continue to rise in CO2 until the biomass and oceans reduce the levels. But it has always followed these changes.

As for any CO2 caused warming induced signal, it does not exist by empirical evidence. The models fail because the understanding of the physics and proper quantification of these items is wrong.

When you cant even determine the actual inputs/sources contributions and interactions how can any model be correct?

 

[mamooth]

Sorry wrong answer!

Right answer. You just didn't like it, so you're flailing now. You can't tell the different between emissions, and emissions left after sinks.

You scam here is too pull together different types of data from different dates, and declare a conspiracy because it doesn't match. Of course it doesn't match. Apples and oranges fallacy.

I don't know if you're simply stupid, or if you're being deliberately dishonest. Not important, as the result in either case is you're not worth anybody's time.

 

[healthmyths]

Folks WHICH is it???? Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

Both.

The big number is total emissions.

The small number is what remains after carbon sinks.

Don't you feel stupid now? You should. After all, I just told you that assuming a great global conspiracy instead of understanding you made a mistake would be a very stupid thing. And yet you just ran right off and did exactly that.

You should take this humiliation to heart, and learn your lesson to quit it with the kook conspiracy theories. But I'm pretty certain you won't. You've clearly downed too much of the koolaid.

Sorry wrong answer!
Again here are the sources... WHERE ARE YOURS???

How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

From year 1750 to 1960, additional 250 000 million tonnes CO2, or at the rate of 1190.48 million tonnes per year are added into atmosphere.
From year 1960 to 2007, another 570 000 million tonnes of CO2 are dumped into atmosphere, at much higher rate:
Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?

So let's add this up: 250,000 million from 1750 to 1960
570,000 million from 1960 to 2007 or a total of 820,000 million tons. That's 820 billion tons!

So far we've got 2 trillion,
820 billion
520 billion
337 billion
FOLKS which is it???
The importance is if we can't even agree on a simple number how can we agree that there is a problem???
From 337 billion to 2 trillion tons is a huge range for ERROR and we are basing our entire existence that these people generating these numbers are right???

No one has been able to specifically quantify human emissions or their effect on the globe. They simply can not determine what is man made and what is actually naturally occurring in response to warming and biomass increase.

We know that CO2 follows temperature by 50-800 years. This lag also occurs in response to cooling. For a short duration after warming has stopped we will continue to rise in CO2 until the biomass and oceans reduce the levels. But it has always followed these changes.

As for any CO2 caused warming induced signal, it does not exist by empirical evidence. The models fail because the understanding of the physics and proper quantification of these items is wrong.

When you cant even determine the actual inputs/sources contributions and interactions how can any model be correct?

Agreed. But for simpletons like me the wide variation from 337 tons to 2 trillion tons just means there are MORE questions that the Experts don't seem to
have answers for simpletons like me! I want someone to point out facts that aren't manipulated.

Facts like for over 100 years temperatures readings were done by human eyeballs trying to differentiate between 42˚ to 44˚ as this thermometer indicates.

I mean this was what was used up to digital thermometers in the last 30 years and yet we are to believe that the average temperature increase of 1.5˚ based
on the discrete readings of humans and also the copying and re-copying the values before computer recordings.
All so prone to human error.
Temperature readings are certainly over the 100+ years not ver "Six Sigma" like!

 

[healthmyths]

Sorry wrong answer!

Right answer. You just didn't like it, so you're flailing now. You can't tell the different between emissions, and emissions left after sinks.

You scam here is too pull together different types of data from different dates, and declare a conspiracy because it doesn't match. Of course it doesn't match. Apples and oranges fallacy.

I don't know if you're simply stupid, or if you're being deliberately dishonest. Not important, as the result in either case is you're not worth anybody's time.

I didn't claim a conspiracy that's YOUR interpretation.
I am simply questioning WHY it is dishonest to ask why such a gross disagreement?
I mean 337 billion tons compared to 2 trillion is almost 600% discrepancy? How could they be so far apart?

