Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What about the other forests you nutjobs are forcing the government to cause the cost of paper pulp to sky rocket?If you clear cut the rainforests, the world gets hotter.
database.earth
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.
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?
Why should you warmer loons get to have the monopoly on all the vagaries and unanswerable begged questions?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?
I would hope so.No offense, but is USMB aware of what a tech-paranoid whack job you actually are?
Funny, we just stocked up on TP, it just didn't cost that much. My wife likes to buy in bulk.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.
The values represent CO2 percentage additions to the atmosphere, I think that is pretty clear.Note that no explanation is given as to what these values actually represent.
True. It is unclear. No one makes a pie chart like this, because, for the most part the narrative is controlled.Note that no explanation is given as to time. Is this supposed to be current atmospheric mix? Annual additions? What?
That is clearly defined as above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level.You can't even define what "excess" is.
Good. They need to keep going down as rapidly as they can.BTW, Murica's CO2 emissions have been declining for at least a decade.
China too, right? Or do they keep doubling?That is clearly defined as above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level.
Good. They need to keep going down as rapidly as they can.
That is not at all clear.The values represent CO2 percentage additions to the atmosphere, I think that is pretty clear.
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.True. It is unclear. No one makes a pie chart like this, because, for the most part the narrative is controlled.
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.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.
How much has the existing decline in US emissions reduced the Earth’s temperature, so far?That is clearly defined as above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level.
Good. They need to keep going down as rapidly as they can.
May I recommend that you answer one question for each question you ask?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?
Because I put up links to the sources of my graphs.Why should you warmer loons get to have the monopoly on all the vagaries and unanswerable begged questions?
Yeah, no.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.
Reduce Carbon Emmissions. This isn't complicated.
Not by enough. We are 4% of the world's population but are responsible for 14% of the world's emissions.
"Equilibrium?"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.
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
Yes, Equilibrium."Equilibrium?"
Hmmm, let's see. Here is the result of a text search for "equilibrium" in "The Physical Science Basis" of AR6Holy crap, is the "climate science community" really using that term, or did you think it up?
Given your ignorance in this field, I'm pretty certain that damned near everything "that bunch" does or says would surprise you.I hope the latter, but nothing would surprise me about that bunch.
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.What is the "equilibrium" temperature?
HAHAHAaaaa. Now, according to your Trumpian AGW Denier manual, is when you claim you were joking.Please state precisely, in degrees celsius or degrees Farenheit.
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.How is that the "target temperature?" Who aimed the Earth at that temperature?
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.EDIT: I just did a brief search and I think you are seriously misusing the term.
We don't care about natural emissions and never did. There is no reason to be concerned with them.How are we going to stop all GHG emissions when the majority of them are natural and not man-made?
By ceasing our use of fossil fuels, stop leaking methane and do our best to reforest wherever we can.HOW are we going to even stop all man-made emissions?
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.What will the world look like when that happens?
I hope you've learned that being an OP is not the joyride you seemed to think it was.That's what this thread is about, and everyone who has participated has answered or tried to answer except you.
