Do you think Man has significantly raised Co2 on earth?

[Austintatious]

This may be a hand grenade of a topic, but  it has been bothering me a lot lately.  We are constantly warned that man is increasing Co2 and that we need to stop or face doom... On NASAs website they state that in the last 150 years man has increased Co2 levels by 50%.

Edit:   I am editing the post  I did in fact make a mistake which invalidated the numbers I posted.

I do have more accurate and simplified numbers I can provide:

There is about 7.8 gigatonnes of Co2 for every PPM in our atmosphere.    Right now we are at 419ppm  which means we have 3,268 Gigatonnes of Co2 in our atmosphere.

Humans are emitting 36 giggatons of Co2 per year which is about a 1 % increase.  

Co2 is currently going up by about 2.65 ppm per year over the last 10 years. 

 

I am still interested in the various takes and discussion here.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Austintatious

[eman1200]

how dare you

[EricJ]

Not a topic for Mooneyspace, I'd suggest.

[T. Peterson]

Math just has no place on Mooneyspace.  Shame on you.

[Hank]

I don't think the ~9000 Mooneys built in the last almost-70 years have collectively burned enough hydrocarbon fuel to significantly effect CO2 levels on earth.

[Schllc]

8 hours ago, Austintatious said:

This may be a hand grenade of a topic, but  it has been bothering me a lot lately.  We are constantly warned that man is increasing Co2 and that we need to stop or face doom... Even on NASAs website they state that in the last 150 years man has increased Co2 levels by 50%....

?

 

I may be wrong, but this is pretty basic... maybe I have painted myself into a corner with faulty logic.  I am all ears and curious what others think.

 

 

You could fit every human on the planet into the state of Texas and they would each have over 1500sqft, and Texas is less then .01% of the earths surface. 
Human can certainly make a mess of small portions of our environment, but to suggest we could alter the fate of a planet is pure hubris and poppycock. 
Carbon is also the building block of life.  
The climate may well be changing, but man’s affect on that is not a determining factor. 
If you pee in the ocean you have technically raised the sea level, but is it enough to measure?

Lastly since I’m throwing gas on the fire, an acre of grass absorbs more co2 than an acre of forest. 

 

[KSMooniac]

You mean SUV's didn't make the dinosaurs go extinct???

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

[N201MKTurbo]

There are a lot of unanswered questions with regard to (global warming, climate change). The science is settled, don’t ya know. If you question the popular narrative, you are anti-science. Mathematical proofs be damned. 
 

I used to fuss about this a lot. One thing I always wanted to know was how long CO2 stayed in the atmosphere? It seems like a reasonable question. The best answer I ever found was it has a 112 year half life. If this isn’t true, please show me the data. With this being the case, to stop the increases in CO2 would require a 95% reduction in CO2 emissions. The only way that is going to happen is two little changes in peoples lifestyle worldwide. That would be the total elimination of personal transportation and the worldwide elimination of air conditioning and heating. 
 

Anything less than reducing the emissions to this point will only delay the day of reckoning, and not by that much. 
 

I personally think the world is more tolerant to CO2 than they would want you to believe. These days, it isn’t your actual emissions, but your personal belief that it is a problem.

I remember a conversation with a global warming zealot at the local bar and grill one night. She said I was the worst kind of person because I didn’t believe in global warming. I asked her what she was doing about it? She said her support was what the world needed. I asked her how she got to the bar? She said she drove her car. I said “huh, I rode my bike here” which I had. She said that didn’t mean anything.

Anyway, this is my last post on this topic. It is sure to turn into a religious war.

[DCarlton]

I can’t get my headed around the concept that a temp rise of more than 1.5 deg C will have such profound effects on the environment.  If 1.5 deg is enough to screw us, it seems like we’re screwed eventually it’s just a matter of when.   Do we even have historical temp averages to that accuracy?  I’m also curious what the models predict if worldwide greenhouse emissions went to zero tomorrow.  How long to recover to preindustrial or pre-alarm levels.  

[ArtVandelay]

You talk about CO2 we’re producing, don’t forget the deforestation that reduces the conversion of CO2 to O2.

The problem for climate scientists is they’ve been making dire predictions that haven’t come true. Yeah, we’re a little warmer and there seems to be more severe storms but that’s it. BTW, they have been talking about climate change since 70s or earlier, on YouTube you can find Carl Sagan testified before congress about all changes that would occur.

Then you have idiots (Al Gore) that’s still use the hockey stick graph that was shown to be wrong and “scientists” being given grants to study climate change. So if someone gives you money to study climate change, and you want more money, guess what you’re going to find.

CC has been politicized, it’s just too difficult to get real facts.

You can’t have 7+ billion people and claim we’re not having a impact, just a question of how much.

One thing is for sure if you saw Los Angeles air back in the 60s versus today, you can see how much better the air is today. Personally I like cleaner air.

