Climate change discussion

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,633
1,893
113
It means there IS a natural process IN ADDITION TO the human emissions component.

How is this not clear? Because everyone else in this thread can grasp that.

How does such a record CO2 ppm increase occur during a global industrial shutdown, if it is indeed industry which is the primary source of this CO2? In fact, how does this record CO2 ppm increase occur during that time frame, if indeed 47% of global greenhouse gas producing economies are shut down that entire time? A resurgence in Chinese activity (standalone 27.5% of carbon contribution) alone cannot explain this ppm rebound. The implication is of course, that another factor is playing into the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. A factor which is highly sensitive to the sun heating our northerly landmass (67% of global landmass). Now while this heating occurs every year – one very plausible reason (among very few candidates) it is most recently ranging into higher and higher levels of unrecoverable CO2 release, is because this solar-heated source of CO2 (and methane?) is already hotter in its ‘winter’ than compared to previous years/decades/centuries.

symbol-underline-120.png

Just as the entire world was burning fossil fuels at a record depressed rate
at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic,
at that same exact time the planet ironically observed its most aggressive CO2 ppm growth in 45 years –
right amidst the annual ‘vernal jump’.


symbol-overline-120.png

Experiment: 2020 CoV-SARS-2 Economic Lockdown Observation 1B

Exhibit 1D – 2018/19/20 reduced carbon ppms globally only served to produce record peak global temperatures at the same time. Climate models critically failed here.
Now follow this experiment to its next inferential step. From June 2018 through to the end of 2020, humans emitted significantly lower CO2 than in the most recent years. One can observe this in Exhibit 1D to the right which indicates lower emissions during the June 2018 through end of 2020 timeframe. As we saw in the previous Exhibit 1C in Observation 1A, this was due unequivocally to China’s reaction to something which caused it to shut down industrial activity during that 2.5-year duration. Despite this sustained exceptional lower trend in CO2 emissions, curiously the Earth also happened to experience its hottest non-El Niño year on record in 2020.

This was explained away with no study nor ability to forecast whatsoever, as stemming from the following: “global shutdowns related to the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic reduced particulate air pollution in many areas, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface and producing a small but potentially significant warming effect.” The credibility of climate models was severely strained with this form of ad hoc rescue. If 2.5 years of lower CO2 emissions also causes global temperatures to rise, then what are we doing? And why did we not know that this would occur in advance? Our models should have indicated this through ergodicity, yet they did not. We are broaching pseudo-theory with such an apologetic method. A theory which quickly explains everything a posteriori without any relevant research, likely explains nothing.

symbol-underline-120.png

At the very same time as carbon emissions were depressed (from June 2018) through the end of 2020,
the Earth experienced its hottest year on record.

Even more disconcerting, our models did not predict this
and we explained it only after the fact through ad hoc and apologetic, not deductive science.


symbol-overline-120.png

Now combine the dynamics of these two natural experiments, 1A ad 1B in your mind for a moment.

The largest rise in atmospheric carbon ppm in 45 years came right on the heels of the hottest year on record, and during the vernal equinox timeframe (for the Northern Hemisphere) – in other words, the carbon increase followed the temperature rise, maintained its normal seasonal arrival distribution, and did not precede that heat increase. Moreover, all of this occurred during a climate change activist’s dream scenario, one in which global fossil fuel consumption was down 16% (~47% in western nations, the villains in this play) – and should have produced a sizeable and measurable effect in ppm and/or temperature, neither of which manifested (except carbon ppm in China alone).

Simply because a professional has memorized the abductive, static, and average metrics of a system, does not mean they therefore understand that system nor its dynamics. Medical professionals labored for most of a century believing falsely that obesity was simply a matter of personal caloric balance – and completely missed the entailed systemic injury. The injured stakeholders had to drag the professionals, kicking and screaming, into fully understanding their own discipline. Especially when victim-blaming and political ideologies are at play, never be intimidated by persons spouting ‘Watts per square meter’ figures, as if they know anything through recitation of static indices. This is nothing but chest-thumping and intimidation. Systems theory demands a completely different mindset and analytical approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk_82