 

[Pop23]

Folks WHICH is it???? Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

Both.

The big number is total emissions.

The small number is what remains after carbon sinks.

Don't you feel stupid now? You should. After all, I just told you that assuming a great global conspiracy instead of understanding you made a mistake would be a very stupid thing. And yet you just ran right off and did exactly that.

You should take this humiliation to heart, and learn your lesson to quit it with the kook conspiracy theories. But I'm pretty certain you won't. You've clearly downed too much of the koolaid.

Sorry wrong answer!
Again here are the sources... WHERE ARE YOURS???

How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

From year 1750 to 1960, additional 250 000 million tonnes CO2, or at the rate of 1190.48 million tonnes per year are added into atmosphere.
From year 1960 to 2007, another 570 000 million tonnes of CO2 are dumped into atmosphere, at much higher rate:
Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?

So let's add this up: 250,000 million from 1750 to 1960
570,000 million from 1960 to 2007 or a total of 820,000 million tons. That's 820 billion tons!

So far we've got 2 trillion,
820 billion
520 billion
337 billion
FOLKS which is it???
The importance is if we can't even agree on a simple number how can we agree that there is a problem???
From 337 billion to 2 trillion tons is a huge range for ERROR and we are basing our entire existence that these people generating these numbers are right???

No one has been able to specifically quantify human emissions or their effect on the globe. They simply can not determine what is man made and what is actually naturally occurring in response to warming and biomass increase.

We know that CO2 follows temperature by 50-800 years. This lag also occurs in response to cooling. For a short duration after warming has stopped we will continue to rise in CO2 until the biomass and oceans reduce the levels. But it has always followed these changes.

As for any CO2 caused warming induced signal, it does not exist by empirical evidence. The models fail because the understanding of the physics and proper quantification of these items is wrong.

When you cant even determine the actual inputs/sources contributions and interactions how can any model be correct?

Agreed. But for simpletons like me the wide variation from 337 tons to 2 trillion tons just means there are MORE questions that the Experts don't seem to
have answers for simpletons like me! I want someone to point out facts that aren't manipulated.

Facts like for over 100 years temperatures readings were done by human eyeballs trying to differentiate between 42˚ to 44˚ as this thermometer indicates.
View attachment 56752
I mean this was what was used up to digital thermometers in the last 30 years and yet we are to believe that the average temperature increase of 1.5˚ based
on the discrete readings of humans and also the copying and re-copying the values before computer recordings.
All so prone to human error.
Temperature readings are certainly over the 100+ years not ver "Six Sigma" like!

I have two 60 year old thermometers. They are exactly the same, both came out of an old hardware store that I helped clean out. Set them side by side and they appear to be 4 degrees different.

Amazing HUH?

 

[mamooth]

I mean 337 billion tons compared to 2 trillion is almost 600% discrepancy? How could they be so far apart?

Because you're just making stupid shit up. Why do you keep doing that?

Oh, nice total failure on statistics as well. Your thermometer nonsense, that is. Pop23 joins you in the big failure. If you don't understand how badly you screwed up, you're not going to be smart enough to understand the explanation. Just rest assured that the intelligent people do understand how clueless you are.

And do try to get over yourself. That is, put a lid on your raging narcissism. Despite what you want to think about yourself, you actually aren't a brilliant rebel who has uncovered a diabolical global plot. You're just clueless.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Folks WHICH is it???? Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

Both.

The big number is total emissions.

The small number is what remains after carbon sinks.

Don't you feel stupid now? You should. After all, I just told you that assuming a great global conspiracy instead of understanding you made a mistake would be a very stupid thing. And yet you just ran right off and did exactly that.

You should take this humiliation to heart, and learn your lesson to quit it with the kook conspiracy theories. But I'm pretty certain you won't. You've clearly downed too much of the koolaid.

Sorry wrong answer!
Again here are the sources... WHERE ARE YOURS???

