Remember me
▼ Content

What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?


What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?05-04-2018 16:35
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
I'll start with the assumption that the climate sensitivity is 3.0 C per doubling of CO2 (This is the center of the range of 1.5 to 4.5 that the IPCC claims. I personally think it is closer to the theoretical value of 1.1 C).

Here are the facts:

1. The US emits about 5 gigatons of CO2/year. So in 50 years the US will have emitted 250 gigatons of CO2 assuming no growth in emissions.
2. It takes about 7 gigatons of CO2 to raise atmospheric concentrations by 1 ppm. The airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions that is not absorbed into plants and oceans is about 45%. This means that it takes about 15 gigatons of CO2 emissions to raise atmospheric concentrations by 1 ppm.
3. This means that US CO2 emissions would raise atmospheric concentrations by 250/15 or 16.67 ppm in 50 years.
4. The formula to calculate temperature increase based on a climate sensitivity of 3.0 is 4.328*ln(416.67/400) (This assumes that the current CO2 concentration is 400 ppm). This equates to a temperature increase of 0.18 C that would be averted if the US ceased all CO2 emissions for 50 years.

This is an extreme case. All current proposals including the Paris agreement are proposing cutting emissions by much less.

Could someone explain to me why it is worth spending any money at all in order to cut CO2 emissions? Is reducing the the temperature increase by such a small amount in 50 years worth spending trillions of dollars?
06-04-2018 16:39
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Jeffvw wrote:
Could someone explain to me why it is worth spending any money at all in order to cut CO2 emissions? Is reducing the the temperature increase by such a small amount in 50 years worth spending trillions of dollars?


Actually the emissions of CO2 by the US are very low compared to China or Russia. We don't have a good hold of what is going on in India but studies are being made.

Since there is little if any improvements the US can make and mountains of improvements that everyone else could make it seems rather senseless for the US to be spending the exponentially greater costs for smaller and smaller gains when China alone could eclipse the US improvement in a single year. For instance with NO actual improvements in energy efficiency except investing in newer equipment China made a 60% improvement in energy efficiency (= less CO2 output) in just a decade from 1994 to 2003.

Presently we are aware that we should not be buying any steel or aluminum from China totally aside from political reasons but because not one ounce of it is up to international standards of strength and durability. This means that China still has a very long way to go to increase their efficiency.
06-04-2018 17:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
No one is measuring the amount of CO2 emitted by any country. The reason is that you cannot differentiate where the CO2 is coming from. All anyone has is guestimates based on the number of cars and amount and type of industries.

It is actually not possible to even measure the CO2 content in the world. We don't have enough stations, and CO2 is not uniformly distributed.
10-04-2018 21:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Could someone explain to me why it is worth spending any money at all in order to cut CO2 emissions? Is reducing the the temperature increase by such a small amount in 50 years worth spending trillions of dollars?


Actually the emissions of CO2 by the US are very low compared to China or Russia. We don't have a good hold of what is going on in India but studies are being made.

Since there is little if any improvements the US can make and mountains of improvements that everyone else could make it seems rather senseless for the US to be spending the exponentially greater costs for smaller and smaller gains when China alone could eclipse the US improvement in a single year. For instance with NO actual improvements in energy efficiency except investing in newer equipment China made a 60% improvement in energy efficiency (= less CO2 output) in just a decade from 1994 to 2003.

Presently we are aware that we should not be buying any steel or aluminum from China totally aside from political reasons but because not one ounce of it is up to international standards of strength and durability. This means that China still has a very long way to go to increase their efficiency.


What I just discovered is very interesting. Satellite imagery shows that most of the CO2 increase isn't from man but from the Amazon rain forest and central African savanna.

What's more, the levels of CO2 in the air doesn't follow the linear increasing line but follows the temperatures. This I assume means that CO2 is washing in and out of the oceans due to temperatures.
18-04-2018 20:32
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Even though the direct measurements by satellite show that CO2 emissions are overwhelmed by seasonal natural emissions, averaged data shows a decent correlation. What's interesting is that estimated anthropogenic emissions correlate very well to the averaged readings in Hawaii, but at a ratio of 0.45 to 1. In other words, for every 100 CO2 molecules that humans emit, only 45 stay in the atmosphere. The rest end up elsewhere. Much of it in plants: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
18-04-2018 21:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Jeffvw wrote:
Even though the direct measurements by satellite show that CO2 emissions are overwhelmed by seasonal natural emissions, averaged data shows a decent correlation. What's interesting is that estimated anthropogenic emissions correlate very well to the averaged readings in Hawaii, but at a ratio of 0.45 to 1. In other words, for every 100 CO2 molecules that humans emit, only 45 stay in the atmosphere. The rest end up elsewhere. Much of it in plants: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds


How do you know this? NASA? They manufacture data.

