.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, Wombat said:

I am not sure I follow your logic. How does all that protein get converted into CO2 and end up in the atmosphere? How efficient is the human or animal digestive system? And you have obviously got the economic concept of "opportunity cost" confused with physical cost. Physics is not economics Dan. You cannot seem to grasp the physical consequence of recycling. If you use the same Carbon atom twice to fulfil a human need, you only require half as many. It ain't rocket science. But the maths of rocket science does come into things. Velocity is a distance covered per unit of time. Acceleration is a distance covered per the squared unit of time. And a change in acceleration is a distance covered per cubed unit of time. Likewise, that is all that matters regarding climate change. It is not how much CO2 humans put into the atmosphere that matters, it is the RATE at which we do it. Why do you think that recycling a Carbon atom is the same as putting it straight into the atmosphere? Can u not see that preventing it's direct release and using it a second time prevents another carbon atom from being used? That cuts the emissions by 50%, but even more when you consider that animal/human shit is the equivalent of plastics in the discussion earlier?

 

Carbon that is already in the biosphere cycles back and forth between CO2 and other biological forms, including protein. The ecosystem can keep this amount of carbon in approximate balance. The problem is that we are adding truly massive amounts to fossil carbon to the biosphere. The ecosystem cannot keep up with the influx, so the CO2 is building up in the atmosphere. The buildup is an observed fact. The introduction of the fossil carbon is an observed fact. To a fairly close approximation, the extra carbon in that CO2 matches the amount of introduced fossil carbon dug or pumped from the ground.  The exact details of the carbon budget within the biosphere, including farming, land clearing, and much else, are much murkier, but they do not change the fundamental observed fact that the amount of introduced fossil carbon closely matches the amount of CO2 buildup.

If you don't understand how protein gets converted to CO2, I suggest you read a basic biology textbook. Using an average first-world male as an example, the guy eats 56 grams of protein a day, but he does not get any heavier. The protein he eats is eventually consumed and emitted from his body, mostly as CO2, but some as other organics in urine and feces that then ultimately degrade into CO2

I do understand your economic point: use it twice and you need half as much. I don't care if you use it twice or use it a thousand times: if you pump it out of the ground and it enters the ecosystem, then it adds to the problem, unless you eventually remove it from the ecosystem. But yes, the more times you can use it, the less you need to dig or pump from the ground.

Methane is a different but related issue. When the ecosystem produces methane  ("bio-methane") and it enters the atmosphere, it absorbs much more solar heat per carbon atom than CO2, but it does eventually break down. Same for fossil methane. Human activity (agriculture) can cause the production of a lot of bio-methane, and yes, we do need to work on this.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

To a fairly close approximation, the extra carbon in that CO2 matches the amount of introduced fossil carbon dug or pumped from the ground

This is actually incorrect, unless you consider "close approximation" to mean within 50%. In fact this was the subject of some of the Climategate emails way back when. 

Let us not forget in our land centric hubris that 71% of this planet is covered by water and that water holds more than 50 times the CO2 that the atmosphere does over the whole planet, not just over land. From plants' perspective the earth was in CO2 deficit years ago. For photosynthesis to work there needs to be a minimum of 250 ppm CO2. This has been studied extensively by botanists for over 100 years. It's also why commercial greenhouses artificially increase CO2 by orders of magnitude (typically 3000 ppm). 

[turbguy + 1,543]

21 hours ago, Wombat said:

Turbfella, climate scientists have known for years that global warming (particularly over the arctic), disrupts the jet stream and causes it to create large "bulges" that reach as far South as Florida and Texas. How many "polar vortexes" will it take Americans to accept the science?

 

It will take an infinite number, based on many opinions here.

Don/t hold your breath about some changing their mind.

Change is inevitable.  Even if more expensive...

Edited May 9, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

On 5/7/2021 at 10:58 PM, Wombat said:

Isn't it strange they all come from cold countries and stand to benefit from global warming through reduced heating expenses? Here in Australia, my air-condtioner is now running for 6 months of the year!