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
How does such a record CO2 ppm increase occur during a global industrial shutdown, if it is indeed industry which is the primary source of this CO2? In fact, how does this record CO2 ppm increase occur during that time frame, if indeed 47% of global greenhouse gas producing economies are shut down that entire time? A resurgence in Chinese activity (standalone 27.5% of carbon contribution) alone cannot explain this ppm rebound. The implication is of course, that another factor is playing into the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. A factor which is highly sensitive to the sun heating our northerly landmass (67% of global landmass). Now while this heating occurs every year – one very plausible reason (among very few candidates) it is most recently ranging into higher and higher levels of unrecoverable CO2 release, is because this solar-heated source of CO2 (and methane?) is already hotter in its ‘winter’ than compared to previous years/decades/centuries.

symbol-underline-120.png

Just as the entire world was burning fossil fuels at a record depressed rate
at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic,
at that same exact time the planet ironically observed its most aggressive CO2 ppm growth in 45 years –
right amidst the annual ‘vernal jump’.


symbol-overline-120.png

Experiment: 2020 CoV-SARS-2 Economic Lockdown Observation 1B

Exhibit 1D – 2018/19/20 reduced carbon ppms globally only served to produce record peak global temperatures at the same time. Climate models critically failed here.
Now follow this experiment to its next inferential step. From June 2018 through to the end of 2020, humans emitted significantly lower CO2 than in the most recent years. One can observe this in Exhibit 1D to the right which indicates lower emissions during the June 2018 through end of 2020 timeframe. As we saw in the previous Exhibit 1C in Observation 1A, this was due unequivocally to China’s reaction to something which caused it to shut down industrial activity during that 2.5-year duration. Despite this sustained exceptional lower trend in CO2 emissions, curiously the Earth also happened to experience its hottest non-El Niño year on record in 2020.

This was explained away with no study nor ability to forecast whatsoever, as stemming from the following: “global shutdowns related to the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic reduced particulate air pollution in many areas, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface and producing a small but potentially significant warming effect.” The credibility of climate models was severely strained with this form of ad hoc rescue. If 2.5 years of lower CO2 emissions also causes global temperatures to rise, then what are we doing? And why did we not know that this would occur in advance? Our models should have indicated this through ergodicity, yet they did not. We are broaching pseudo-theory with such an apologetic method. A theory which quickly explains everything a posteriori without any relevant research, likely explains nothing.

symbol-underline-120.png

At the very same time as carbon emissions were depressed (from June 2018) through the end of 2020,
the Earth experienced its hottest year on record.

Even more disconcerting, our models did not predict this
and we explained it only after the fact through ad hoc and apologetic, not deductive science.


symbol-overline-120.png

Now combine the dynamics of these two natural experiments, 1A ad 1B in your mind for a moment.

The largest rise in atmospheric carbon ppm in 45 years came right on the heels of the hottest year on record, and during the vernal equinox timeframe (for the Northern Hemisphere) – in other words, the carbon increase followed the temperature rise, maintained its normal seasonal arrival distribution, and did not precede that heat increase. Moreover, all of this occurred during a climate change activist’s dream scenario, one in which global fossil fuel consumption was down 16% (~47% in western nations, the villains in this play) – and should have produced a sizeable and measurable effect in ppm and/or temperature, neither of which manifested (except carbon ppm in China alone).

Simply because a professional has memorized the abductive, static, and average metrics of a system, does not mean they therefore understand that system nor its dynamics. Medical professionals labored for most of a century believing falsely that obesity was simply a matter of personal caloric balance – and completely missed the entailed systemic injury. The injured stakeholders had to drag the professionals, kicking and screaming, into fully understanding their own discipline. Especially when victim-blaming and political ideologies are at play, never be intimidated by persons spouting ‘Watts per square meter’ figures, as if they know anything through recitation of static indices. This is nothing but chest-thumping and intimidation. Systems theory demands a completely different mindset and analytical approach.

What "record increase"?

The accumulation is going up at a fairly consistent pace, spud.
Look at the damn data.

You seem to be confused on what a "record increase" means, vs. "record levels".
We keep emitting, that means we keep setting new record levels EVERY YEAR.
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,633
1,893
113
What "record increase"?

The accumulation is going up at a fairly consistent pace, spud.
Look at the damn data.
He gave it to you, bonehead. You didn't even have a chance to read the whole post before you posted a reply. You're an IDIOT!
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
He gave it to you, bonehead.

You seem all over the map here: First it was a "2019 slowdown", now a "record increase".


