The computer models (all models are wrong, some models are useful) 7

[hokie66]

What it does show is that China is the main problem. The solution probably does not exist.

 

[dik]

Actually China is half the US... so the US is the main problem.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

In that case we should ship more of our production to China so that they can increase their per capita emissions.

 

[hokie66]

I didn't realize you were colorblind, dik.

 

[dik]

Your fearless leaders are trying to reduce that amount... Their rate of increase is not a good sign... exceeding the US...

Not quite correct... from this source ( I thought the US was improving)

https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022

"China’s emissions were relatively flat in 2022, declining by 23 Mt or 0.2%. Growing emissions from combustion were offset by declines from industrial processes. Weaker economic growth, declining construction activity, and strict Covid-19 measures led to reductions in industrial and transport emissions. Power sector emissions growth slowed compared with the average of the past decade but still reached 2.6%.

The European Union saw a 2.5% or 70 Mt reduction in CO2 emissions despite oil and gas market disruptions, hydro shortfalls due to drought, and numerous nuclear plants going offline. Buildings sector emissions fell markedly, helped by a mild winter. Although power sector emissions increased by 3.4%, coal use was not as high as anticipated. For the first time, electricity generation from wind and solar PV combined exceeded that of gas or nuclear.

US emissions grew by 0.8% or 36 Mt. The buildings sector saw the highest emissions growth, driven by extreme temperatures. The main emissions reductions came from electricity and heat generation, thanks to unprecedented increases in solar PV and wind, as well as coal-to-gas switching. While many other countries reduced their natural gas use, the United States saw an increase of 89 Mt in CO2 emissions from gas, as it was called upon to meet peak electricity demand during summer heat waves.

Emissions from Asia’s emerging market and developing economies, excluding China, grew more than those from any other region in 2022, increasing by 4.2% or 206 Mt CO2. Over half of the region’s increase in emissions came from coal-fired power generation."

Eyesight is fine hokie... colours are OK... just getting a little blurry with old age.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[LionelHutz]

It seems simple to me. According to those 2022 numbers,
China - 12.1Gt
USA - 4.7Gt

All the sources and tables that get produced have always had similar numbers - USA CO2 production about half of China CO2 production.

So, again, the map shows a much higher than twice CO2 concentration over China compared to the USA. It seems to me that someone is lying.

If per capita was involved in the map then someone is REALLY lying because the USA should show much more red than China.

So many silly comments about something that should be simple to see.

 

[dik]

@Lionel... "It seems simple to me. According to those 2022 numbers,
China - 12.1Gt
USA - 4.7Gt"

This doesn't include that the population of China is 5x the US.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

About the lying, that is likely true. Our USA CO2 numbers come from think tanks who's existence hinges how bleak of a picture they can paint. It's a lot like deaths with COVID vs deaths from COVID all being reported as from for extra funding.

China, on the other hand, sees only some benefit from CO2 reporting. They might get some from out of country funding for various infrastructure projects if they claim a reduction in CO2 but they really have no reason to state their total amount.

Greg's image eliminates the political influence. China is clearly worst overall and likely the worst per capita as well.

 

[dik]

Tug... and the 400ppm CO[sub]2[/sub] is also made up to?... maybe based on measurements?

"Based on the annual report from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Lab, global average atmospheric carbon dioxide was 417.06 parts per million (“ppm” for short) in 2022, setting a new record high. The increase between 2021 and 2022 was 2.13 ppm—the 11th year in a row where the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by more than 2 ppm. At Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where the modern carbon dioxide record began in 1958, the annual average carbon dioxide in 2022 was 418.56."

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Subject to their population. See the earlier post regarding reductions (5 Dec 23 03:15). They are ahead of the US.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[LionelHutz]

This doesn't include that the population of China is 5x the US.

Get to your actual point about that then because you're massively failing to make one so far. The data I posted does not include population which matches with the map.