Science is science...these folks are building a new scientific consensus.

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

On 5/7/2021 at 7:46 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes the NG company is as much at fault for signing up for a program to shut down during an electricity shortage as the grid operator is for not vetting the list. Let's be clear, the only disaster that program was for was energy shortages. Surely those NG guys are intelligent enough to know that they deliver energy and if they shut down the problem will get worse? Apparently not.

HaHa, you guys can't even build a pipeline in your own country for it. No one wants it.

This proves the point we made earlier, that the failure of the green system pulled down the backup system of natural gas generation. It's all there in black and white.

[Wombat + 1,028]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Science is science...these folks are building a new scientific consensus.

Nope, this is the best summary of the science...

The Carbon Cycle (nasa.gov)

I have a New Scientist from about 15 years ago and the main headline on the front cover is "Saved by the Sun"? The hope was that the Maunder Minimum would prevent climate change until we decarbonised our economies. Has not happened. The Earth continues to warm exponentially. Believe me, we have f****** up badly, and net zero by 2050 is no guarantee that the planet will be saved from a runaway greenhouse effect. Especially given what I said earlier about deforestation. The world should have gone nuclear 2 decades ago but the Greens would not allow it and still believe we can save the planet with renewables alone. Fact is, things are gonna start gettin really ugly in 20 years time no matter how quickly we act now.

[turbguy + 1,543]

ERCOT takes another guess.  Probably partially due to the influx of Californians.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/ERCOT-anticipates-record-breaking-electric-demand-16156768.php

If they can "call up" an additional 2300 MW of generation during an "emergency", I hope it starts quickly.

Edited May 10, 2021 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

ERCOT takes another guess.  Probably partially due to the influx of Californians.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/ERCOT-anticipates-record-breaking-electric-demand-16156768.php

If they can "call up" an additional 2300 MW of generation during an "emergency", I hope it starts quickly.

I'm sure Elon will be happy to build them a battery. No worries about start time. Interestingly 2300 MW is about how much battery California is adding this year.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

On 5/9/2021 at 8:12 AM, Wombat said:

Nope, this is the best summary of the science...

The Carbon Cycle (nasa.gov)

I have a New Scientist from about 15 years ago and the main headline on the front cover is "Saved by the Sun"? The hope was that the Maunder Minimum would prevent climate change until we decarbonised our economies. Has not happened. The Earth continues to warm exponentially. Believe me, we have f****** up badly, and net zero by 2050 is no guarantee that the planet will be saved from a runaway greenhouse effect. Especially given what I said earlier about deforestation. The world should have gone nuclear 2 decades ago but the Greens would not allow it and still believe we can save the planet with renewables alone. Fact is, things are gonna start gettin really ugly in 20 years time no matter how quickly we act now.

Check out the new science on solar factors, which has completely discredited the CO2 theory. I can give you the new research, or you can check on this thread earlier. 

The solar theories predict that we have now just entered a long term cooling phase. We will soon see which theory is right.

[Wombat + 1,028]

9 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Check out the new science on solar factors, which has completely discredited the CO2 theory. I can give you the new research, or you can check on this thread earlier. 

The solar theories predict that we have now just entered a long term cooling phase. We will soon see which theory is right.

The satellites don't lie dopey. They all show that the warming is increasing exponentially. 

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

The satellites don't lie dopey. They all show that the warming is increasing exponentially. 

I dont think +2° in 170 years can be referred to as "increasing exponentially". 

[notsonice + 1,255]

4 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

I dont think +2° in 170 years can be referred to as "increasing exponentially". 

Three examples of exponential growth compared with one example of linear growth, can you figure out which one is linear? 

 

 

sure looks like y=2 exp x/2

or are you exponentially challenged?

 

 

 

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

Three examples of exponential growth compared with one example of linear growth, can you figure out which one is linear? 

 

 

sure looks like y=2 exp x/2

or are you exponentially challenged?

 

 

 

Not one of those match an exponential increase. A slope doesn't have decreases in an exponential increase. 

