Mauna Loa shows that reducing economic Activity has NO EFFECT on CO2

[CrusaderFrank]

Good point, we'll all be dead before whatever happens, happens. However, being a grandparent makes me worry about the unknown.

I’m a grandparent as well. Call me when Guam tips over

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Aswan Dam

No, it's a question of priorities. If you want immortality and you're the Pharaoh, you can build one of the wonders of the world. They could have done plenty of other projects that that was their priority.

I only gave examples of man choosing to alter his world (burning forests for pasture land is another) but there are examples of man ignorantly changing his world: there used to be lush forests on the Greek Islands until they cut down the trees for warships and let their topsoil wash into the sea. They literally changed their climate.

The Egyptians did NOT build Giza!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Pyramids are absolutely Fourth Dynasty ... there's no question of that in anyone's minds ...

The Sphinx may have been started a little earlier, First or Second Dynasty ...

John Anthony West first proposed an older Sphinx in the 1970's based on René Schwaller de Lubicz work Her-Bak ... both of whom were self-trained Egyptologists ... it was Robert Schoch of Boston U. that did the formal research in the early 1990's into the apparent water erosion on the Sphinx compound ... his conclusion was that water erosion probably did occur before the Fourth Dynasty, but no evidence this occurred before the First Dynasty ... the erosion itself is from sheet flooding over the edge of the Sphinx compound ...

Still unanswered is what the carving was before the Fourth Dynasty ... the sphinx symbolism is usually associated with worship of the Sun god Ra ... which didn't really catch hold until the Fourth Dynasty ... it was Khafre who repaired and finished the carving on the Sphinx as part of his pyramid building ... and Khafre who established that Pharaoh was the living embodiment of Ra ...

Malkowski, Edward; Before the Pharaohs; Bear and Co. Publishers; 2006

It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the Egyptians to have built Giza. Never mind the logistics involved in cutting, carving, transporting and PERFECTLY placing 2.5 MILLION blocks. The engineering on the interior, the Kings Chamber for example, is realistically beyond our capabilities. The stones in the ceiling are 70 tons and they were raised several hundred feet into place.

It’s actually laughably that “scholars” still cling to the impossible notion that our recent ancestors, with deer antlers, stone tools and bronze chisels made Giza.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"However, while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years."

Why Didn't Atmospheric CO2 Fall During COVID? — Caltech Magazine

The COVID-19 pandemic decreased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions within a few weeks. However, while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow.

magazine.caltech.edu

Where is your source that shows it down by 54%

I paid some people to peer review a model and we decided we had consensus

It's just a hunch

More to follow

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"However, while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years."

Why Didn't Atmospheric CO2 Fall During COVID? — Caltech Magazine

The COVID-19 pandemic decreased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions within a few weeks. However, while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow.

magazine.caltech.edu

Where is your source that shows it down by 54%

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2109481118

Here's the chart from the study. My contention is that the CO2 readings at Moana Loa continued without a dramatic decrease in CO2 during 2020 and 2021 because mankind has only a negligible impact on the readings.

The above chart from the study you posted shows CH4 and NO2 dropping off a cliff while CO2 remained over 400PPM. The study tries to attribute the lack of a decline in the readings to the atmospheric latency of CO2 in the atmosphere. I think you said 150 years.

Well, methane has a latency of 12 years Methane and climate change – Global Methane Tracker 2022 – Analysis - IEA and No2 has a latency of 114 years Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA.

So the answer is clearly not as proposed by the study "The lack of clear declines in the atmospheric growth rates of CO2 and CH4, despite large reductions in human activity, reflect carbon-cycle feedbacks in air–sea carbon exchange, large interannual variability in the land carbon sink, and the chemical lifetime of CH4. These feedbacks foreshadow similar challenges to intentional mitigation"

The lack of clear declines could simply mean that human activity simply does not play a meaningful role in their creation.

