Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

And most of the truly stupid....... seem to be on government handouts and benefits.

Like John Christy and Roy Spencer?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

We're any puffins killed?

I feed puffins to my cows. Makes them fart more.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes, I did know that. And I buy gasoline from companies that recognize the problem and are doing something about.

LOL... You're killing me...

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I feed puffins to my cows. Makes them fart more.

I guess that's kinda the same as revving a Ferrari.............. only different.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

LOL... You're killing me...

Yes, I am.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Once again, your lack of understanding is causing you to focus on your own red herring. The % of human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is published. We know what it is. It AGW were true, then to impact warming we would have to impact that since natural sources are beyond our control. Are you with me so far?

You are confused about who is focusing on a red herring.

You continue to focus on comparing our emissions to things like live plant respiration. Nearly 30% of the total natural emissions you quoted are emissions from live vegetation.

Why are you comparing human emissions to those of live plants? You claim to be aware that plants uptake more CO2 than they emit. It is a simple question. Just answer it.

Or do you just have no idea what you are comparing human emissions to?

The rest of your odd rant seems to be entirely based on your confusion about this, so doesn't seem worth responding to.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Why are you comparing human emissions to those of live plants? You claim to be aware that plants uptake more CO2 than they emit. It is a simple question. Just answer it.

I undertand Defin's point is that if one believes that only man made CO2 is the problem then we have to reduce that amount of CO2 by a huge amount (50%?) to meet the 1.5 or 2C temp increase goal. But the agreed reductions in CO2 amount to a tiny fraction of that amount. So the goals are woefully inadequate if one holds to the view that only manmade CO2 is the problem/solution.

The simplistic math some are using is not even close to the real complexity of the problem. The CO2 emission/uptake cycle is highly non-linear and cannot be modeled by simple addition and subtraction. And so far as heat retention is concerned a CO2 molecule released by a cow pattie has exactly the same effect as a CO2 molecule released from a car tailpipe. This idea that man made CO2 is somehow "magically worse" than CO2 emitted by polar bears is just silly.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes, I did know that. And I buy gasoline from companies that recognize the problem and are doing something about.

Not me. I seek out oil and gas companies that want to destroy the earth. Usually you can find their commitment to Armageddon in their mission statement.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I undertand Defin's point is that if one believes that only man made CO2 is the problem then we have to reduce that amount of CO2 by a huge amount (50%?) to meet the 1.5 or 2C temp increase goal. But the agreed reductions in CO2 amount to a tiny fraction of that amount. So the goals are woefully inadequate if one holds to the view that only manmade CO2 is the problem/solution.

The simplistic math some are using is not even close to the real complexity of the problem. The CO2 emission/uptake cycle is highly non-linear and cannot be modeled by simple addition and subtraction. And so far as heat retention is concerned a CO2 molecule released by a cow pattie has exactly the same effect as a CO2 molecule released from a car tailpipe. This idea that man made CO2 is somehow "magically worse" than CO2 emitted by polar bears is just silly.

Thank you.

Just as a practical matter, it doesn't matter what the % of human emitted CO2 is when it comes to the "what do we do about it" question, which is why it is a red herring. We know what the amount is, and it is trivial, but even if atmospheric CO2 were 100% caused by humans if we wanted to reduce it, the plans agreed to accomplish this silly objective aren't going to have the slightest impact. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions by the 3000 gigatonnes the IPCC says is required to limit temps to 2 degrees above pre-industrial times would be to kill off 3/4 of the planet and go back to pre-industrial technology. And wouldn't that be lovely.

Warmists will never honestly debate the question of what is required to do what they say needs to be done because to do so is to discover the simple fact that what they say needs to happen, can't and won't. Which is why I am with Bjorn Lomborg in thinking that rather than pissing away trillions accomplishing nothing other than making Leonardo de Crapio feel virtuous we spend a few hundred billion figuring out how to do something useful for humanity.

[jackdale]

Meanwhile

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile

Jack,

Me don't care about no graphics, 'tis the same dang temperature here in Sardenga this time of year as it was last year. And the water measures up to the same height on the fixed pier as it did last year. You're worried about nothin'

I was hoping it would be warmer. Apparently, your graph is bogus.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by mr_f

You are confused about who is focusing on a red herring.

