Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Let me get this straight. You are simultaneously upset that I took your words literally (Paris agreement will reduce temperature) and upset that LE interpreted newhauls words (that he denies humans are causing climate change).

Must be hard to go through life this upset at everyone.

Not upset at all. Just pointing out that you have given up pretending to knowledge on this subject and now rely on semantic games in lieu of rational debate. That didn't take long, now did it?

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You need to have the IPCC data posted that supports the fact that 3% of carbon emissions are human caused, or would you like to continue to pretend otherwise? I'm fine with that, by the way, as I don't like to startle the deluded. Never know what they'll do if upset. So let me know if you're ready for reality yet.

So, you are honestly still confused about this?

I do find it curious that you are afraid to respond to any of the many places people have explained your mistake to you.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

So, you are honestly still confused about this?

I do find it curious that you are afraid to respond to any of the many places people have explained your mistake to you.

My question remains. Do you need to have the data posted that demonstrates human contributions to CO2, or are you conrltent continuing to make a fool of yourself? It's really an empirical calculation that is well understood, and I am happy to share it with you if you like.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

My question remains. Do you need to have the data posted that demonstrates human contributions to CO2, or are you conrltent continuing to make a fool of yourself? It's really an empirical calculation that is well understood, and I am happy to share it with you if you like.

Feel free to respond to any of the several other places I have addressed this.

It really is a simple calculation that is well understood. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a rate that is roughly half of the rate that we are emitting. The rest of the Earth system is currently absorbing atmospheric CO2.

Just because you are having trouble sorting out the difference between gross and net emissions, does not mean that the rest of us are.

[stevensuf]

Good news for us sailors, solar minimums= less hurricaines.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/...olar-activity/

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Everything in life is about politics...the sooner you realize and start seeing the spin and propaganda the sooner you can set yourself free.

What is wrong with you? Again we are in 100% agreement. This is becoming very spooky.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Feel free to respond to any of the several other places I have addressed this.

It really is a simple calculation that is well understood. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a rate that is roughly half of the rate that we are emitting. The rest of the Earth system is currently absorbing atmospheric CO2.

Just because you are having trouble sorting out the difference between gross and net emissions, does not mean that the rest of us are.

Got it. You wish to continue to make a fool of yourself. Ok. So, for those who are not so inclined, here is what the EPA says is the relative contribution of CO2 attributable to humans:



At current levels of CO2 enrichment, we have around 12 molecules per million that humans are contributing to the total, which, according to warmists are magic molecules. The other 388 molecules per million are just fine, what with being natural and all. Just as the purely natural 270 molecules per million were just fine in 1850, or presumably the 4,500 molecules per million were also just ducky 438 million years ago. It is only these 12 magic molecules that are problematic, and it is these 12 molecules that warrant impoverishing humanity to do something about. Hence, the Paris Accords that will eliminate .12 such pesky molecules - and at the bargain price of a few tens of trillions. Far better to spend all that money on those .12 molecules than wasting it on nutrition for the poor, fusion, mosquito nets to prevent malaria, etc.

In a nutshell this is your policy, Mr. F. Spend anything for nothing so that the money isn't wasted doing something useful. Feel good about that, do you?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Good news for us sailors, solar minimums= less hurricaines.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/...olar-activity/

Yes, but it is going to get so bloody cold...

Other than making warmists look even more like the fools they are, I see no upside.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here is the synopsis with a link to the complete PDF
https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.c...grand-minimum/

Yes I know this 2012 paper. It does predict a global cooling because of reduced solar output starting in 2014. Realty has made this paper obsolete.

As I said before: Cycle 24 was very weak but that did not impact the temperatures in the troposphere. Quite contrary we had lately some of the hottest periods on record.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Yes I know this 2012 paper. It does predict a global cooling because of reduced solar output starting in 2014. Realty has made this paper obsolete.

As I said before: Cycle 24 was very weak but that did not impact the temperatures in the troposphere. Quite contrary we had lately some of the hottest periods on record.

Does Zharkova's paper pertain to this discussion, which deals with cycle 26?

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-pres...-double-dynamo

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Got it. You wish to continue to make a fool of yourself. Ok. So, for those who are not so inclined, here is what the EPA says is the relative contribution of CO2 attributable to humans:



At current levels of CO2 enrichment, we have around 12 molecules per million that humans are contributing to the total, which, according to warmists are magic molecules. The other 388 molecules per million are just fine, what with being natural and all. Just as the purely natural 270 molecules per million were just fine in 1850, or presumably the 4,500 molecules per million were also just ducky 438 million years ago. It is only these 12 magic molecules that are problematic, and it is these 12 molecules that warrant impoverishing humanity to do something about. Hence, the Paris Accords that will eliminate .12 such pesky molecules - and at the bargain price of a few tens of trillions. Far better to spend all that money on those .12 molecules than wasting it on nutrition for the poor, fusion, mosquito nets to prevent malaria, etc.