The peaks of each minor increase match an almost linear expression, which tends to lend itself to something other than CO2, since the concentration added has increased exponentially. 

 

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 hour ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Not one of those match an exponential increase. A slope doesn't have decreases in an exponential increase. 

The peaks of each minor increase match an almost linear expression, which tends to lend itself to something other than CO2, since the concentration added has increased exponentially. 

 

you blew it. Math not your strong point? Please go back to school and try to get your GED. Canada does not have schools? Loonies are all you have?

love  the chart? once again which one does it match? were you the class tard in grade school? 

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

49 minutes ago, notsonice said:

you blew it. You are an idiot. Math not your strong point? Please go back to school and try to get your GED. Canada does not have schools? Loonies are all you have?

love  the chart? once again which one does it match? were you the class tard in grade school? Moron. Later loser, I have better things to do than to school tards such as yourself.

Keep going further back. Your whining is hilarious. 

I graduated in 1997, before a 0.8°C increase was considered an existential, world ending, cry-bully, climate catastrophe. It isn't. It won't be. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Selva
inappropriate language

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 hour ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Not one of those match an exponential increase. A slope doesn't have decreases in an exponential increase. 

The peaks of each minor increase match an almost linear expression, which tends to lend itself to something other than CO2, since the concentration added has increased exponentially. 

 

got the point?

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

you blew it. Math not your strong point? Please go back to school and try to get your GED. Canada does not have schools? Loonies are all you have?

love  the chart? once again which one does it match? were you the class tard in grade school? 

QuarterCenturyVet........Exponential or not? guess you are unable to answer. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Not one of those match an exponential increase. A slope doesn't have decreases in an exponential increase. 

 

 

Rubbish. Exponential curves commonly have short term increases and decreases. It is the long term average that defines the curve.

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

On 5/13/2021 at 8:30 AM, Wombat said:

The satellites don't lie dopey. They all show that the warming is increasing exponentially. 

Nope, no dopey here....the solar climate models have predicted a global cooling phase beginning this past year.  Did I notice some ice in Texas this past few months? Or are you claiming that this was an optical illusion, like the walk on the moon?

You are not a climate skeptic, I hope.

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

On 5/13/2021 at 6:36 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Rubbish. Exponential curves commonly have short term increases and decreases. It is the long term average that defines the curve.

I guess you and Not-so-smart have no comment on the graph showing changes in temperature over long-term intervals.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

I guess you and Not-so-smart have no comment on the graph showing changes in temperature over long-term intervals.

The top one, GISP2, is a widely debunked fraud. https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

The second one shows our current temp at about the same peak high as we have seen over the past 10,000 years. However temp is increasing rapidly right now so we are going to go shooting past the highs of the past 10,000 years.

Here are some better graphs:

The temperature spike of the past 200 years is the largest deviation in the past 10K years. The long term decreasing exponential curve looks to be in great jeopardy of reversing.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

 

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

Check out the graphs on those comprehensive articles I linked for you, those tell a different story.

But why should we worry any further...the new technology of EV has now made another breathtaking step into a future world of human mastery over the elements of nature, a blockbuster announcement of gigantic proportions.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Tesla-Admits-It-Wont-Have-A-Fully-Self-Driving-Car-In-2021.html

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Check out the graphs on those comprehensive articles I linked for you, those tell a different story.

But why should we worry any further...the new technology of EV has now made another breathtaking step into a future world of human mastery over the elements of nature, a blockbuster announcement of gigantic proportions.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Tesla-Admits-It-Wont-Have-A-Fully-Self-Driving-Car-In-2021.html

If you want me to look at something then you need to post it here. I am not looking all over the forum for whatever it is you are on about.

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

21 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If you want me to look at something then you need to post it here. I am not looking all over the forum for whatever it is you are on about.

I already gave it to you, and you were silent. What is the point of giving you something beyond your ability to reply to?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

I already gave it to you, and you were silent. What is the point of giving you something beyond your ability to reply to?

I provided you with high quality data from Greenland ice cores. If you want to prove them wrong then it is up to you to make your case. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Jay McKinsey