If you want to simply rant on about emissions per capita numbers then you can just stop making that about what I posted since it doesn't apply. Maybe you could do that in your hand-wringing weather threads...

 

[dik]

And they should be... a leading world supplier of coal(just for the $, mind you). Australia's per capita carbon footprint is greater that the US. Canada is up there with them, and we should reduce, too. Part of our large footprint is due to the small population, large area, and adverse climate... but, we can improve. Turdeau isn't interested in doing that... politically, it's a bad thing to do.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Dik, remember, PPM is a dimensionless number and not an actual quantity.

There is not a correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels. If we admit one mass of CO2 into the atmosphere, we do not know how much the PPM of the atmosphere will change.

Our CO2 emissions are not measured, they are estimated based on some algorithm dreamed up by a think tank who gets rewarded for finding the worst case.

China, we can only estimate based on how much fuel they import. Obviously, their number will be understated as a result. Likely, their numbers are low because they're burning all of that plastic we ship them from our recycling programs.

 

[dik]

Other than the atmospheric levels increasing with increased CO[sub]2[/sub] output... I dunno what's causing it. Maybe there is a correlation.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Well, what is it? How much human emitted CO2 does it take to raise the atmospheric concentration by 1 ppm?

 

[hokie66]

John Kerry is big on complaining about CO2, but he is a big contributor to methane pollution.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/12/05/john-kerry-lights-up-global-warming-panel-with-gas-video/

 

[SnTMan]

Heh

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[GregLocock]

Dr Roy Spencer compares the models and reality
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The observed rate of global warming over the past 50 years has been weaker than that predicted by almost all computerized climate models.
Climate models that guide energy policy do not even conserve energy, a necessary condition for any physically based model of the climate system.
Public policy should be based on climate observations—which are rather unremarkable—rather than climate models that exaggerate climate impacts.

https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/global-warming-observations-vs-climate-models

One claim that is often made is that humans must be causing recent warming since scientists do not know of any other reason. This argument is not from knowledge, though, but rather from a lack of knowledge. For example, it is simply not known what caused the coolness of the Little Ice Age several centuries ago, or the warmth of the Roman Warm Period (about 2,000 years ago), or the Medieval Warm Period (about 1,000 years ago). Similarly, the U.S. Dust Bowl of the 1930s existed before most CO2 emissions occurred and it must have had a largely natural origin. Yet, if another Dust Bowl occurred today, it would certainly be blamed on human-caused climate change.

The last sentence is hilarious, and true.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

This argument is not from knowledge, though, but rather from a lack of knowledge. For example, it is simply not known what caused the coolness of the Little Ice Age several centuries ago, or the warmth of the Roman Warm Period (about 2,000 years ago), or the Medieval Warm Period (about 1,000 years ago). Similarly, the U.S. Dust Bowl of the 1930s existed before most CO2 emissions occurred and it must have had a largely natural origin. Yet, if another Dust Bowl occurred today, it would certainly be blamed on human-caused climate change.

Okay, a couple of things to unpack here.

Yes, the argument that CO2 is causing global warming is NOT an argument from knowledge. I agree with that. This being said, it is a sound theory based on logical science. The problem is that the climate alarmists are politically exploiting this theory for their own ends, which are anti-progress. Anti-technology. etc.

Also, here's what I was taught about the Dust Bowl in school (30+ years ago).
a) There was weather / climate contributors. No one is denying that.
b) The farming at the time didn't have adequate wind breaks in the fields which is why we frequently see a "tree barrier" now around some fields.
c) Many of the farmers didn't do a great job protecting their topsoil. They also didn't have as reliable sources of water (wells, dams, etc).
d) Farming practices quickly changed to better protect their fields from erosion and such. Heck, you could even say that the experiences of the Dust Bowl led to a dramatic modernization of farming practices. Practices that helped make farms more environmentally friendly and better prepared for the various cycles of nature.