In a nutshell this is your policy, Mr. F. Spend anything for nothing so that the money isn't wasted doing something useful. Feel good about that, do you?

You are welcome to keep calling me a "fool" or whatever other childish names you want if it makes you feel better. But that won't change your understanding of that chart.

Look at the last column: increase in CO2 in the atmosphere: 11,700
Look at the human sources column: 23,100

increase = human contribution + natural contribution

11,700 = 23,100 + natural contribution

Solve for natural contribution. We can wait. Get back to us.

Hint: see whether the two sides are equal if you plug in 770,000 for 'natural contribution'. Or are you still not including all the terms in the natural contribution?

Note that it actually explains this in the notes:

Human-made emissions of 23,100 million metric tons and distribution
of those emissions (atmospheric absorption 11,700 million metric tons, ocean absorption 6,200 million metric tons, and land absorptions 5,00 million metric tons).

Note, they the annual increase in gas in the atmosphere from the chart is exactly equal to the portion of human-made emissions absorbed by the atmosphere. (100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is attributable to humans.) And they specify that the oceans and land systems are currently a net carbon sink.

In the future, you may actually want to read the things you post so that you don't inadvertently post something that directly contradicts the point you are trying to make.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

You are welcome to keep calling me a "fool" or whatever other childish names you want if it makes you feel better. But that won't change your understanding of that chart.

Look at the last column: increase in CO2 in the atmosphere: 11,700
Look at the human sources column: 23,100

increase = human contribution + natural contribution

11,700 = 23,100 + natural contribution

Solve for natural contribution. We can wait. Get back to us.

You are missing terms in your calculation. You can tell that I am not missing any terms because the left and right side of my equation equal each other.

Note that it actually explains this in the notes:


Note, they the annual increase in gas in the atmosphere from the chart is exactly equal to the portion of human-made emissions absorbed by the atmosphere. (100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is attributable to humans.) And they specify that the oceans and land systems are currently a net carbon sink.

In the future, you may actually want to read the things you post so that you don't inadvertently post something that directly contradicts the point you are trying to make.

Gosh, I certainly hope you aren't offended by my tone when responding to you. I had just read how you responded to others and assumed this was your metier. If I misread the snarky pontification implicit in your prior responses, do accept my apologies for treating you in kind.

So, you clearly are a believer in the magic nature of those 12 pesky molecules. Since CO2 naturally increases when the planet warms through oceanic outgassing, you have concluded that but for the CO2 emitted through human activities the level of CO2 would be constant. Boiling down the verbiage of your post, that is what you are attempting to say, correct? Just curious, but during those times in the past when CO2 has been far, far higher than today, why on earth did it increase in concentration since humans weren't around? Were there magic molecules then as well? Now, do try to concentrate on this last question and do try not to fill the room with smoke in your answer. Why are CO2 increases in the past explainable without human interaction, and how are those increases in the past different from what is observed today?

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Gosh, I certainly hope you aren't offended by my tone when responding to you. I had just read how you responded to others and assumed this was your metier. If I misread the snarky pontification implicit in your prior responses, do accept my apologies for treating you in kind.

So, you clearly are a believer in the magic nature of those 12 pesky molecules. Since CO2 naturally increases when the planet warms through oceanic outgassing, you have concluded that but for the CO2 emitted through human activities the level of CO2 would be constant. Boiling down the verbiage of your post, that is what you are attempting to say, correct? Just curious, but during those times in the past when CO2 has been far, far higher than today, why on earth did it increase in concentration since humans weren't around? Were there magic molecules then as well? Now, do try to concentrate on this last question and do try not to fill the room with smoke in your answer. Why are CO2 increases in the past explainable without human interaction, and how are those increases in the past different from what is observed today?

So you still are confused about the human contribution to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration?

I made no claims that CO2 would be constant.

The ocean is currently absorbing CO2. It cannot explain the increase. Same with the terrestrial systems.

What do you think does explain the increase? We have put more CO2 into the atmospheric than the atmosphere has gained. Some was absorbed elsewhere.

Please explain to me the process by which you think atmospheric CO2 is increasing. Both the oceans and the land are absorbing more CO2 than they are emitting. They are both net carbon sinks and have been for the recent past. So it isn't oceans or land. Do you think it is aliens? Perhaps they are taking away our emissions and replacing it with CO2 from another source. What were you saying earlier about delusions?

[newhaul]

And yet all the co2 numbers are wrong
No I don't have the correct numbers but I do know the current nm co2 numbers are wrong
They don't take into account all the co2 from ethanol that is used as a fuel addative or alternative fuel ( depending on where you are in the world). The co2 from ethanol has the c14 signature. But is usually associated with gasoline .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Does Zharkova's paper pertain to this discussion, which deals with cycle 26?

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-pres...-double-dynamo

She said nothing about climate change. I will post her quote when get off the boat and get back home.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app