You continue to focus on comparing our emissions to things like live plant respiration. Nearly 30% of the total natural emissions you quoted are emissions from live vegetation.

Why are you comparing human emissions to those of live plants? You claim to be aware that plants uptake more CO2 than they emit. It is a simple question. Just answer it.

Or do you just have no idea what you are comparing human emissions to?

The rest of your odd rant seems to be entirely based on your confusion about this, so doesn't seem worth responding to.

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I undertand Defin's point is that if one believes that only man made CO2 is the problem then we have to reduce that amount of CO2 by a huge amount (50%?) to meet the 1.5 or 2C temp increase goal. But the agreed reductions in CO2 amount to a tiny fraction of that amount. So the goals are woefully inadequate if one holds to the view that only manmade CO2 is the problem/solution.

The simplistic math some are using is not even close to the real complexity of the problem. The CO2 emission/uptake cycle is highly non-linear and cannot be modeled by simple addition and subtraction. And so far as heat retention is concerned a CO2 molecule released by a cow pattie has exactly the same effect as a CO2 molecule released from a car tailpipe. This idea that man made CO2 is somehow "magically worse" than CO2 emitted by polar bears is just silly.

Originally Posted by Delfin

Thank you.

Just as a practical matter, it doesn't matter what the % of human emitted CO2 is when it comes to the "what do we do about it" question, which is why it is a red herring. We know what the amount is, and it is trivial, but even if atmospheric CO2 were 100% caused by humans if we wanted to reduce it, the plans agreed to accomplish this silly objective aren't going to have the slightest impact. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions by the 3000 gigatonnes the IPCC says is required to limit temps to 2 degrees above pre-industrial times would be to kill off 3/4 of the planet and go back to pre-industrial technology. And wouldn't that be lovely.

Warmists will never honestly debate the question of what is required to do what they say needs to be done because to do so is to discover the simple fact that what they say needs to happen, can't and won't. Which is why I am with Bjorn Lomborg in thinking that rather than pissing away trillions accomplishing nothing other than making Leonardo de Crapio feel virtuous we spend a few hundred billion figuring out how to do something useful for humanity.

All most helpful & informative, thanks. I understand the gist of Delfin's argument, also understand mr_f's point that the 3% anthropogenic gross number should be looked as a net increase in emissions which the sinks are unable to handle, but not sure what mr_f is getting at beyond that. I don't think he means that CO2 molecules differ, but he can explain. Assuming they (obviously) do not differ, then I think what's he's saying is that since we know natural CO2 is negative, then any additional CO2 emitted (i.e by humans) must be causing the overall increase.

If this is correct, I'm unclear how science makes this distinction given all the uncertainties with how the sinks operate. But then Delfin's basic cost-benefit argument using the IPCC's own numbers seems to make the gross vs. net analysis moot. What'd I miss??

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Someone's tagline in another thread struck me as apposite to the divide between alarmists and sceptics.

"The trouble with this world is that
the ignorant are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- George Bernard Shaw

No kidding, huh? The corollary problem is if you're so cocksure then you are probably unaware of your ignorance. That's when humility can be indispensable for learning.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile

Is this one of the satellite data sets, surface data, or a combo? (the source for the graph says NASA but not sure re: the data source).

Btw, most of the scientific community accepts that we are warming, but there's a smaller consensus that believes that, if it wasn't for anthropogenic CO2 and other human influences, we would be cooling.

Maybe you can address that one, or is that too much acknowledgment of scientific opinions that don't support your own preferred position?

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Exile

Assuming they (obviously) do not differ, then I think what's he's saying is that since we know natural CO2 is negative, then any additional CO2 emitted (i.e by humans) must be causing the overall increase.

You have it spot on. The current increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by us.

Delfin's repeated "but but but... plants emit nearly 10 times as much CO2 as we do" is just silly misdirection. Plants uptake twice as much CO2 as they emit. I know that, you know that, Delfin apparently is still confused about that.

This nonsense about "magic" CO2 molecules is also silly misdirection. No one has claimed that the CO2 we emit has different radiative properties. It it is the concentration that matters. We have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm through our actions, or around 40%.

He has similar math problems with his assertions about the Paris agreements. No one is claiming they are sufficient, but he is way off on how much impact they will have, because he still believes that that humans are only responsible for 3% of the increase in atmospheric CO2.