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

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?

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.

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

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.

marko wrote:
All this nosense about Ice Melting is nonsense....I just checked the ice bucket in my Limo and its full as always.........

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.

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.

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.

Kirkieb wrote:
So what can we do to filter the 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.

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.

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