How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

From year 1750 to 1960, additional 250 000 million tonnes CO2, or at the rate of 1190.48 million tonnes per year are added into atmosphere.
From year 1960 to 2007, another 570 000 million tonnes of CO2 are dumped into atmosphere, at much higher rate:
Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?

So let's add this up: 250,000 million from 1750 to 1960
570,000 million from 1960 to 2007 or a total of 820,000 million tons. That's 820 billion tons!

So far we've got 2 trillion,
820 billion
520 billion
337 billion
FOLKS which is it???
The importance is if we can't even agree on a simple number how can we agree that there is a problem???
From 337 billion to 2 trillion tons is a huge range for ERROR and we are basing our entire existence that these people generating these numbers are right???

No one has been able to specifically quantify human emissions or their effect on the globe. They simply can not determine what is man made and what is actually naturally occurring in response to warming and biomass increase.

We know that CO2 follows temperature by 50-800 years. This lag also occurs in response to cooling. For a short duration after warming has stopped we will continue to rise in CO2 until the biomass and oceans reduce the levels. But it has always followed these changes.

As for any CO2 caused warming induced signal, it does not exist by empirical evidence. The models fail because the understanding of the physics and proper quantification of these items is wrong.

When you cant even determine the actual inputs/sources contributions and interactions how can any model be correct?

Agreed. But for simpletons like me the wide variation from 337 tons to 2 trillion tons just means there are MORE questions that the Experts don't seem to
have answers for simpletons like me! I want someone to point out facts that aren't manipulated.

Facts like for over 100 years temperatures readings were done by human eyeballs trying to differentiate between 42˚ to 44˚ as this thermometer indicates.
View attachment 56752
I mean this was what was used up to digital thermometers in the last 30 years and yet we are to believe that the average temperature increase of 1.5˚ based
on the discrete readings of humans and also the copying and re-copying the values before computer recordings.
All so prone to human error.
Temperature readings are certainly over the 100+ years not ver "Six Sigma" like!

Funny you should ask for empirical evidence.. How about this;

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variation rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.



IN layman's terms, there is no discernible signal that CO2 causes anything to happen in our atmosphere. This is using the IPCC and the EPA's own criteria. Now they have resorted to adjusting the historical record in an attempt to create that signal.

The very basic questions you ask, the faithful refuse to ask or deny that the evidence, disproves their religious dogma.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Folks WHICH is it???? Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

Both.

The big number is total emissions.

The small number is what remains after carbon sinks.

Don't you feel stupid now? You should. After all, I just told you that assuming a great global conspiracy instead of understanding you made a mistake would be a very stupid thing. And yet you just ran right off and did exactly that.

You should take this humiliation to heart, and learn your lesson to quit it with the kook conspiracy theories. But I'm pretty certain you won't. You've clearly downed too much of the koolaid.

Sorry wrong answer!
Again here are the sources... WHERE ARE YOURS???

How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

From year 1750 to 1960, additional 250 000 million tonnes CO2, or at the rate of 1190.48 million tonnes per year are added into atmosphere.
From year 1960 to 2007, another 570 000 million tonnes of CO2 are dumped into atmosphere, at much higher rate:
Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?

So let's add this up: 250,000 million from 1750 to 1960
570,000 million from 1960 to 2007 or a total of 820,000 million tons. That's 820 billion tons!

So far we've got 2 trillion,
820 billion
520 billion
337 billion
FOLKS which is it???
The importance is if we can't even agree on a simple number how can we agree that there is a problem???
From 337 billion to 2 trillion tons is a huge range for ERROR and we are basing our entire existence that these people generating these numbers are right???

No one has been able to specifically quantify human emissions or their effect on the globe. They simply can not determine what is man made and what is actually naturally occurring in response to warming and biomass increase.

