Next Question for those Concerned about "Athropogenic Global Warming:" What can we do about it?

[MisterBeale]

If you clear cut the rainforests, the world gets hotter.

What about the other forests you nutjobs are forcing the government to cause the cost of paper pulp to sky rocket?

Before the pandemic a person could actually afford to wipe their damn ass.

Biomass Power Plants in ðºð¸ United States of America (Map)

Data and information about Biomass power plants and their location plotted on an interactive map of United States of America.

database.earth

Guidelines for harvesting forest biomass for energy: A synthesis of environmental considerations​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0961953411003539

 

[Crick]

How does nature know which is the natural CO2, and which is the man-made Co2, and why can't it handle the difference?

Is it conscious? Does it have a fever?

This is meaningless bullshit. The atmosphere currently holds 421 ppm of CO2. 141 ppm, or slighlty more than a 50% increase from the pre-industrial level came from the combustion of fossil fuels. CO2 has a lifespan of over 200 years and even a small annual addition will build up to significant levels.

This has been pointed out to Mr Beale on more than one occasion, yet he still posts this bullshit.

Note no source for this image is provided. My google image search says it came from www.woody.typepad.com, a high end science resource.

Note that no explanation is given as to what these values actually represent.

Note that no explanation is given as to time. Is this supposed to be current atmospheric mix? Annual additions? What?

 

[Oddball]

Note that no explanation is given as to what these values actually represent.

Note that no explanation is given as to time. Is this supposed to be current atmospheric mix? Annual additions? What?

Why should you warmer loons get to have the monopoly on all the vagaries and unanswerable begged questions?

 

[JoeB131]

No offense, but is USMB aware of what a tech-paranoid whack job you actually are?

I would hope so.

 

[JoeB131]

What about the other forests you nutjobs are forcing the government to cause the cost of paper pulp to sky rocket?

Before the pandemic a person could actually afford to wipe their damn ass.

Funny, we just stocked up on TP, it just didn't cost that much. My wife likes to buy in bulk.

The thing about the paper industry (and I was in the corrugated packaging industry for 8 years, so I know what I am talking about) is that government mandates made the industry more responsible. They do more recycling, they do more efficient management of forests. They just aren't clear cutting forests like they used to.

 

[MisterBeale]

Note that no explanation is given as to what these values actually represent.

The values represent CO2 percentage additions to the atmosphere, I think that is pretty clear.

Note that no explanation is given as to time. Is this supposed to be current atmospheric mix? Annual additions? What?

True. It is unclear. No one makes a pie chart like this, because, for the most part the narrative is controlled.

The closest I could find that was near truthful, was this one, but it STILL was a lie, it made it seem, like mother nature could distinguish between man made CO2, and natural CO2, and it is magically in balance. Somehow, human produced CO2 shifts climate, but a volcanic eruption or massive forrect fires? No impact, the planet just magically copes.

Sorry, it is obvious to any intelligent person, what the media cartels, global institutions, and the foundation funding are doing.

 

[Crick]

You can't even define what "excess" is.

That is clearly defined as above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level.

BTW, Murica's CO2 emissions have been declining for at least a decade.

Good. They need to keep going down as rapidly as they can.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That is clearly defined as above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level.

Good. They need to keep going down as rapidly as they can.

China too, right? Or do they keep doubling?

IPCC I Protect Communist China

 

[Seymour Flops]

Crick thanks for playing.

Looks like there’re lotsa folks on here could use your guidance since they’re questioning the efficacy of global warming reduction measures.

I bet many of them don’t have no BSc degree like you do, and prob’ly dint even take calculus.

Quick, Crick! Enlighten us!

 

[Crick]

The values represent CO2 percentage additions to the atmosphere, I think that is pretty clear.

That is not at all clear.
1) Additions over what time span?
2) What is the 96.775% Without human GHGs the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is stable. Net additions would be ZERO.
3) Given CO2's lifespan, why would you ignore the atmospheric totals?
4) Why - particularly since you're a moderator - do you never provide sources for your graphics?

True. It is unclear. No one makes a pie chart like this, because, for the most part the narrative is controlled.

So... if I go into Office 365 and start making this chart, the feds will show up at my door? Give us a fucking break. Your paranoia is over the edge dude.