Do you see how the plot I'd posted is not a straight line trend, but rather an accelerating curve? That's your continual "increases".
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
How does such a record CO2 ppm increase occur during a global industrial shutdown, if it is indeed industry which is the primary source of this CO2? In fact, how does this record CO2 ppm increase occur during that time frame, if indeed 47% of global greenhouse gas producing economies are shut down that entire time? A resurgence in Chinese activity (standalone 27.5% of carbon contribution) alone cannot explain this ppm rebound. The implication is of course, that another factor is playing into the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. A factor which is highly sensitive to the sun heating our northerly landmass (67% of global landmass). Now while this heating occurs every year – one very plausible reason (among very few candidates) it is most recently ranging into higher and higher levels of unrecoverable CO2 release, is because this solar-heated source of CO2 (and methane?) is already hotter in its ‘winter’ than compared to previous years/decades/centuries.

symbol-underline-120.png

Just as the entire world was burning fossil fuels at a record depressed rate
at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic,
at that same exact time the planet ironically observed its most aggressive CO2 ppm growth in 45 years –
right amidst the annual ‘vernal jump’.


symbol-overline-120.png

Experiment: 2020 CoV-SARS-2 Economic Lockdown Observation 1B

Exhibit 1D – 2018/19/20 reduced carbon ppms globally only served to produce record peak global temperatures at the same time. Climate models critically failed here.
Now follow this experiment to its next inferential step. From June 2018 through to the end of 2020, humans emitted significantly lower CO2 than in the most recent years. One can observe this in Exhibit 1D to the right which indicates lower emissions during the June 2018 through end of 2020 timeframe. As we saw in the previous Exhibit 1C in Observation 1A, this was due unequivocally to China’s reaction to something which caused it to shut down industrial activity during that 2.5-year duration. Despite this sustained exceptional lower trend in CO2 emissions, curiously the Earth also happened to experience its hottest non-El Niño year on record in 2020.

This was explained away with no study nor ability to forecast whatsoever, as stemming from the following: “global shutdowns related to the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic reduced particulate air pollution in many areas, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface and producing a small but potentially significant warming effect.” The credibility of climate models was severely strained with this form of ad hoc rescue. If 2.5 years of lower CO2 emissions also causes global temperatures to rise, then what are we doing? And why did we not know that this would occur in advance? Our models should have indicated this through ergodicity, yet they did not. We are broaching pseudo-theory with such an apologetic method. A theory which quickly explains everything a posteriori without any relevant research, likely explains nothing.

symbol-underline-120.png

At the very same time as carbon emissions were depressed (from June 2018) through the end of 2020,
the Earth experienced its hottest year on record.

Even more disconcerting, our models did not predict this
and we explained it only after the fact through ad hoc and apologetic, not deductive science.


symbol-overline-120.png

Now combine the dynamics of these two natural experiments, 1A ad 1B in your mind for a moment.

The largest rise in atmospheric carbon ppm in 45 years came right on the heels of the hottest year on record, and during the vernal equinox timeframe (for the Northern Hemisphere) – in other words, the carbon increase followed the temperature rise, maintained its normal seasonal arrival distribution, and did not precede that heat increase. Moreover, all of this occurred during a climate change activist’s dream scenario, one in which global fossil fuel consumption was down 16% (~47% in western nations, the villains in this play) – and should have produced a sizeable and measurable effect in ppm and/or temperature, neither of which manifested (except carbon ppm in China alone).

Simply because a professional has memorized the abductive, static, and average metrics of a system, does not mean they therefore understand that system nor its dynamics. Medical professionals labored for most of a century believing falsely that obesity was simply a matter of personal caloric balance – and completely missed the entailed systemic injury. The injured stakeholders had to drag the professionals, kicking and screaming, into fully understanding their own discipline. Especially when victim-blaming and political ideologies are at play, never be intimidated by persons spouting ‘Watts per square meter’ figures, as if they know anything through recitation of static indices. This is nothing but chest-thumping and intimidation. Systems theory demands a completely different mindset and analytical approach.

This is total nonsense. What conspiracy site did you dig this "Hope Simpson pathogen" up on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,777
2,760
113
It means there IS a natural process IN ADDITION TO the human emissions component.

How is this not clear? Because everyone else in this thread can grasp that.
There most definitely is both a natural process as well as a human made component. The question is, what is the total impact that humans can have. For example, if you look at the oxygen isotopes for the past 250k years. There were huge changes in temperatures throughout those times. While we think our CO2 increases are significant, they are still insignificant compared to the last 250k years.