We know that CO2 follows temperature by 50-800 years. This lag also occurs in response to cooling. For a short duration after warming has stopped we will continue to rise in CO2 until the biomass and oceans reduce the levels. But it has always followed these changes.

As for any CO2 caused warming induced signal, it does not exist by empirical evidence. The models fail because the understanding of the physics and proper quantification of these items is wrong.

When you cant even determine the actual inputs/sources contributions and interactions how can any model be correct?

Agreed. But for simpletons like me the wide variation from 337 tons to 2 trillion tons just means there are MORE questions that the Experts don't seem to
have answers for simpletons like me! I want someone to point out facts that aren't manipulated.

Facts like for over 100 years temperatures readings were done by human eyeballs trying to differentiate between 42˚ to 44˚ as this thermometer indicates.
View attachment 56752
I mean this was what was used up to digital thermometers in the last 30 years and yet we are to believe that the average temperature increase of 1.5˚ based
on the discrete readings of humans and also the copying and re-copying the values before computer recordings.
All so prone to human error.
Temperature readings are certainly over the 100+ years not ver "Six Sigma" like!

I have two 60 year old thermometers. They are exactly the same, both came out of an old hardware store that I helped clean out. Set them side by side and they appear to be 4 degrees different.

Amazing HUH?

NOAA used thermometers that were calibrated to +/- 1 deg C. from the early 1900's. The thermometers you obtained were very poor and had error ranges of +/- 3 deg C. Basically they were yard ornaments.

Your point has value however, in that if these were used in conjunction with other more accurate equipment, the error range of the worst piece of equipment becomes the error range of the data set. Thus NOAA claiming to have global temperature accuracy to 0.01 deg C is pure fantasy as the error range of their equipment is more likely +/-.5 deg C as much of the equipment still in use has this error range.

Their pontifications of this being the hottest ev'a is within the error range boundaries and therefore suspect at best (confidence level of less than 20%). They are claiming hundredths of a degree warmer and that is just pure political horse shit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Folks WHICH is it???? Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

Both.

The big number is total emissions.

The small number is what remains after carbon sinks.

Don't you feel stupid now? You should. After all, I just told you that assuming a great global conspiracy instead of understanding you made a mistake would be a very stupid thing. And yet you just ran right off and did exactly that.

You should take this humiliation to heart, and learn your lesson to quit it with the kook conspiracy theories. But I'm pretty certain you won't. You've clearly downed too much of the koolaid.

Sorry wrong answer!
Again here are the sources... WHERE ARE YOURS???

How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

From year 1750 to 1960, additional 250 000 million tonnes CO2, or at the rate of 1190.48 million tonnes per year are added into atmosphere.
From year 1960 to 2007, another 570 000 million tonnes of CO2 are dumped into atmosphere, at much higher rate:
Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?

So let's add this up: 250,000 million from 1750 to 1960
570,000 million from 1960 to 2007 or a total of 820,000 million tons. That's 820 billion tons!

So far we've got 2 trillion,
820 billion
520 billion
337 billion
FOLKS which is it???
The importance is if we can't even agree on a simple number how can we agree that there is a problem???
From 337 billion to 2 trillion tons is a huge range for ERROR and we are basing our entire existence that these people generating these numbers are right???

No one has been able to specifically quantify human emissions or their effect on the globe. They simply can not determine what is man made and what is actually naturally occurring in response to warming and biomass increase.

We know that CO2 follows temperature by 50-800 years. This lag also occurs in response to cooling. For a short duration after warming has stopped we will continue to rise in CO2 until the biomass and oceans reduce the levels. But it has always followed these changes.

As for any CO2 caused warming induced signal, it does not exist by empirical evidence. The models fail because the understanding of the physics and proper quantification of these items is wrong.

When you cant even determine the actual inputs/sources contributions and interactions how can any model be correct?

Agreed. But for simpletons like me the wide variation from 337 tons to 2 trillion tons just means there are MORE questions that the Experts don't seem to
have answers for simpletons like me! I want someone to point out facts that aren't manipulated.

