https://www.rt.com/news/514479-pandemic-lockdowns-raised-global-temperatures/ I guess we should be glad China is building lots of new coal-fired power plants. https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/
"Pollution cools the planet’: Pandemic-induced lockdowns RAISED global temperatures in 2020" A headline nobody will see on any MSM channel on TV, ever.
It was covered by mainstream newspapers, but ... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/climate/hottest-year-ever.html Maybe someone should remind the professor that greenhouse gas emissions just might have been lower last year. I guess when you're in an ivory tower, you can't see the Sun shining outside.
It's important to understand that GHG emissions are all additive. Meaning that at the end of 2020 we would have roughly the same amount of GHG in the atmosphere as at the beginning if zero GHG was emitted all year. But of course we continued to emit GHG in 2020, just not as much as in 2019. That means we had more GHG at the end of 2020 than at the beginning. You're confusing a decrease in the rate of increase with an absolute decrease, which didn't happen. And confusing the impact of aerosolized particulates versus GHG on temperature. And assuming an immediate climate feedback loop which doesn't exist. Among other things. But what are a few misconceptions among friends? Just a friendly tip that I apply in my own life; if I know little about a complex subject and something an expert on that subject says doesn't make sense to me, I presume it's due to my lack of understanding and attempt to learn more. I try to stay away from deriding the expert with 'ivory tower" quips, much as I would expect them to do when it came to my knowledge of the fields I have expertise in and they don't. Seems like common sense, no?
Thank you for your "expert" analysis, and may I suggest your next area of study be the meaning of this symbol: You wrote, "GHG emissions are all additive." If this is really true, humans are doomed (hard to capture enough carbon to offset emissions). Now I feel guilty about eating those beans yesterday.
Now you're starting to understand the basic concept that simply pissing in your pool only 4 times a day instead of the previous 5 isn't going to lead you to a clean pool or even a cleaner pool. Those folks in "ivory towers" you seem to think are a joke, I guess, have been telling us for many years that indeed we are screwed unless we dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions toward zero. The ocean can only absorb so much CO2, and by basic chemistry doing so makes it more acidic. Planting trees only captures a fixed amount of CO2 that a mature forest can hold, after that the decomposing trees release as much CO2 as the new trees capture. After that you're looking at very energy intensive carbon capture and sequestration, which is far more expensive than simply replacing carbon emissions now. CO2 doesn't just spontaneously break down and go away like magic, much as we wish it would. So yeah, we are doomed if we don't take this seriously, and it's far cheaper to take it seriously now. Glad you're getting it, now spread the word!
I don’t believe I have ever read a more ridiculous statement on ET. You seem more intelligent than most, making your statement a seeming conundrum. Perhaps your bias or emotional attachment to a belief have blinded you from grasping the whole picture. If you dare, brace yourself and look up “Carbon cycle” and “Natural carbon sequestration”.
I've actually spent a good deal of time researching the subject, I run a business in the energy industry and it directly impacts my industry. As a result I'm very familiar with the carbon cycle and the natural sources of carbon sequestration, I'd be happy to engage in an in depth conversation with you on the subject at length. To start, I'd be very interested to hear specifically what exactly it was that I said that was incorrect? I'll wait while you go look up "Carbon cycle" and "Natural Carbon Sequestration" and then perhaps actually read my post where I describe exactly that.
Where does all that limestone come from? What are the shells of sea-based microorganisms, among others, come from? What percentage of global CO2 production is manmade? What is the long term climate history of this planet and what conditions favor the greatest biomass? To be clear, by biomass, I mean the sum total diversity and weight of all lifeforms on Earth. The answers to these questions show climate change is self-regulating. The climate change argument is used mainly to garner Federal funding for politically-connected businesses that would otherwise not be viable on their own. Reference: Where does Al Gore spend most of his time? Is our planet heating up? Yes, of course. Are there significant adverse issues with increasing temperatures? Yes, of course. Are there benefits related to a warming world? Yes, there are, if you are a life form looking for food, especially as you move past the equator, through the temperate zones, and towards the poles. On the whole, global warming is not a problem. Further, while there are some conditions that can create a feedback loop that can further increase global warming, there are other conditions on a global scale that will start to increasingly mitigate global warming. Again, look at the Earth’s climate history, including the concentration and amount(measured by derived atmospheric pressure), of atmospheric gasses. Alternative energy, when one considers all direct costs, including the time value of money, depreciation, installation costs, maintenance, and either insurance or an accounting for risk of loss, still does not effectively compete with traditional energy sources, without even considering the convenience advantage traditional energy sources have. Further, traditional energy sources represent an important area of multiple industry employment and innovation. As an example of how pathetic common photovoltaics are concerned, aren’t they around 18% efficient? Some internal combustion engines are near 40% efficient, less the adverse effect of required emissions devices. So even though the efficiency traditional energy sources are hobbled by excessive regulations, they are still much more efficient than “Green” energy, even with all the subsidies thrown towards green energy. You turn.
Again I'd ask you to read what I wrote. I very simply stated the fact that global CO2 concentrations have not decreased, but to the contrary continue to monotonically increase as they have for the past 200 years. CO2 levels before the industrial revolution where 280 ppm, they have almost doubled to 409 ppm today. And they went up in 2020, despite the fact that the rate of the increase decreased. The carbon sinks are limited and far slower than the rate of CO2 being added. These are simply facts, and they happen to be exactly the facts that I stated. You calling those facts "ridiculous" or going on a rant about about sea shells, how turning the worlds tropical zones into deserts being a good thing, or your completely false set of assertions around energy production, don't change those facts and are in fact a completely different discussion. Nothing I said was incorrect, nothing you just listed even actually addressed the very simple idea we were discussing which was if CO2 levels in at the beginning of 2021 are indeed higher than they were in 2020 or not. Again, it's helpful if you actually read what I wrote instead of, as you would say, letting "your bias or emotional attachment to a belief blind you" and deciding that I actually wrote something else you want to argue against. Speaking of which, I once had many of the same beliefs you do. I spent a lot of time researching and learning, which led me to change those beliefs based on evidence. That's the exact opposite of "your bias or emotional attachment to a belief have blinded you". Let me ask you, can you honestly say the same about yourself. If, for example, I present very clear and unambiguous evidence that what you believe about renewable energy is based on old and no longer accurate data, will you honestly re-evaluate your position based on data? Or will "your bias or emotional attachment to a belief have blinded you" and you'll decide I'm wrong before you even start reading what I write, go search for disconfirming evidence and ignore any confirming evidence, and when you realize that what I wrote was correct, attempt to shift the discussion to something else to avoid actually taking that hard step of honestly re-evaluating your beliefs in the face of evidence? If it's the former, I'm very happy to change our discussion from the factual statement we now both agree on regarding CO2 concentrations growing in 2020 to a discussion about levelized costs of energy and what "efficiency" actually means. If its the latter, then you're not being intellectually honest with me or yourself and we'll have to wait until you mature enough to be able to have those kinds of discussions.