Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17
Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions.
|
You seem to be saying that since CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are so low, it can't be a problem. Yet, I showed you how a minuscule change in concentration can have drastic consequences. You blew that off because CO2 isn't a poison. It may not be a poison but it does help trap heat in the atmosphere. Therefore, any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will result in more heat being trapped in the atmosphere. I'm sure even you won't deny that.
And linking to an article by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about won't help your case. How do I know he doesn't know what he's talking about? "And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions." Really? CO2 in the atmosphere is typically talked about in terms of concentration in parts per million by volume (ppmv). CO2 emissions are typically talked about in tons per year. So he's saying, of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, humans cause a percentage of the tons per year of CO2 emissions. What does that even mean? It's just something that someone thinks sounds good. Nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17
let's say only the 31.8% is off the table, leaving 68.2% that could be reduced. That's 13.64 Parts Per Million.
|
More very bad math. If I understand what you're saying, you seem to be sticking with the 20 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're then taking that times a supposed 68.2% reductions in CO2 emissions and coming up with 13.64 ppm. Is that correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17
How aggressive would CO2 reduction need to be then? If we agree a 25% reduction (3.41 Parts Per Million, using our new number) is a drop in the bucket, would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% (7 PPM?) Would that do it? Or would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions more than 50%? Seriously, and I'd LOVE to have you respond to this - what percentage of our CO2 emissions need to be reduced in order to solve this perceived problem?
|
The Paris Climate Agreement's goal was limit CO2 emissions so that the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not cause a 2 degrees C temperature rise above the pre-industrial average temperature. The ultimate goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C. The plan was to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide by 20%. Yep, 20%. Each country was to come up with their own goals. The US pledged (and has since withdrawn) to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions to 17% of 2005 emission levels by 2020. We further pledged to reduce GHG emissions to 26-28% of 2005 emissions by 2025. From what I read, the pledges came up short and scientists thought the reduced CO2 emissions would result in a 2.5 or 2.7 C (I forget which) increase in the average world wide temperature.
And no, I don't agree with any of your math. Like the article you cite, you throw numbers around recklessly without regard to their units or to their relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17
Ridiculous analogy. CO2 is not a poison; quite the opposite. It is an inert gas required for all life. We exhale it with every breath. All green vegetation requires it, and therefore, all life, right up the food chain.
|
No, it was in response to you saying "reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.” Tiny numbers do matter. And in regard to your love of CO2 and how good it is, you do realize that it can kill you, right? It might take a concentration of about 10%, but it can kill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17
I am doing my best to use accurate information, math, and logical reasoning. As for the "science," I grew up at a time when scientists were warning about global cooling, so I know from experience they can be wrong. And the dozens, if not hundreds, of gloom and doom predictions that never came true reinforce this..
|
Go back and read an earlier post (I think around 49) where I address the highlighted myth.
Finally, some facts to chew on.
Consider the atmosphere like a bank. You put money in the bank, it will increase unless you take some out. We put CO2 in the atmosphere, it will increase unless some is taken out. And yes, some is taken out. It has been estimated that approximately 40% is taken up by plants, the oceans, etc. Therefore, of the estimated 36.1 GT emitted in 2017, 21.6 GT actually stayed in the atmosphere. It is still there today along with the 2018, 2019, 2016, 2015, etc emissions. Based on the weight of the atmosphere, 1 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to about 7.8 GT of CO2. So, the CO2 concentration increased 2.7 ppm based on net 2017 emissions (21.6 GT/(7.8 GT/ 1 ppm)). This is a little higher than the average ppm increase over the last decade, 2.3 ppm per year. So we're not off by much. So consider an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere of more than 2 ppm each and every year. Nothing to worry about?