Facts like for over 100 years temperatures readings were done by human eyeballs trying to differentiate between 42˚ to 44˚ as this thermometer indicates.
View attachment 56752
I mean this was what was used up to digital thermometers in the last 30 years and yet we are to believe that the average temperature increase of 1.5˚ based
on the discrete readings of humans and also the copying and re-copying the values before computer recordings.
All so prone to human error.
Temperature readings are certainly over the 100+ years not ver "Six Sigma" like!

They have not yet quantified this even for their models, which fail 100% of the time..

 

[healthmyths]

I mean 337 billion tons compared to 2 trillion is almost 600% discrepancy? How could they be so far apart?

Because you're just making stupid shit up. Why do you keep doing that?

Oh, nice total failure on statistics as well. Your thermometer nonsense, that is. Pop23 joins you in the big failure. If you don't understand how badly you screwed up, you're not going to be smart enough to understand the explanation. Just rest assured that the intelligent people do understand how clueless you are.

And do try to get over yourself. That is, put a lid on your raging narcissism. Despite what you want to think about yourself, you actually aren't a brilliant rebel who has uncovered a diabolical global plot. You're just clueless.

Ignored your personal diatribe because YOU are NOT using any facts. Just personal vindictiveness!
The numbers of gave were NOT made up. If you would check the links you will see these numbers weren't my creation!

 

[healthmyths]

Folks WHICH is it???? Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

Both.

The big number is total emissions.

The small number is what remains after carbon sinks.

Don't you feel stupid now? You should. After all, I just told you that assuming a great global conspiracy instead of understanding you made a mistake would be a very stupid thing. And yet you just ran right off and did exactly that.

You should take this humiliation to heart, and learn your lesson to quit it with the kook conspiracy theories. But I'm pretty certain you won't. You've clearly downed too much of the koolaid.

Sorry wrong answer!
Again here are the sources... WHERE ARE YOURS???

How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

From year 1750 to 1960, additional 250 000 million tonnes CO2, or at the rate of 1190.48 million tonnes per year are added into atmosphere.
From year 1960 to 2007, another 570 000 million tonnes of CO2 are dumped into atmosphere, at much higher rate:
Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?

So let's add this up: 250,000 million from 1750 to 1960
570,000 million from 1960 to 2007 or a total of 820,000 million tons. That's 820 billion tons!

So far we've got 2 trillion,
820 billion
520 billion
337 billion
FOLKS which is it???
The importance is if we can't even agree on a simple number how can we agree that there is a problem???
From 337 billion to 2 trillion tons is a huge range for ERROR and we are basing our entire existence that these people generating these numbers are right???

No one has been able to specifically quantify human emissions or their effect on the globe. They simply can not determine what is man made and what is actually naturally occurring in response to warming and biomass increase.

We know that CO2 follows temperature by 50-800 years. This lag also occurs in response to cooling. For a short duration after warming has stopped we will continue to rise in CO2 until the biomass and oceans reduce the levels. But it has always followed these changes.

As for any CO2 caused warming induced signal, it does not exist by empirical evidence. The models fail because the understanding of the physics and proper quantification of these items is wrong.

When you cant even determine the actual inputs/sources contributions and interactions how can any model be correct?

Agreed. But for simpletons like me the wide variation from 337 tons to 2 trillion tons just means there are MORE questions that the Experts don't seem to
have answers for simpletons like me! I want someone to point out facts that aren't manipulated.

Facts like for over 100 years temperatures readings were done by human eyeballs trying to differentiate between 42˚ to 44˚ as this thermometer indicates.
View attachment 56752
I mean this was what was used up to digital thermometers in the last 30 years and yet we are to believe that the average temperature increase of 1.5˚ based
on the discrete readings of humans and also the copying and re-copying the values before computer recordings.
All so prone to human error.
Temperature readings are certainly over the 100+ years not ver "Six Sigma" like!

