Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,469
- 13,071
- 2,400
Saving the planet lunacy
- Thread starter Manonthestreet
- Start date
Carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping greenhouse gas that is the primary driver of recent global warming, lingers in the atmosphere for many thousands of years, and the planet (especially the ocean) takes a while to respond to warming. So even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today, global warming and climate change will continue to affect future generations. In this way, humanity is “committed” to some level of climate change.
How much climate change? That will be determined by how our emissions continue and exactly how our climate responds to those emissions. Despite increasing awareness of climate change, our emissions of greenhouse gases continue on a relentless rise. In 2013, the daily level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time in human history. The last time levels were that high was about three to five million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch.
Mitigation – reducing climate change – involves reducing the flow of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, either by reducing sources of these gases (for example, the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat, or transport) or enhancing the “sinks” that accumulate and store these gases (such as the oceans, forests, and soil). The goal of mitigation is to avoid significant human interference with Earth's climate, “stabilize greenhouse gas levels in a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner” (from the 2014 report on Mitigation of Climate Change from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, page 4).
Mitigation and Adaptation - NASA Science
NASA is a world leader in climate studies and Earth science. While its role is not to set climate policy or prescribe particular responses or solutions to
science.nasa.gov
And is a relatively weak GHG.
How about you try to back that up. Let's see some quantification and comparisons with water, methane and NO2
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Get back to us when the Chinese and Indians are all in on the CO2 fascism.Carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping greenhouse gas that is the primary driver of recent global warming, lingers in the atmosphere for many thousands of years, and the planet (especially the ocean) takes a while to respond to warming. So even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today, global warming and climate change will continue to affect future generations. In this way, humanity is “committed” to some level of climate change.
How much climate change? That will be determined by how our emissions continue and exactly how our climate responds to those emissions. Despite increasing awareness of climate change, our emissions of greenhouse gases continue on a relentless rise. In 2013, the daily level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time in human history. The last time levels were that high was about three to five million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch.
Mitigation – reducing climate change – involves reducing the flow of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, either by reducing sources of these gases (for example, the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat, or transport) or enhancing the “sinks” that accumulate and store these gases (such as the oceans, forests, and soil). The goal of mitigation is to avoid significant human interference with Earth's climate, “stabilize greenhouse gas levels in a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner” (from the 2014 report on Mitigation of Climate Change from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, page 4).
Mitigation and Adaptation - NASA Science
NASA is a world leader in climate studies and Earth science. While its role is not to set climate policy or prescribe particular responses or solutions to
What is the dominant GHG in the atmosphere?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,936
- 35,403
- 2,180
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,469
- 13,071
- 2,400
He keeps ignoring the well understood Logarithmic effect on CO2 increasing saturation level that is why he continues to lie and lie.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,936
- 35,403
- 2,180
BTW, that graph I posted earlier was from 2015, that’s how long he’s been squawking his lie
Why should I wait? We ALL have a problem right now.
His point is that the US isn't the problem. My point is that you yourself are no different than the average American and thus your actions do not match your words.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,936
- 35,403
- 2,180
What problem? You never stated the problem. Never! Yet, you keep saying problem. You’re too weak to respond
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Because they're the ones emitting all the CO2, Chumlee.
The US emits an enormous amount of CO2 and on a per-capita basis, we are third after Canada and Saudi Arabia. China comes in 13th and India 26th.
If you want to argue that per capita is irrelevant then you'll need to retract every statement you ever made suggesting that mitigating CO2 emissions will hurt people in some way.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
"Per capita" is completely irrelevant to the massive amount emitted by China and India.....Period.
You'll never get them to buy into your misanthropic doomsday cult, so just STFU now.
So when you claim that it isn't right to ask people to do without the benefits of fossil fuel energy you're simply lying.
Who is "them"? I guess you didn't notice but I was actually talking to YOU.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
It's not right, I'm not lying, "fossil fuels" is a lie, and you are a liar.
"Them" is China and India, who will NEVER EVER bend the knee to you misanthropic eco-fascists....So you can go eat a bag of dicks.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Look at this graph. Note that US emissions in 1950 were 25 TIMES both the Chinese and Indian emissions. Note the total area representing total US, Chinese and Indian emissions over this time span.
| Metric tons of carbon dioxide (tCO2) | 1950 | 2000 | 2022 | Change 1950–2000 | Change 2000–2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 0.1B | 3.6B | 11.4B | 4,529% | 213% |
| Asia (excl. China, Japan, and India) | 0.2B | 3.2B | 6.2B | 1,973% | 95% |
| United States of America | 2.5B | 6.0B | 5.1B | 136% | -16% |
| European Union | 1.8B | 4.2B | 3.1B | 134% | -26% |
| Rest of World | 0.4B | 2.5B | 2.9B | 465% | 16% |
| India | 0.1B | 1.0B | 2.8B | 1,500% | 189% |
| Russia | 0.4B | 1.5B | 1.7B | 256% | 12% |
| Africa | 0.1B | 0.9B | 1.4B | 876% | 52% |
| Japan | 0.1B | 1.3B | 1.1B | 1,132% | -17% |
| South America | 0.1B | 0.8B | 1.1B | 621% | 34% |
| Canada | 0.2B | 0.6B | 0.6B | 268% | -3% |
Visualized: Global CO2 Emissions Through Time (1950–2022)
In this streamgraph, we break down global CO2 emissions between 1950 and 2022 using data from Berkeley Earth and Global Carbon Project.
www.visualcapitalist.com
If we assume linear growth (and decline) between 1950, 2000 and 2022, we get the following total emissions:
TOTAL EMISSIONS SINCE 1950
India: (0.55 x 50) + (1.9 x 22) = 69.3 billion tonnes
China: (1.85 x 50) + (7.5 x 22) = 257.5 billion tonnes
US: 4.25 x 50) + (5.55 x 22) = 334.6 billion tonnes
Visualizing Global Per Capita CO2 Emissions
33.6 Gt of CO2 was emitted across the world in 2019. Here we visualize the global per capita CO2 emissions by country and region.
www.visualcapitalist.com
PER CAPITA EMISSIONS IN 2023
India: 1.7 tons/person-year
China: 7.1 tons/person-year
US: 14.1 tons/person-year
Your rejection of per capita emissions is unsupportable. CO2 is producted to supply energy for people. The more people to serve, the more energy is required. Your choice, ranking total output, means that that best performing nations are small and poor and will have done virtually nothing to mitigate CO2 emissions and would have minimal impact even if they did.
The US reduction is admirable, but it was easier for us to cut BECAUSE of our high per capita emissions and relatively high population. Nations with small per capita emissions and high populations like China and India have a much more difficult and expensive challenge to reduce total emissions. In the cases of China and India, both nations have simultaneously been undergoing rapid transitions from third world status to modern industrial powers and that has required large increases in the CO2 emissions. Despite that, neither has come anywhere near our per capita values. Additionally, China has spent far more money in the last decade than has the US - in toto and per capita - on solar PV, wind turbines and EVs.
This constant refrain from the right that the US should do nothing till China and India have exceeded our cuts in percent of total emissions is ignorant, childish and counterproductive. It is also based on nothing but ethnic bias and political animosity.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
I wonder how many days it would take Iran to make Tel aviv to look like Gaza?
- Started by Hurricanelover
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Vance Boelter, Minnesota Lawmaker assassin has been arrested- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 9