No one knows how much CO2 is emitted humans vs 'natural' causes (as if humans weren't part of nature).

Government make up numbers based on an estimated number of cars and industries, and guess the rest.


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2018 21:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Could someone explain to me why it is worth spending any money at all in order to cut CO2 emissions? Is reducing the the temperature increase by such a small amount in 50 years worth spending trillions of dollars?


Actually the emissions of CO2 by the US are very low compared to China or Russia. We don't have a good hold of what is going on in India but studies are being made.

Since there is little if any improvements the US can make and mountains of improvements that everyone else could make it seems rather senseless for the US to be spending the exponentially greater costs for smaller and smaller gains when China alone could eclipse the US improvement in a single year. For instance with NO actual improvements in energy efficiency except investing in newer equipment China made a 60% improvement in energy efficiency (= less CO2 output) in just a decade from 1994 to 2003.

Presently we are aware that we should not be buying any steel or aluminum from China totally aside from political reasons but because not one ounce of it is up to international standards of strength and durability. This means that China still has a very long way to go to increase their efficiency.


What I just discovered is very interesting. Satellite imagery shows that most of the CO2 increase isn't from man but from the Amazon rain forest and central African savanna.

What's more, the levels of CO2 in the air doesn't follow the linear increasing line but follows the temperatures. This I assume means that CO2 is washing in and out of the oceans due to temperatures.


Quite possibly. The seasonal variations of CO2 content have been recorded at Mauna Loa since they started recording data there.

They usually just remove it from the published data.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-04-2018 21:15
20-04-2018 20:45
marko
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
All this nosense about Ice Melting is nonsense....I just checked the ice bucket in my Limo and its full as always.........
21-04-2018 23:26
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
marko wrote:
All this nosense about Ice Melting is nonsense....I just checked the ice bucket in my Limo and its full as always.........


Yes, but are you taking into account that the champagne bottle is empty?
08-05-2018 02:20
RenaissanceMan
☆☆☆☆☆
(38)
I have the solution. I'm surprised that nobody else has thought of it, really.
We simply redefine the melting point of ice to, oh 10 degrees Celsius and the ice caps are good for a way long time. Know what I'm sayin', Vern?

Later, as necessary, we can hike it up to 20 or so. Al Gore invented the internet, I invented the new, improved melting point.
08-05-2018 14:54
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Even though the direct measurements by satellite show that CO2 emissions are overwhelmed by seasonal natural emissions, averaged data shows a decent correlation. What's interesting is that estimated anthropogenic emissions correlate very well to the averaged readings in Hawaii, but at a ratio of 0.45 to 1. In other words, for every 100 CO2 molecules that humans emit, only 45 stay in the atmosphere. The rest end up elsewhere. Much of it in plants: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds


How do you know this? NASA? They manufacture data.

No one knows how much CO2 is emitted humans vs 'natural' causes (as if humans weren't part of nature).

Government make up numbers based on an estimated number of cars and industries, and guess the rest.


Well, there are valid calculations of the amount of CO2 represented by the amount of fossil fuel burned. We have accurate records of the coal and oil produced. After all, this is a commercial product and money must be exchanged.

The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account the large increase in plant growth that increases in CO2 cause.

We also have studies showing that the amount of plankton in the oceans are greatly increasing. Since this represents 3/4ths of the globe to infer that man-made CO2 is not naturally controlled is preposterous.

And as I've mentioned elsewhere, satellite studies have shown the actual large sources of CO2 to be the Brazilian rain forest and the Central African savanna. This is somewhat opposite of what you would expect. Apparently there is more plant life rotting and releasing CO2 in so doing than living plant matter absorbing CO2 to produce growth and O2.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the current warming isn't totally caused by the Milankovitch Cycles and the sunspot cycles and that the increases in CO2 are really nothing more than that washing in and out of the world's oceans with temperature.
08-05-2018 15:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Even though the direct measurements by satellite show that CO2 emissions are overwhelmed by seasonal natural emissions, averaged data shows a decent correlation. What's interesting is that estimated anthropogenic emissions correlate very well to the averaged readings in Hawaii, but at a ratio of 0.45 to 1. In other words, for every 100 CO2 molecules that humans emit, only 45 stay in the atmosphere. The rest end up elsewhere. Much of it in plants: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds


How do you know this? NASA? They manufacture data.

No one knows how much CO2 is emitted humans vs 'natural' causes (as if humans weren't part of nature).

Government make up numbers based on an estimated number of cars and industries, and guess the rest.


Well, there are valid calculations of the amount of CO2 represented by the amount of fossil fuel burned. We have accurate records of the coal and oil produced. After all, this is a commercial product and money must be exchanged.