I think our civilization is at risk of suffering catastrophic damage from other areas way before we will suffer from the direct effects of climate change due to humans.

We likely will run out of water and/or food long before the oceans rise 100 feet due to global warming.

I fully support decreasing co2 emissions so that we have less pollution and can enjoy a more comfortable environment, but on a global scale, I think humans are going to kill themselves from other ways long before we global warming leads to significant damage to our earth.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
Exhibit 1D – 2018/19/20 reduced carbon ppms globally only served to produce record peak global temperatures at the same time. Climate models critically failed here.

Uh...this is because "global CO2 emissions" do not magically increase temperatures at exactly the same moment.

And his assertion that we substantially reduced emissions in 2020 is not correct; the accumulation still shows up in the Mauna Loa data. Covid only slowed emissions by ~5%.

Remember: humans emit more subterranean carbon than volcanoes by >130x
So, a 5% "reduction" means we're emitting by maybe 126x that year.

#NotReallyGonnaChangeTheEquationHere
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
There most definitely is both a natural process as well as a human made component. The question is, what is the total impact that humans can have. For example, if you look at the oxygen isotopes for the past 250k years. There were huge changes in temperatures throughout those times. While we think our CO2 increases are significant, they are still insignificant compared to the last 250k years.

LOLWUT?

We've nearly DOUBLED the atmospheric concentrations.
Do you need the source material cited that proves the emissions are from fossil fuels burning (again)? Because terrestrial carbon (exposed to solar radiation) has a different C12/C13 isotope ratio.

We've literally seen that isotope ratio change, completely consistent with US burning sequestered carbon sources that have a different C12/C13 ratio.

You do not seem terribly well-informed on the science here....

vostok-temp-vs-co2.gif

(note that Co2 levels are now around 420 ppm, not 400 as depicted here)

CO2 levels are higher today than they have been for >1M years.

 
Last edited:

billanole

HR Legend
Mar 5, 2005
12,186
13,271
113
Out of those 250 thousand years, I wonder how many of them saw man burning fossil fuels.

The issue is do we take care of our mess or not, the debate over a cyclical climate is nonsense.
Truly, how many of those years saw man burning anywhere close to the current amount?
 

billanole

HR Legend
Mar 5, 2005
12,186
13,271
113
So, when we had a global industrial shutdown during the lockdown and fossil fuel was down 16% worldwide, why did we see still see a rise in CO2 (Northern Hemisphere), in fact to a 45 year high? Ah, the white crow moment.
Ahh, the increase in shipping to bring “goods” to the US moment, (container ships docked off the coast for miles, trucks running 24 hours per day) followed by the Russian invasion moment. The Russian fiasco has unleashed untold bazzillions of tons of extra carbon into the skies and onto the soils.
 

billanole

HR Legend
Mar 5, 2005
12,186
13,271
113
I think what you mean is you don't give a f&ck about it because you'll be dead when the major effects on humans occur.
That is obviously his wish, but he should look to the current situation in Pakistan and wonder how long trad manor will be around.
 
Nov 28, 2010
79,718
32,920
113
Maryland

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Almost Doubled in 2021, to $700 Billion​


Despite the huge profits of fossil fuel companies, the subsidies soared as governments sought to shield citizens from surging energy prices as the global economy rebounded from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Most of the subsidies were used to reduce the price paid by consumers. This largely benefits wealthier households, as they use the most energy, rather than targeting those on low incomes. The subsidies are expected to rise even further in 2022 as Russia’s war in Ukraine has driven energy prices even higher.

more here

 

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,777
2,760
113
LOLWUT?

We've nearly DOUBLED the atmospheric concentrations.
Do you need the source material cited that proves the emissions are from fossil fuels burning (again)? Because terrestrial carbon (exposed to solar radiation) has a different C12/C13 isotope ratio.

We've literally seen that isotope ratio change, completely consistent with US burning sequestered carbon sources that have a different C12/C13 ratio.

You do not seem terribly well-informed on the science here....

vostok-temp-vs-co2.gif

(note that Co2 levels are now around 420 ppm, not 400 as depicted here)

CO2 levels are higher today than they have been for >1M years.

CO2 levels are double historical highs, but if CO2 is the main cause of climate change, please explain why the majority of the last 10,000 years were warmer than current day temperatures. There is obviously more at work here than just CO2 levels.