I think everyone can agree that we should try to limit our impact, the question is how and what sacrifices we should make. We haven’t built a nuclear reactor in decades. China, India and Russia need to join the world efforts otherwise we’re not going to have much impact.

[Raffi]

My answer : I love CO2  , champagne is full of it , my spumante also by the way...

Climate is changing , but I doubt that is due to CO2 and simple just because of this reason:

The percentage of CO2 in the air is about 0.04%  not 4% , 0.04%  and it is changing to 0.05%. I can not believe that 0.01% of increase can cause a climate change...

China is building 800 coal energy plants the comming years... Being green is ok , being the greenest will get you a brown color in the end...

[eman1200]

….Do we even have historical temp averages to that accuracy? ….. 

Yes, there are historical charts that show temperature changes are cyclical and have been higher and lower than they are now.

[ArtVandelay]

I’m not as worried about the temperatures because it’s the symptom and can vary with temporary weather conditions, more worried about the causes (CO2, methane, lack of ozone layer, sun intensity increasing, etc) and understanding what we can control and what we can’t.

I think in normal circumstances CO2 should be self regulated: as more CO2 warms the planet, especially towards the poles, the longer vegetation growing season resulting in less CO2 and vice versa when plant cools.

[jlunseth]

I bought my house nearly 40 years ago up on a hill, the second or third highest point in my county in MN. I figured with the pace of global warming it would be beachfront property in a few years. Hasn’t happened, don’t know why, but I think I want my money back. Can I get reparations from Al Gore? 

[JayMatt]

19 hours ago, Austintatious said:

This may be a hand grenade of a topic, but  it has been bothering me a lot lately.  We are constantly warned that man is increasing Co2 and that we need to stop or face doom... Even on NASAs website they state that in the last 150 years man has increased Co2 levels by 50%....

 

I'll bite. 

Who to say an increase in C02 is a bad thing? I can look up the facts or you can look them up, but the earth is getting greener because of the elevated C02 levels. What people fail to understand is that the world was created for man. It was designed perfectly to accommodate man. As C02 levels raise plant life flourishes. We are in a closed loop system where everything is renewable. 

My point being it's a non issue used to control people. 

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

19 hours ago, Austintatious said:

This means that the levels must have risen by an AVERAGE of 54 billion tons per year (8.1  Trillion tons / 150 years = 54,000,000,000) for the last 150 years

In 2019 7,921 million Mt of coal were mined in the world.  Burning all that would make 32 10⁹ tons of CO₂ alone.  Add burning petroleum, wood, etc. and you probably get well above 60B tons/year.

Edited April 17, 2023 by AH-1 Cobra Pilot

[mooniac15u]

20 hours ago, Austintatious said:

This may be a hand grenade of a topic, but  it has been bothering me a lot lately.  We are constantly warned that man is increasing Co2 and that we need to stop or face doom... Even on NASAs website they state that in the last 150 years man has increased Co2 levels by 50%....

But the people who say these things seem to be operating under the belief that their audience cannot do basic math....  

Here, let me show you, and please feel free verify all of this on google and with a calculator.

There is 5.5 quadrillion tons of atmosphere on the planet. 

Co2 currently makes up .043 percent (430ppm) of that,   which is 23.65 trillion tons of Co2 in our atmosphere. (23,650,000,000,000)

They say that the global levels for the last several hundred years were around 280ppm or .028 percent.    That would have been about  15.4 Trillion tons 15,000,000,000,000

If we subtract the past levels from the current levels, we can see the increase in tons of Co2.   23,500,000,000,000 - 15,400,000,000,000 = 8.3  Trillion tons.

It is clear and undeniable that a change from 280ppm to 430 ppm has happened and that this means there is about 8.1  trillion tons MORE Co2 in the atmosphere.

 

Now,   Our current co2 emissions are about 55 billion tons of Co2 per year...  We can divide the 82.5 trillion ton increase in Co2 by the 55 billion tons of Co2 we currently produce and see how many years it would take at our CURRENT (record high) rate of production to produce that much Co2 from fossil fuels.  And that math looks like this

8,200,000,000,000  /  55,000,000,000 = 149

That is right.... our current rates of co2 output would have to have gone on for 149 years to account for the additional Co2 we see in the atmosphere.

Now, of course, we have not been producing 55 Billion tons of C02 per year over the last 150 years,  So, where has all of this Co2 come from?  Certainly some of it has come from man, but we simply cannot account but for a part of the total increase.  It appears the last time levels were measured at around the 280ppm mark was about 200 years ago.  This means that the levels must have risen by an AVERAGE of 54 billion tons per year (8.1  Trillion tons / 150 years = 54,000,000,000) for the last 150 years

but we are only currently putting out 55 billion per year with the levels 150 years ago being DRASTICALLY lower.

According to data by the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), humans have pumped more than 650 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since 1751.   Another source said 1.5 trillion tons over the last 150 years.  But remember from above, there is  8.3 trillion tons more Co2 than there was 150 years ago.  Where did it come from?