 

[Crick]

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2109481118

Here's the chart from the study. My contention is that the CO2 readings at Moana Loa continued without a dramatic decrease in CO2 during 2020 and 2021 because mankind has only a negligible impact on the readings.

And here is the actual data from the appendix to your linked document

​	CO2 (GtC/yr)​	CH4 (TgCH4/yr)​	NOx (TgN/yr)​
2005​	8.02​	330.458​	36.5​
2006​	8.29​	341.481​	37.02​
2007​	8.54​	339.064​	36.41​
2008​	8.73​	341.426​	36.47​
2009​	8.61​	345.293​	34.41​
2010​	9.05​	352.484​	36.16​
2011​	9.35​	356.701​	36.65​
2012​	9.5​	363.326​	35.75​
2013​	9.54​	361.773​	35.99​
2014​	9.61​	369.79​	37.04​
2015​	9.62​	377.163​	35.36​
2016​	9.66​	371.62​	33.77​
2017​	9.77​	373.658​	34.31​
2018​	9.98​	​	34.3​
2019​	9.99​	​	33.34​
2020​	9.29​	​	30.58​

So CO2 annual emissions dropped from 9.99 to 9.29. That's a one year drop of 7%. Sorry, I'm not impressed. My original argument holds.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And here is the actual data from the appendix to your linked document

​	CO2 (GtC/yr)​	CH4 (TgCH4/yr)​	NOx (TgN/yr)​
2005​	8.02​	330.458​	36.5​
2006​	8.29​	341.481​	37.02​
2007​	8.54​	339.064​	36.41​
2008​	8.73​	341.426​	36.47​
2009​	8.61​	345.293​	34.41​
2010​	9.05​	352.484​	36.16​
2011​	9.35​	356.701​	36.65​
2012​	9.5​	363.326​	35.75​
2013​	9.54​	361.773​	35.99​
2014​	9.61​	369.79​	37.04​
2015​	9.62​	377.163​	35.36​
2016​	9.66​	371.62​	33.77​
2017​	9.77​	373.658​	34.31​
2018​	9.98​	​	34.3​
2019​	9.99​	​	33.34​
2020​	9.29​	​	30.58​

So CO2 annual emissions dropped from 9.99 to 9.29. That's a one year drop of 7%. Sorry, I'm not impressed. My original argument holds.

But it didn't move the needle at Moana Loa!

 

[Crick]

But it didn't move the needle at Moana Loa!

That was all explained several posts back. Try to keep up.

Besides, if you want to join in and claim that this shows humans didn't make all that extra CO2, you're going to have to figure out who was burning fossil fuels besides us since the isotope ratios clearly show it to be from petroleum and coal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That was all explained several posts back. Try to keep up.

Besides, if you want to join in and claim that this shows humans didn't make all that extra CO2, you're going to have to figure out who was burning fossil fuels besides us since the isotope ratios clearly show it to be from petroleum and coal.

"The lack of clear declines in the atmospheric growth rates of CO2 and CH4, despite large reductions in human activity, reflect carbon-cycle feedbacks in air–sea carbon exchange, large interannual variability in the land carbon sink, and the chemical lifetime of CH4. These feedbacks foreshadow similar challenges to intentional mitigation."

Here's from the study.

I posted my question before they made their study.

If they weren't looking to make everything revolve around manmade global climate warming change, they could have just said, yeah maybe mankind does not move the needle on CO2

 

[Crick]

"The lack of clear declines in the atmospheric growth rates of CO2 and CH4, despite large reductions in human activity, reflect carbon-cycle feedbacks in air–sea carbon exchange, large interannual variability in the land carbon sink, and the chemical lifetime of CH4. These feedbacks foreshadow similar challenges to intentional mitigation."

Here's from the study.

I posted my question before they made their study.

If they weren't looking to make everything revolve around manmade global climate warming change, they could have just said, yeah maybe mankind does not move the needle on CO2

No such conclusion is even suggested by the data. But, two questions:

1) If the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, whose isotopic ratios clearly indicate it is the result of the combustion of fossil fuels, did NOT come from human activities, where DID it come from?