Do we pollute too much? most definitely!
Is pollution causing humans discomfort? most definitely.
Is pollution/higher release of CO2 the one and only cause of global warming? No effing way! (I'm not denying that CO2 does affect the weather/climate, there are lots of things that affect weather/climate. Focusing on only CO2 is not the solution. I want to reduce pollution to improve our environment not because I think it will change our climate).
greenland.18kyr.gif
 
Last edited:

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
CO2 levels are double historical highs, but if CO2 is the main cause of climate change, please explain why the majority of the last 10,000 years were warmer than current day temperatures.

They weren't

Today's temperatures are higher than anything over the past 10k years. By about 1°C

No idea why you've pasted in a plot of "Greenland's temperatures", which are "regional".
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole and Ree4

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
Which "tipping point"? The savanification of the Amazon? The collapse of the WAIS? An ice-free NP? Melting permafrost? The slowing AMOC?

Oh...you thought there was A tipping point? Singular? That's because you don't have a f'n clue what you're talking about

Yeah....scientists say the WAIS is already doomed in the long run.

W/o significant action to reduce GHGs and possibly even remove them from the atmosphere.

We over-acidify the oceans, and we're gonna screw up the food supply for 7B people on this planet; and, yes, including farming, because right now a significant portion of farm-feed comes from ocean sources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billanole

SA_Hawk

HR MVP
Jan 8, 2022
1,113
1,744
113
Lincoln, NE
iowa.rivals.com
  • One of the unfortunate dynamics of the modern environmental movement is that it needs to downplay legitimately positive news lest it feel like a sense of urgency and fear is undermined by reality. Yet some good news seems almost dishonest to not mention, right? Like for example – carbon monoxide emissions are down -73% over the last forty years. Or the fact that lead levels in the air are down -99%. Nitrogen oxides have been reduced -62%. Sulfur dioxide as an air pollutant is down -90%. So why not proclaim the good news of these reductions? Well, I have a theory.
  • Because GDP is up +275% in these same forty years, vehicle miles traveled are up +191%, energy consumption is up +49%, and the U.S. population is up a stunning +60%. And if that kind of economic growth and energy utilization can coincide with such a huge reduction in air pollutants like carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, etc., then maybe, just maybe – carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced even as we grow our economy as well. And I do not believe this is just “accidentally” possible. I think the testimony of history is abundantly clear: Richer equals cleaner. Economic prosperity is NOT at odds with environmental stewardship; it is the cause of greater environmental stewardship.
 

Raglefant

HR Legend
Jan 22, 2016
13,272
22,019
113
  • One of the unfortunate dynamics of the modern environmental movement is that it needs to downplay legitimately positive news lest it feel like a sense of urgency and fear is undermined by reality. Yet some good news seems almost dishonest to not mention, right? Like for example – carbon monoxide emissions are down -73% over the last forty years. Or the fact that lead levels in the air are down -99%. Nitrogen oxides have been reduced -62%. Sulfur dioxide as an air pollutant is down -90%. So why not proclaim the good news of these reductions? Well, I have a theory.
  • Because GDP is up +275% in these same forty years, vehicle miles traveled are up +191%, energy consumption is up +49%, and the U.S. population is up a stunning +60%. And if that kind of economic growth and energy utilization can coincide with such a huge reduction in air pollutants like carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, etc., then maybe, just maybe – carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced even as we grow our economy as well. And I do not believe this is just “accidentally” possible. I think the testimony of history is abundantly clear: Richer equals cleaner. Economic prosperity is NOT at odds with environmental stewardship; it is the cause of greater environmental stewardship.
oh-boy-baby.gif
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
36,339
21,971
113
  • One of the unfortunate dynamics of the modern environmental movement is that it needs to downplay legitimately positive news lest it feel like a sense of urgency and fear is undermined by reality. Yet some good news seems almost dishonest to not mention, right? Like for example – carbon monoxide emissions are down -73% over the last forty years. Or the fact that lead levels in the air are down -99%. Nitrogen oxides have been reduced -62%. Sulfur dioxide as an air pollutant is down -90%. So why not proclaim the good news of these reductions? Well, I have a theory.
  • Because GDP is up +275% in these same forty years, vehicle miles traveled are up +191%, energy consumption is up +49%, and the U.S. population is up a stunning +60%. And if that kind of economic growth and energy utilization can coincide with such a huge reduction in air pollutants like carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, etc., then maybe, just maybe – carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced even as we grow our economy as well. And I do not believe this is just “accidentally” possible. I think the testimony of history is abundantly clear: Richer equals cleaner. Economic prosperity is NOT at odds with environmental stewardship; it is the cause of greater environmental stewardship.
This would be a good argument if the science was being followed now like it was 40 years ago about pollution. As it stands, we have a large faction of leaders in this country fighting the science on the need to reduce carbon dioxide and other components contributing to climate change. Let's do the same thing we did for pollution - put strict mandates out for reduction, heavily incent alternatives and put consistent messaging out to get everyone to do their part.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
  • One of the unfortunate dynamics of the modern environmental movement is that it needs to downplay legitimately positive news lest it feel like a sense of urgency and fear is undermined by reality. Yet some good news seems almost dishonest to not mention, right? Like for example – carbon monoxide emissions are down -73% over the last forty years. Or the fact that lead levels in the air are down -99%. Nitrogen oxides have been reduced -62%. Sulfur dioxide as an air pollutant is down -90%. So why not proclaim the good news of these reductions?