The closest I could find that was near truthful, was this one, but it STILL was a lie, it made it seem, like mother nature could distinguish between man made CO2, and natural CO2, and it is magically in balance. Somehow, human produced CO2 shifts climate, but a volcanic eruption or massive forrect fires? No impact, the planet just magically copes.

Sorry, it is obvious to any intelligent person, what the media cartels, global institutions, and the foundation funding are doing.

Sorry, but what's obvious is that you're seriously paranoid and scientifically illiterate. The graph does NOT suggest that "mother nature could distinguish between man made CO2, and natural CO2". The graph is talking about long term averages and so doesn't discuss volcanic eruptions whose CO2 output, in any case, is dwarfed by human emisisons.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That is clearly defined as above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level.

Good. They need to keep going down as rapidly as they can.

How much has the existing decline in US emissions reduced the Earth’s temperature, so far?

 

[Seymour Flops]

That is not at all clear.
1) Additions over what time span?
2) What is the 96.775% Without human GHGs the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is stable. Net additions would be ZERO.
3) Given CO2's lifespan, why would you ignore the atmospheric totals?
4) Why - particularly since you're a moderator - do you never provide sources for your graphics?

May I recommend that you answer one question for each question you ask?

Help you not look so much the troll who rattles off questions but ignores questions from others that make you uncomfortable.

 

[Crick]

Why should you warmer loons get to have the monopoly on all the vagaries and unanswerable begged questions?

Because I put up links to the sources of my graphs.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The graph is talking about long term averages and so doesn't discuss volcanic eruptions whose CO2 output, in any case, is dwarfed by human emisisons.

Yeah, no.

• Human contribution: Since the pre-industrial era, human activities have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 45%. However, not all of this additional CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Some is absorbed by land and oceans, but not enough to keep pace with emissions.
• Estimation: Roughly 25% of the current atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil,and natural gas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reduce Carbon Emmissions. This isn't complicated.

Exactly!
Tell the poor in China and India to stop burning coal to raise their kid's standard of living.
Back to burning wood and dung only. It's renewable!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not by enough. We are 4% of the world's population but are responsible for 14% of the world's emissions.

Excellent point. The quickest way to reduce US emissions is to deport 40 million illegal aliens.
Plus, they's emit much less in their original shithole. Win-Win!

 

[Crick]

A point of basic science that seems to need making. The greenhouse forcing factor of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dependent on the total amount present and CO2 has a lifespan in the atmosphere of 300 to 1,000 years. If CO2 emissions were to be stopped completely, its level in the atmosphere and thus its forcing would remain at current levels for decades. The Earth is not at equilbirium now and thus would continue to warm until it finally reached equilibrium. That would be the point at which its higher temperature had increased outgoing LW radiation (infrared, heat) to a flux that equaled total greenhouse forcing. Only reducing the rate of emissions will NOT lead to cooling. It will reduce the rate of increase of CO2 level and thus of CO2 forcing and thus reduce - but not make zero - the rate of warming. We will not get temperatures back to pre-industrial levels (down 1.3C from present) until atmospheric CO2 levels have been reduced to pre-industrial levels and the Earth has once more reached equilibrium. But that will never be achieved until and unless all GHG emissions are effectively stopped. And as long as they are not stopped, the equilibrium temperature - the target at which our climate system is aimed - will continue to rise.

 

[Seymour Flops]

A point of basic science that seems to need making. The greenhouse forcing factor of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dependent on the total amount present and CO2 has a lifespan in the atmosphere of 300 to 1,000 years. If CO2 emissions were to be stopped completely, its level in the atmosphere and thus its forcing would remain at current levels for decades. The Earth is not at equilbirium now and thus would continue to warm until it finally reached equilibrium. That would be the point at which its higher temperature had increased outgoing LW radiation (infrared, heat) to a flux that equaled total greenhouse forcing. Only reducing the rate of emissions will NOT lead to cooling. It will reduce the rate of increase of CO2 level and thus of CO2 forcing and thus reduce - but not make zero - the rate of warming. We will not get temperatures back to pre-industrial levels (down 1.3C from present) until atmospheric CO2 levels have been reduced to pre-industrial levels and the Earth has once more reached equilibrium. But that will never be achieved until and unless all GHG emissions are effectively stopped. And as long as they are not stopped, the equilibrium temperature - the target at which our climate system is aimed - will continue to rise.