 

I may be wrong, but this is pretty basic... maybe I have painted myself into a corner with faulty logic.  I am all ears and curious what others think.

 

 

Two points:

1) Atmospheric gas is normally represented in ppmv (parts per million volume) not mass even though they write it as just ppm.  Details here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

2) I think your calculation is off by an order of magnitude.  23 trillion is 0.4% of 5.5 quadrillion not 0.04%.

[Utah20Gflyer]

What I am struck by is that the proposed solutions to climate change are either extremely juvenile; ie we will all just get our power from wind and solar, or are designed to consolidate control over all energy resources into the hands of a very small group.   The first type of solution seems to be designed to get people used to energy deprivation.  Making the second solution more palatable to the population.   Is my tin foil hat on a little too tight?  Maybe, but maybe not. 
 

All human activity requires energy of some sort and if a group can control energy they can control everything and everyone.  As someone who doesn’t want to live in a dystopian future I would prefer to have a slightly warmer environment than be what amounts to being the property of another human being.  

But let’s bring this around full circle and make it applicable to Mooneyspace.   If my observations and intuition about what is going on is correct, do you think this group trying to seize control is going to want normal people flying around their own airplanes, doing what they want?  I’d think not, the continued use of your Mooney depends on normal people having the right to purchase and use energy in the ways THEY deem appropriate.  This idea that access to energy is a human right is antithetical to the climate change movement.  I’d encourage you all join me in pushing for this fundamental human right before we lose it. 

[Echo]

7 hours ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

What I am struck by is that the proposed solutions to climate change are either extremely juvenile; ie we will all just get our power from wind and solar, or are designed to consolidate control over all energy resources into the hands of a very small group.   The first type of solution seems to be designed to get people used to energy deprivation.  Making the second solution more palatable to the population.   Is my tin foil hat on a little too tight?  Maybe, but maybe not. 
 

All human activity requires energy of some sort and if a group can control energy they can control everything and everyone.  As someone who doesn’t want to live in a dystopian future I would prefer to have a slightly warmer environment than be what amounts to being the property of another human being.  

But let’s bring this around full circle and make it applicable to Mooneyspace.   If my observations and intuition about what is going on is correct, do you think this group trying to seize control is going to want normal people flying around their own airplanes, doing what they want?  I’d think not, the continued use of your Mooney depends on normal people having the right to purchase and use energy in the ways THEY deem appropriate.  This idea that access to energy is a human right is antithetical to the climate change movement.  I’d encourage you all join me in pushing for this fundamental human right before we lose it. 

Very well said.  I ponder this often along with ramifications of digital currency.  We are indeed living through turbulent times.  I would love to have a crystal ball, or not.

[T. Peterson]

Furthermore the whole notion is pointless unless every nation and people group comply. However some countries are granted exceptions. That’s like saying some folks have permission to pee in the pool while for others it is strictly prohibited.

The fact checkers can check me, but my understanding is that a few hundred years ago it was warm enough to grow crops on Greenland.

[T. Peterson]

22 hours ago, Schllc said:

You could fit every human on the planet into the state of Texas and they would each have over 1500sqft, and Texas is less then .01% of the earths surface. 
Human can certainly make a mess of small portions of our environment, but to suggest we could alter the fate of a planet is pure hubris and poppycock. 
Carbon is also the building block of life.  
The climate may well be changing, but man’s affect on that is not a determining factor. 
If you pee in the ocean you have technically raised the sea level, but is it enough to measure?

Lastly since I’m throwing gas on the fire, an acre of grass absorbs more co2 than an acre of forest. 

 

I would say I am doing my part by maintaining 118  acres of pasture, but then again I have several bovines producing flatulence. So should I be rewarded for pasture land or hung for putting cows on it? I am in such dither!

[Hank]

9 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I would say I am doing my part by maintaining 118  acres of pasture, but then again I have several bovines producing flatulence. So should I be rewarded for pasture land or hung for putting cows on it? I am in such dither!

Some would excoriate you for raising methane-farting animals. Others would consider you a low-life heathen for restraining them, and get angry because you ate them. Still others are unhappy that your cattle are competing with them for the same food. And some just want to buy their milk and meat, and make shoes from their hides.

"You can please all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time, but you will never please all of the people all of the time." Even if you walked down the street handing out $100 bills, some would complain . . . .

[aviatoreb]

On 4/16/2023 at 11:22 PM, T. Peterson said:

Math just has no place on Mooneyspace.  Shame on you.

Does that mean I need to go?

[hubcap]

I used to live a few miles west of Ft Worth, Texas, which is several hundred miles from the coast. The kids and I used to dig up fossilized sea shells on the edge of our driveway. I am pretty sure that the climate has changed without any influence from mankind.

[ilovecornfields]

Maybe we should rename this site Conspiracyspace? I’d offer to do it, but I’m too busy attending my Woke Word Domination meetings and figuring out how to make the world look like 1984 + Idiocracy.