2) If the CO2 that humans are producing at a current rate of 35 billion tons per years isn't going into the atmosphere (and the oceans), where IS it going?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No such conclusion is even suggested by the data. But, two questions:

1) If the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, whose isotopic ratios clearly indicate it is the result of the combustion of fossil fuels, did NOT come from human activities, where DID it come from?

2) If the CO2 that humans are producing at a current rate of 35 billion tons per years isn't going into the atmosphere (and the oceans), where IS it going?

See, you're starting with your desired result and working back so the observation into fit the preconceived conclusion. The Observations do not support the Theory. Human activity tanked in 2020 and 2021 and that had no observable effect on CO2 per the Moana Loa Gold Standard.

That's the scientific method, right?

 

[Crick]

See, you're starting with your desired result and working back so the observation into fit the preconceived conclusion. The Observations do not support the Theory. Human activity tanked in 2020 and 2021 and that had no observable effect on CO2 per the Moana Loa Gold Standard.

That's the scientific method, right?

It's shallower than that. It's 6th grade arithmetic. The amount GHG emissions fell was simply not large enough to be visible in the graphs you've provided. It's exactly like Billy Boy's nonsense of trying to make global warming go away by plotting a 2 degree change on a 140 degree scale. You've been told this before and the truth of it is blatantly obvious. If you continue, you're trolling.

 

[alang1216]

Where? From what?

globally? does it matter?

 

[alang1216]

I understand insurance very well. What part of destroying the economy of the world to the point where insurance no longer matters.....do you not understand?

Do you? I'll take the highly controversial position that I'm NOT in favor of destroying the economy of the world to the point where insurance no longer matters. I still like insurance for my heirs.

 

[alang1216]

How powerful? What rise?

Cyclone Freddy is expected to make landfall again in Mozambique later this week after it struck Madagascar for a second time on Monday.
It killed four people on the Indian Ocean island, bringing Freddy's death toll to 21.
The storm first wreaked havoc in south-eastern Africa in late February and has displaced thousands in both countries.
It may become the longest-lasting storm on record as it has been spinning over the Indian Ocean for 32 days

Glacial melting maybe? It has risen before and it will likely rise again.

 

[alang1216]

The Egyptians did NOT build Giza!

News to me. Who did?

 

[Crick]

See, you're starting with your desired result and working back so the observation into fit the preconceived conclusion. The Observations do not support the Theory. Human activity tanked in 2020 and 2021 and that had no observable effect on CO2 per the Moana Loa Gold Standard.

That's the scientific method, right?

All I did was ask you two questions which would be suggested to ANYONE looking at your contention that the increasing CO2 might not be coming from humans. And you've done nothing here that bears the faintest resemblance to an exercise of the scientific method, so don't get on my case.

 

[jc456]

Cyclone Freddy is expected to make landfall again in Mozambique later this week after it struck Madagascar for a second time on Monday.

and what? So?

 

[jc456]

globally? does it matter?

well sure it matters. I want to know where sea level has increased? Here's a video of where it was reported the Hudson river would overflow and take out a NY street (6:32 of the video)! From decades ago. Not true. Do you think if the arctic ice melts the sea will rise? hahahahahhahahhahaha I have confidence you do.

 

[Crick]

All I did was ask you two questions which would be suggested to ANYONE looking at your contention that the increasing CO2 might not be coming from humans. And you've done nothing here that bears the faintest resemblance to an exercise of the scientific method, so don't get on my case.

You put forth a hypothesis: that humans haven't been responsible for the increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. You attempted to support that hypothesis with evidence: that the dip in emissions during the pandemic wasn't visible on graphs of CO2 and other GHGs. I explained why I thought your evidence did not support your hypothesis and then asked you two more questions which, if you still believed your hypothesis, you needed to be able to answer. It was a reviewed study right there in front of you and you thought I was being anti-scientific.