|Burning Trees (carbon neutral) and the IPCC14-01-2020 17:35|
|This is interesting because when searching, I cannot find where the IPCC itself takes a position on burning trees as being carbon neutral. The IPCC should be saying how much this will increase CO2 levels in our atmosphere and how that as well as burning the Amazon will make things worse. But amazingly they aren't.|
Is the IPCC or climate scientists able to create a model that would show that decreasing a carbon sink while increasing CO2 levels will increase the impact that it could have on global warming?
UN and policymakers, wake up! Burning trees for energy is not carbon neutral (commentary)
There is a reason why they might not be saying how such activities could impact global warming. It's because of what is contained in their 2013 climate report.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
It's possible that the IPCC actually agrees with stratospheric ozone as having a greater impact on warming/cooling of our planet than CO2 does. What I wonder is if people would be against innovation and renewable energy if we could just pollute our planet as much as possible with no care for quality of life, clean air, etc.
What most people do not like to consider is sustainability. When I posted in a desalination forum, I had to point out to some guys who lived in Egypt that it was their ancestors who built the pyramids. And then I asked them, what will Egypt be like in another 4,000 years.
James___ wrote: The IPCC should be saying how much this will increase CO2 levels in our atmosphere and how that as well as burning the Amazon will make things worse.
Nope. The IPCC should be saying how much the earth's average global temperature will rise (permanently) by burning 1,000,000 Kg of lumber ... you know ... pinning themselves down on the "settled science" they claim to be using.
But amazingly they aren't. The IPCC knows that the game would be over the moment they try. There is no science of the religion of Global Warming.
James___ wrote: UN and policymakers, wake up! Burning trees for energy is not carbon neutral (commentary)
... but it is obviously average global temperature-neutral. You know as well as I do why warmizombies don't want to go there.
James___ wrote: There is a reason why they might not be saying how such activities could impact global warming.
James___ wrote: It's because of what is contained in their 2013 climate report.
Nope. It's reality that is getting in the way.
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
|Trees aren't fossil fuels. Man made CO2, only comes from burning fossil fuels. Trees are natural, so burning them is natural CO2, which has no greenhouse effect. The only way we can prevent global warming, is to stop burning fossil fuels, within the next 12 years.|
Why don't you go to one of the man made CO2 monitoring websites, and look up the CO2 readings before the Aussie fires, and subtract that from the most recent? Well, maybe a week or two ago, since we got a volcano blowing right now, near Manila. Nature is really screwing up the CO2 reduction plans, the past 12 months or so.
Um, because as the area in Australia greens again, it will absorb the CO2 that it released. If most of what's burning are eucalyptus trees, it's their natural cycle. Can't factor that in because it'll grow back and then burn again and then grow back and then burn again. That's what helps those trees to drop their seeds. Without fires, then no new eucalyptus trees.
|Nature stops humans burning fossil fuel||1||01-05-2020 19:13|
|uniting nations - IPCC TABLES||13||14-03-2020 07:20|
|Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o||2||03-03-2020 02:17|
|Carbon-tax comes to the Northeast, some states reluctant...||3||28-01-2020 04:00|
|Challenges with making carbon emitting sustainable?||9||27-12-2019 06:58|