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
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
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
★★★★★
(3260)
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
★★★★★
(5019)
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
★★★★★
(3260)
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
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
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
★★★★★
(5019)
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
★★★★★
(5019)
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
★★★★★
(3260)
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?




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
Analysis of Emissions2518-04-2018 19:54
How does atmospheric thermal equilibration happen?1001-03-2018 10:46
Calculating the surface temperature of the moon2015-02-2018 23:51
Clouds and temperature3601-02-2018 19:48
TEMPERATURE DATA released for 20171127-01-2018 22:56
▲ 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