The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account the large increase in plant growth that increases in CO2 cause.

We also have studies showing that the amount of plankton in the oceans are greatly increasing. Since this represents 3/4ths of the globe to infer that man-made CO2 is not naturally controlled is preposterous.

And as I've mentioned elsewhere, satellite studies have shown the actual large sources of CO2 to be the Brazilian rain forest and the Central African savanna. This is somewhat opposite of what you would expect. Apparently there is more plant life rotting and releasing CO2 in so doing than living plant matter absorbing CO2 to produce growth and O2.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the current warming isn't totally caused by the Milankovitch Cycles and the sunspot cycles and that the increases in CO2 are really nothing more than that washing in and out of the world's oceans with temperature.


The 'valid' calculations are really not that valid.

You see, governments are generally interested in their own economies. Looking at raw materials obtained, or even processed in a particular nation means very little due to international trade.

There is also the rather significant factor that not all of the oil, coal, etc. that is dug up is ever burned.

A fair bit goes to the chemical industry to make dyes, plastics, and other goodies. Some is dug up in one nation, then processed in another nation, then sold to who knows where for god knows what purpose. Some is spilled. Some is converted to other fuels or products through re-synthesis.

Even what is burned may result in products other than CO2, depending on how efficiently it's burned. Fine particulates (soot) and carbon monoxide are easily products of poorly burned material. Less CO2 is produced for that same fuel.

So how does a government track how much of it becomes carbon dioxide and water?

They can't.

The Milankovitch cycles are certainly a factor, but these cycles have a longer period than the daily and seasonal variations of weather. It's even a longer period than our own mini-ice age or the Roman warm period that occurred versus now.

Stars like our Sun have a tendency to vary somewhat in their output. Our Sun is actually a remarkably stable star as this size star tends to go. Any variation of Earth's temperature I would tend to attribute to that.

Satellites are great at watching the Earth 'breath in and out' the carbon dioxide throughout the seasonal changes, but they are really not capable of measuring how much actual CO2 is in the atmosphere. Just relative readings are possible. Again, it's because satellites only measure light.

The few dozen stations that measure absolute CO2 concentrations are not enough to measure the global CO2. As the satellites show, the concentration of CO2 is not consistent in the atmosphere. It varies from place to place and even by time of day and season.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2018 02:41
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Forget Paris: Asia Building 500 New Coal Power Plants (This Year ...
GWPF In Asia alone this year power companies are building more than 500 coal-fired plants, with at least a thousand more on planning boards.


So what can we do to filter the carbon? Surely a collective group of intelligent people can see that no matter who abides by Paris Agreement which personally is a crock and a Typical UN agenda.

While developed countries subsidise third world countries is a bad deal. Especially when considering those countries to get subsidies are the big polluters.
Attached image:

16-09-2018 19:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Kirkieb wrote:
Forget Paris: Asia Building 500 New Coal Power Plants (This Year ...
GWPF In Asia alone this year power companies are building more than 500 coal-fired plants, with at least a thousand more on planning boards.

Why not? Coal is cheap. It puts out a lot of energy.
Kirkieb wrote:
So what can we do to filter the carbon?
No need. Coal IS primarily carbon.
Kirkieb wrote:
Surely a collective group of intelligent people can see that no matter who abides by Paris Agreement which personally is a crock and a Typical UN agenda.

You suspect the UN of an agenda?? What rock have YOU been hiding under???
Kirkieb wrote:
While developed countries subsidise third world countries is a bad deal.
Especially when considering those countries to get subsidies are the big polluters.

What third world country is getting subsidized and building coal plants? Who is subsidizing them?


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 04:58
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Its called Satire and I worked with UN and found them to be outdated, overpaid politically incorrect Muppets.
Parrot have you read the Paris Agreement? Here is a brief summary.
https://climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/20151228%20COP%2021%20briefing%20FIN.pdf
17-09-2018 07:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Kirkieb wrote:
Its called Satire and I worked with UN and found them to be outdated, overpaid politically incorrect Muppets.
Parrot have you read the Paris Agreement? Here is a brief summary.
https://climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/20151228%20COP%2021%20briefing%20FIN.pdf


Yeah, I read it. It's useless. It depends on measurements that are not possible to conduct. It's whole design is to support Marxism. Trump did the right thing to pull out of it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-09-2018 07:13




Join the debate What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?2915-11-2018 02:19
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?4006-09-2018 18:07
Poseidon Foundation - offeset carbon footprints emissions using blockchain001-08-2018 16:54
CO2 is an acid--so, what's the problem?2011-07-2018 18:16
After 100 years with ExxonMobil... 20 African countries no better off today1123-06-2018 18:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact