Page 21 of 25

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 07 Aug 2017, 02:46:07
by M_B_S

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 07 Aug 2017, 16:53:19
by dohboi
Looks like a pretty good graph, but from a very bad source. Be careful with what you pull out of there...most graphs and whatnot from that site have been sneakily altered and distorted to conform to their pet assumptions.

Meanwhile, we are throwing money at fossil-death-fuel companies to spew ever more CO2 into the earth systems they are destroying, even beyond what we pay them for their deadly product:

https://skepticalscience.com/fossil-fue ... -year.html


Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year

Pre-tax (the narrow view of subsidies) subsidies amount to 0.7% of global GDP in 2011 and 2013. But the more appropriate definition of subsidies is much larger (8 times larger than the pre-tax subsidies). We are talking enormous values of 5.8% of global GDP in 2011, rising to 6.5% in 2013.


This is clearly the most subsidized industry since governments started giving out money!

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sun 13 Aug 2017, 03:59:37
by M_B_S
August 11: 405.06 ppm
August 10: 405.33 ppm
August 09: 405.83 ppm
August 08: 404.83 ppm
August 07: 405.34 ppm

Last Updated: August 12, 2017

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

<406 ppm CO2 :!:
Image
Annual growth rate is exponetial

2006 1.68
2007 2.27
2008 1.57
2009 2.02
2010 2.32
2011 1.92
2012 2.61
2013 2.02
2014 2.17
2015 3.03
2016 2.98
=> warmest year since modern time

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sun 13 Aug 2017, 13:12:35
by Tanada

July 2017: 407.07 ppm
July 2016: 404.39 ppm

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sun 13 Aug 2017, 13:14:17
by Tanada

Week beginning on August 6, 2017: 405.48 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 403.07 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 382.38 ppm


August 12: 405.74 ppm
August 11: 405.06 ppm
August 10: 405.33 ppm
August 09: 405.83 ppm
August 08: 404.83 ppm

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sun 13 Aug 2017, 13:50:05
by diemos
At this rate I'm liable to live long enough to see 500 ppm.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sun 13 Aug 2017, 23:45:50
by dohboi
By some estimates, we are already over 500 ppm CO2 equivalent. The official number is still i think around 490 CO2e, but that is based on an outdated and too low estimate for methane global warming potential.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 14 Aug 2017, 05:00:59
by M_B_S
dohboi wrote:By some estimates, we are already over 500 ppm CO2 equivalent. The official number is still i think around 490 CO2e, but that is based on an outdated and too low estimate for methane global warming potential.


Hi dohboi do you have a source or is this your calculation

Thanks

M_B_S

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 14 Aug 2017, 11:14:38
by dohboi
That's the calculation of AbruptSLR at ASIF. He said he just used the traditional calculations, but substituted the more accurate 35 x CO2 gwp for the old 20 x used in the old calculations. I haven't seen it anywhere else, but it seems like a reasonable way to calculate it...with the most accurate, up to date values.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 14 Aug 2017, 12:39:15
by pstarr
Wow! More CO2 . . . more crops, more fat Americans? I wonder if the carbon uptake by the human body while alive is able to offset subsequent out gassing of the the methane upon death? I expect it will be, locked up and maintained in impervious health-department certified caskets.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 14 Aug 2017, 16:44:42
by dohboi
Yes, CO2 does decrease the nutritive value of many crops, leaving people with more empty calories.

I guess some find the global epidemic of obesity to be a cause for mirth.

Sad, really. And pathetic...

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 14 Aug 2017, 17:02:33
by pstarr
dohboi wrote:Yes, CO2 does decrease the nutritive value of many crops, leaving people with more empty calories.
Really? dohboi, that's like saying food hurts :( you should have learned in school that plants are made from CO2. Metabolism(CO2 + H20)==C6H12O6
Image
And so on
I guess some find the global epidemic of obesity to be a cause for mirth.

Sad, really. And pathetic...

I know. I am such a meany :x And you are a humorless scold lol

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 14 Aug 2017, 20:13:27
by dissident
This infinite CO2 sink via plants is pure nonsense. No biological system responds to a nutrient in an unbounded linear fashion. The CO2 can be increased by 10 times, but that does not imply a 10 times increase in plant biomass accumulation. Other variables are direct constraints on plant growth, including availability of nitrogen and even minerals in the soils. CO2 is not the growth limiter for plants.