.....I'll take "because they have nothing to do in the long term with GHG emissions that will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and lead to many °C increases in temperature" for $1000, Alex.

Your "theory" is completely off the topic, when the topic is preventing a climate disaster created by fossil fuels and not CO or other things.

Yes - we CAN grow the economy with renewable energy, and scientists have told you this; however, politicians must incentivize those investments. The GOP of the 1990s told you that a cap-and-trade system and carbon tax was the most market-efficient way to reduce emissions fairly.

Today's GOP no longer believes that, because they aren't "conservatives" anymore, they are more akin to oligarchs and beholden to the fossil fuel industries.
 
Last edited:

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
This would be a good argument if the science was being followed now like it was 40 years ago about pollution. As it stands, we have a large faction of leaders in this country fighting the science on the need to reduce carbon dioxide and other components contributing to climate change. Let's do the same thing we did for pollution - put strict mandates out for reduction, heavily incent alternatives and put consistent messaging out to get everyone to do their part.

Yes....the GOP of the 1980s and 1990s believed in basic science: Montreal Protocol, Cap And Trade, etc.

Those Republicans no longer exist. They've been taken over by theocrats and oligarchs; now fascists. Reagan would be astounded and saddened at what his party has become.
 
Last edited:

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
  • Economic prosperity is NOT at odds with environmental stewardship; it is the cause of greater environmental stewardship.
It sure is when economic policy is "drill baby drill" vs incentivizing renewable and carbon-neutral energy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raglefant
Nov 28, 2010
79,718
32,920
113
Maryland
Is pollution/higher release of CO2 the one and only cause of global warming?
This hasn't been an important question for at least several decades.* Nor has any knowledgeable person ever claimed that rising CO2 was the only cause.

Why are you harping on it?

*Knowing the causes can help identify the best ways to tackle the problem, but we don't need to know the causes to know that we need to tackle the problem.
 
Last edited:

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,037
52,196
113
  • One of the unfortunate dynamics of the modern environmental movement is that it needs to downplay legitimately positive news lest it feel like a sense of urgency and fear is undermined by reality. Yet some good news seems almost dishonest to not mention, right? Like for example – carbon monoxide emissions are down -73% over the last forty years. Or the fact that lead levels in the air are down -99%. Nitrogen oxides have been reduced -62%. Sulfur dioxide as an air pollutant is down -90%. So why not proclaim the good news of these reductions? Well, I have a theory.
  • Because GDP is up +275% in these same forty years, vehicle miles traveled are up +191%, energy consumption is up +49%, and the U.S. population is up a stunning +60%. And if that kind of economic growth and energy utilization can coincide with such a huge reduction in air pollutants like carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, etc., then maybe, just maybe – carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced even as we grow our economy as well. And I do not believe this is just “accidentally” possible. I think the testimony of history is abundantly clear: Richer equals cleaner. Economic prosperity is NOT at odds with environmental stewardship; it is the cause of greater environmental stewardship.
Do you know why SO2 is down such a stunning amount? Cap and trade. A Republican idea that Democrats opposed because they doubted it would work before finally agreeing to it. When they saw the stunning results it produced they proposed doing the same with CO2. Should have been a f'n slam dunk. The GOP turned around and opposed THEIR OWN IDEA and labeled it a "tax"...their ubiquitous boogeyman. They used Dem support for the idea - their own idea that WORKED - as political fodder to garner votes. That's not theory - it's fact.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
Do you know why SO2 is down such a stunning amount? Cap and trade. A Republican idea that Democrats opposed because they doubted it would work before finally agreeing to it. When they saw the stunning results it produced they proposed doing the same with CO2. Should have been a f'n slam dunk. The GOP turned around and opposed THEIR OWN IDEA and labeled it a "tax"...their ubiquitous boogeyman. They used Dem support for the idea - their own idea that WORKED - as political fodder to garner votes. That's not theory - it's fact.