"Equilibrium?"

Holy crap, is the "climate science community" really using that term, or did you think it up? I hope the latter, but nothing would surprise me about that bunch.

What is the "equilibrium" temperature? Please state precisely, in degrees celsius or degrees Farenheit. How is that the "target temperature?" Who aimed the Earth at that temperature?

EDIT: I just did a brief search and I think you are seriously misusing the term.

How are we going to stop all GHG emissions when the majority of them are natural and not man-made?

HOW are we going to even stop all man-made emissions? What will the world look like when that happens?

That's what this thread is about, and everyone who has participated has answered or tried to answer except you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We will not get temperatures back to pre-industrial levels (down 1.3C from present) until atmospheric CO2 levels have been reduced to pre-industrial levels and the Earth has once more reached equilibrium

Were we at equilibrium during the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?

 

[Crick]

"Equilibrium?"

Yes, Equilibrium.

Holy crap, is the "climate science community" really using that term, or did you think it up?

Hmmm, let's see. Here is the result of a text search for "equilibrium" in "The Physical Science Basis" of AR6

Here is the likely reason the term appears as often as it does here, from pg 49 of the Technical Summary of the above volume:

Two important quantities used to estimate how the climate system responds to changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR16). The CMIP6 ensemble has broader ranges of ECS and TCR values than CMIP5 (see Section TS.3.2 for the assessed range). These higher sensitivity values can, in some models, be traced to changes in extratropical cloud feedbacks (medium confidence). To combine evidence from CMIP6 models and independent assessments of ECS and TCR, various emulators are used throughout the report. Emulators are a broad class of simple climate models or statistical methods that reproduce the behaviour of complex ESMs to represent key characteristics of the climate system, such as global surface temperature and sea level projections. The main application of emulators in AR6 is to extrapolate insights from ESMs and observational constraints to produce projections from a larger set of emissions scenarios, which is achieved due to their computational efficiency. These emulated projections are also used for scenario classification in WGIII. {Box 4.1, 4.3.4, 7.4.2, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 7.1, FAQ 7.2}​

I hope the latter, but nothing would surprise me about that bunch.

Given your ignorance in this field, I'm pretty certain that damned near everything "that bunch" does or says would surprise you.

What is the "equilibrium" temperature?

It is the global average temperature at which the outgoing LW radiation (the Stefan Boltzmann radiation) carries away to space energy equalling that of the incoming solar radiance, so that the planet is neither growing warmer nor cooler.

Please state precisely, in degrees celsius or degrees Farenheit.

HAHAHAaaaa. Now, according to your Trumpian AGW Denier manual, is when you claim you were joking.

How is that the "target temperature?" Who aimed the Earth at that temperature?

I guess that's what I get for thinking you'd recognize a metaphor when you saw one. Thermodynamic systems always move towards equilibrium. Thus the equilibrium temperature is a 'target' of all thermodynamic processes.

EDIT: I just did a brief search and I think you are seriously misusing the term.

I was not. I'm quite certain that almost EVERY other poster in this forum knew precisely what I was talking about. You have a great deal of catching up to do.

How are we going to stop all GHG emissions when the majority of them are natural and not man-made?

We don't care about natural emissions and never did. There is no reason to be concerned with them.

HOW are we going to even stop all man-made emissions?

By ceasing our use of fossil fuels, stop leaking methane and do our best to reforest wherever we can.

What will the world look like when that happens?

That depends on how soon we get it done. If we get it done rapidly enough, the world will look very similar to what we have now. If we take our time about it, the oceans will have flooded coastlines around the planet, the Poles and Greenland will have lost large amounts of ice mass, glaciers and snowpack will have shrunk or disappeared all over the planet, The AMOC and PMOC will have ceased, there will be crop failures, drinking water shortages, mass fish kills, enormous methane blooms from melting tundra and methane clathrates, likely new diseases raging among hundreds of millions of climate refugees, likely new wars over shrinking critical resources and in a lot of the world, summer heatwaves will have reached biologically intolerable temperatures.

That's what this thread is about, and everyone who has participated has answered or tried to answer except you.

I hope you've learned that being an OP is not the joyride you seemed to think it was.

So, shove it all up your ass and jump high, Seymour, jump really high. ; - )