The same BS is spewed about seeding the oceans with iron to suck up all the excess CO2. Nonsense ideas coming from amateurs without the necessary education.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Tue 15 Aug 2017, 10:21:04
by dohboi
Thanks for that clarity, dis. It should be obvious to anyone willing to look past their own cherished assumptions...apparently not everyone has that ability around here.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Wed 16 Aug 2017, 10:27:49
by onlooker
http://www.noaa.gov/news/international- ... -for-globe
The 2016 average global CO2 concentration was 402.9 parts per million (ppm), an increase of 3.5 ppm compared with 2015 and the largest annual increase observed in the 58-year record.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Wed 16 Aug 2017, 12:00:40
by pstarr
Here's a critique of an op-ed piece by the Trump administrations new 'Science Guy' lol, Rep. Lamar Smith. CO2: Friend or Foe to Agriculture?

Smith is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology. His op-ed was published July 24, in the Daily Signal a news website created by the conservative Heritage Foundation. In the piece Smith claims that CO2 is good for people.
A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth. This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food. Studies indicate that crops would utilize water more efficiently, requiring less water. And colder areas along the farm belt will experience longer growing seasons.


(Let it be known: I have become a committed GW sceptic in recent years, after a lifetime as a pretty deep 'Green'. I find it rather difficult share this with folks, so thanks for the relative anonymity of the forum here. It's a good place to try on new ideas. :) )

Bring on the Barbs lol

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Thu 17 Aug 2017, 16:58:02
by dohboi
https://www.skepticalscience.com/why-us ... -2005.html

Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005

Before 2005, US carbon emissions were marching upwards year after year, with little sign of slowing down. After this point, they fell quickly, declining 14% from their peak by the end of 2016.

Researchers have given a number of different reasons for this marked turnaround. Some have argued that it was mainly due to natural gas and, to a lesser extent, wind both replacing coal for generating electricity. Others have suggested that the declines were driven by the financial crisis and its lasting effects on the economy.

Here Carbon Brief presents an analysis of the causes of the decline in US CO2 since 2005. There is no single cause of reductions. Rather, they were driven by a number of factors, including a large-scale transition from coal to gas, a large increase in wind power, a reduction in industrial energy use and changes in transport patterns.

Declines in US CO2 have persisted despite an economic recovery from the financial crisis. While the pace of reductions may slow, many of these factors will continue to push down emissions, notwithstanding the inclinations of the current administration.

Carbon Brief’s analysis shows that in 2016…

• Overall, CO2 emissions were around 18% lower than they would have been, if underlying factors had not changed, and 14% lower than their 2005 peak.
• Coal-to-gas switching in the power sector is the largest driver, accounting for 33% of the emissions reduction in 2016.
• Wind generation was responsible for 19% of the emissions reduction.
• Solar power was responsible for 3%.
• Reduced electricity use – mostly in the industrial sector – was responsible for 18%.
Without these changes, electricity sector CO2 emissions would have been 46% higher than they are today.

• Reduced fuel consumption in homes and industry was responsible for an additional 12% of the overall emissions reductions.
• Changes in transport emissions from fewer miles per-capita, more efficient vehicles, and less air travel emissions per-capita account for the final 15%.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sun 20 Aug 2017, 20:05:05
by Tanada

Week beginning on August 13, 2017: 405.14 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 401.90 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 381.80 ppm


August 19: 404.59 ppm
August 18: 404.47 ppm
August 17: 405.59 ppm
August 16: Unavailable
August 15: 405.13 ppm

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 21 Aug 2017, 02:32:30
by M_B_S
Tanada wrote:
Week beginning on August 13, 2017: 405.14 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 401.90 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 381.80 ppm


August 19: 404.59 ppm
August 18: 404.47 ppm
August 17: 405.59 ppm
August 16: Unavailable
August 15: 405.13 ppm


+3,24ppm / a :!:

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Wed 23 Aug 2017, 23:04:51
by dissident
We are definitely on the worst CO2 trajectory envisioned by the IPCC. Then we are going to get smashed by the CH4 bomb from the global oceans and the cryosphere.