Best part of Cap And Trade, is you can add tariffs on good made using fossil fuels, which instantly makes goods from China less competitive on world markets.

Biggest benefit is that Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc will quickly lose their main sources of income and influence around the globe. Maybe Saudi Arabia won't be able to buy up US farmland and water rights anymore....(look it up, they have - and quite a lot of both)
 
Nov 28, 2010
79,718
32,920
113
Maryland
Do you know why SO2 is down such a stunning amount? Cap and trade. A Republican idea that Democrats opposed because they doubted it would work before finally agreeing to it. When they saw the stunning results it produced they proposed doing the same with CO2. Should have been a f'n slam dunk. The GOP turned around and opposed THEIR OWN IDEA and labeled it a "tax"...their ubiquitous boogeyman. They used Dem support for the idea - their own idea that WORKED - as political fodder to garner votes. That's not theory - it's fact.
In Private Empire, Pulitzer winner Steve Coll discusses how Exxon was planning to endorse a carbon tax over cap and trade, when it looked like the pressure for Congress to finally act was approaching critical mass.

Why? Because a carbon tax was better for their bottom line than cap and trade.

But then the 2008 Recession slammed America and serious action on climate change was off the table for over a decade.

More recently, the pandemic and the Ukraine war have first slowed and then reversed most climate efforts. That we got a little action from the Manchin-hamstrung Dems is rather shocking, but it's way too little, very late, and could be the last if Rs resume power.
 
Nov 28, 2010
79,718
32,920
113
Maryland
Best part of Cap And Trade, is you can add tariffs on good made using fossil fuels, which instantly makes goods from China less competitive on world markets.
A carbon tax already does that.

Both cap and trade and a carbon tax use the market to shift priorities. In that sense they should satisfy nearly everyone. And both should have a positive impact, in theory.

I prefer the carbon tax approach mainly because cap and trade introduces an abusable layer of speculation and profiteering - and may not produce real benefits. You buy credits from me so you can continue polluting. I plant trees, pocket a lot of money, and walk away. The trees go untended and die. It doesn't have to work that way, but you know that it often will.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,370
121,523
113
A carbon tax already does that.

Both cap and trade and a carbon tax use the market to shift priorities. In that sense they should satisfy nearly everyone. And both should have a positive impact, in theory.

I prefer the carbon tax approach mainly because cap and trade introduces an abusable layer of speculation and profiteering - and may not produce real benefits. You buy credits from me so you can continue polluting. I plant trees, pocket a lot of money, and walk away. The trees go untended and die. It doesn't have to work that way, but you know that it often will.

Planting trees should not be part of cap and trade.
Trees do not return the carbon into the ground. It stays in the biosphere.

There should be a separate system for preserving forests.
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,633
1,893
113
You seem all over the map here: First it was a "2019 slowdown", now a "record increase".


Do you see how the plot I'd posted is not a straight line trend, but rather an accelerating curve? That's your continual "increases".
That's not all over the map bonehead, it's what the data showed. You really are not very bright.
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,633
1,893
113
Uh...this is because "global CO2 emissions" do not magically increase temperatures at exactly the same moment.

And his assertion that we substantially reduced emissions in 2020 is not correct; the accumulation still shows up in the Mauna Loa data. Covid only slowed emissions by ~5%.

Remember: humans emit more subterranean carbon than volcanoes by >130x
So, a 5% "reduction" means we're emitting by maybe 126x that year.

#NotReallyGonnaChangeTheEquationHere
Uh....this is because rise in temperature increases CO2 not the other way around. You're an idiot.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,633
1,893
113
Ahh, the increase in shipping to bring “goods” to the US moment, (container ships docked off the coast for miles, trucks running 24 hours per day) followed by the Russian invasion moment. The Russian fiasco has unleashed untold bazzillions of tons of extra carbon into the skies and onto the soils.
Ummm this is a huge NO. But really nice try....consumption of fossil fuels dropped by 16% during the lockdowns.