I have two 60 year old thermometers. They are exactly the same, both came out of an old hardware store that I helped clean out. Set them side by side and they appear to be 4 degrees different.

Amazing HUH?

My simple point is borne out by your observation!
Yes now multiple those variations by the thousands of reading stations primarily by amateurs over 100s of years and it is very hard for me to believe
this statement:
"Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, earth warmed..
How much has the global temperature risen in the last 100 years? | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Factor in that before computer logging all that data was hand written, re-copied and re-copied again. People's handwriting, errors in entering all add up.
There was a lot of opportunities for human errors over those 100 years. Certainly not "Six Sigma" quality for sure!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Both.

The big number is total emissions.

The small number is what remains after carbon sinks.

Don't you feel stupid now? You should. After all, I just told you that assuming a great global conspiracy instead of understanding you made a mistake would be a very stupid thing. And yet you just ran right off and did exactly that.

You should take this humiliation to heart, and learn your lesson to quit it with the kook conspiracy theories. But I'm pretty certain you won't. You've clearly downed too much of the koolaid.

Sorry wrong answer!
Again here are the sources... WHERE ARE YOURS???

How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

From year 1750 to 1960, additional 250 000 million tonnes CO2, or at the rate of 1190.48 million tonnes per year are added into atmosphere.
From year 1960 to 2007, another 570 000 million tonnes of CO2 are dumped into atmosphere, at much higher rate:
Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?

So let's add this up: 250,000 million from 1750 to 1960
570,000 million from 1960 to 2007 or a total of 820,000 million tons. That's 820 billion tons!

So far we've got 2 trillion,
820 billion
520 billion
337 billion
FOLKS which is it???
The importance is if we can't even agree on a simple number how can we agree that there is a problem???
From 337 billion to 2 trillion tons is a huge range for ERROR and we are basing our entire existence that these people generating these numbers are right???

No one has been able to specifically quantify human emissions or their effect on the globe. They simply can not determine what is man made and what is actually naturally occurring in response to warming and biomass increase.

We know that CO2 follows temperature by 50-800 years. This lag also occurs in response to cooling. For a short duration after warming has stopped we will continue to rise in CO2 until the biomass and oceans reduce the levels. But it has always followed these changes.

As for any CO2 caused warming induced signal, it does not exist by empirical evidence. The models fail because the understanding of the physics and proper quantification of these items is wrong.

When you cant even determine the actual inputs/sources contributions and interactions how can any model be correct?

Agreed. But for simpletons like me the wide variation from 337 tons to 2 trillion tons just means there are MORE questions that the Experts don't seem to
have answers for simpletons like me! I want someone to point out facts that aren't manipulated.

Facts like for over 100 years temperatures readings were done by human eyeballs trying to differentiate between 42˚ to 44˚ as this thermometer indicates.
View attachment 56752
I mean this was what was used up to digital thermometers in the last 30 years and yet we are to believe that the average temperature increase of 1.5˚ based
on the discrete readings of humans and also the copying and re-copying the values before computer recordings.
All so prone to human error.
Temperature readings are certainly over the 100+ years not ver "Six Sigma" like!

I have two 60 year old thermometers. They are exactly the same, both came out of an old hardware store that I helped clean out. Set them side by side and they appear to be 4 degrees different.

Amazing HUH?

My simple point is borne out by your observation!
Yes now multiple those variations by the thousands of reading stations primarily by amateurs over 100s of years and it is very hard for me to believe
this statement:
"Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, earth warmed..
How much has the global temperature risen in the last 100 years? | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Factor in that before computer logging all that data was hand written, re-copied and re-copied again. People's handwriting, errors in entering all add up.
There was a lot of opportunities for human errors over those 100 years. Certainly not "Six Sigma" quality for sure!

Factor in the error bar width of 1 deg C and the touted warming has a confidence level of less than 30%. Now where have we heard this before?