The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

[Nimrod103]

First up, there isn't much evidence that the Earth is currently warming up such that ice melt is raising sea level. The longest sea level data series is from the UK (North Shields and Newlyn), and shows that sea levels have been rising slowly and steadily since the start of measurements in the 1890s. There is no sudden take off in the last 10-20 years. This steady rise has been attributed to the warming since the little ice age, and/or tectonic depression of NW Europe.

There is a supposition that a warming planet would lead to more desertification, when the opposite is likely to be the case. The Sahara was warmer 5-8000 years ago, and was much wetter. If India was warmer, the monsoon is likely become stronger and more dependable, making it easier to grow food.

I suspect that most of the present Govt action is aimed at PR for the upcoming Glasgow conference, where Boris and Biden will try to persuade India, China and the developing World to buy in to a reduction in carbon fuel use, by saying "Look what we plan to do". I suspect India, China and the developing World will tell the West to go forth and multiply. Embarassment all round, while Boris and Biden try to backtrack, and explain to their electorates why they alone should make sacrifices.

If the UK really is to go down the net zero route, I see no alternative but for most people to be too poor to heat their homes and drive around. I grew up in a house which was not centrally heated, and we never had a car, and I was OK. It will be like a return to Victorian times with a very uneven distribution of wealth. There will be little industry in the UK, because only China and india will have the economic advantages of cheap fuel, but we can all become employees of the state.

[NotSure]

It should maybe not be a surprise that e.g. Indians, with a median household income of $3,000/annum might consider that e.g. Americans, median household income of $43,000, are somewhat better placed to "make sacrifices"?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

[XFool]

There are two sides to the climate debate:

1) Admitting that climate change is real and something needs to be done.
2) Figuring out what the best solution is and implementing it.

Scientists had figured out 1) back in the 1970s, but it has taken 40 years for the majority of politicians to admit they might be right.
If it takes another 40 years for 2) to happen, taking us to 2060, that's going to be too late.

So flooding and other extreme weather events it is then.

I'm expecting the people who were so put out by a few Polish plumbers are going to be delighted when large parts of India and the entirety of Bangladesh arrive in a flotilla of small boats!

Quite so.

[XFool]

Back in the 1970s, the concern was about global cooling and the onset of peak oil.

I spent some time looking at ways in which coal could be used in industrial processes.

Concern with Global warming, renamed to Climate Change because there was less than the IPCC's hockey stick and Al Gore were predicting, really only began towards the end of the last century.

The climate does change, but there are forces more powerful than carbon dixide which affect it.

Oh dear! Sounds like all the standard 'Internet to go' denier claptrap...

(Now just remind us how it was "much hotter", or how there was "far more atmospheric CO2" x hundred million years ago. Next up it's usually "Milankovitch Cycles"...)

[Nimrod103]

It should maybe not be a surprise that e.g. Indians, with a median household income of $3,000/annum might consider that e.g. Americans, median household income of $43,000, are somewhat better placed to "make sacrifices"?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

I would have thought energy* use per capita is very much related to productivity per capita. The more productive can always say "Well, we earnt it". Unless carbon is rationed on a per capita basis?

* Mostly carbon derived energy

[tjh290633]

Back in the 1970s, the concern was about global cooling and the onset of peak oil.

I spent some time looking at ways in which coal could be used in industrial processes.

Concern with Global warming, renamed to Climate Change because there was less than the IPCC's hockey stick and Al Gore were predicting, really only began towards the end of the last century.

The climate does change, but there are forces more powerful than carbon dixide which affect it.

Oh dear! Sounds like all the standard 'Internet to go' denier claptrap...

(Now just remind us how it was "much hotter", or how there was "far more atmospheric CO2" x hundred million years ago. Next up it's usually "Milankovitch Cycles"...)

A predictable response from you. You might like to look at the infrared absorption spectra of water vapour and carbon dioxide, for a start.

TJH

[XFool]

Back in the 1970s, the concern was about global cooling and the onset of peak oil.

I spent some time looking at ways in which coal could be used in industrial processes.

Concern with Global warming, renamed to Climate Change because there was less than the IPCC's hockey stick and Al Gore were predicting, really only began towards the end of the last century.

The climate does change, but there are forces more powerful than carbon dixide which affect it.

Oh dear! Sounds like all the standard 'Internet to go' denier claptrap...

(Now just remind us how it was "much hotter", or how there was "far more atmospheric CO2" x hundred million years ago. Next up it's usually "Milankovitch Cycles"...)

A predictable response from you.

Yes! And, sad to say, just as predictable a response from yourself.

You might like to look at the infrared absorption spectra of water vapour and carbon dioxide, for a start.

Presumably because it would show H2O is a powerful "greenhouse gas"?

Gosh! Who knew? (Apart from just about everyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the subject...)

Remind us:

How much new H2O are we introducing to the atmosphere these days?*
How much new CO2 are we introducing to the atmosphere these days?

* And let's just ignore that, at the temperature of the earth's surface, CO2 only exists naturally as a gas, whereas H2O exists as vapour, liquid & solid. Plus the amount of H2O that exists as vapor is itself very dependent on the temperature at the earth's surface/atmosphere (complicated!)

But we've been in exactly this place before, haven't we? Which is a point all by itself... Reality & science move on. Denial, like a religious cult, stays exactly in the same place. (See above)

To whom it may concern: https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

[Lootman]

It should maybe not be a surprise that e.g. Indians, with a median household income of $3,000/annum might consider that e.g. Americans, median household income of $43,000, are somewhat better placed to "make sacrifices"?

Indians can consider what they want, but the US will only cut back on consumption if American voters agree. I am fairly confident that a majority will not and I cannot see any politicians getting elected there (or here) on a platform of significantly lowering peoples' standard of living.

[tjh290633]

Remind us:

How much new H2O are we introducing to the atmosphere these days?*
How much new CO2 are we introducing to the atmosphere these days?

For every molecule of natural gas that is burnt, you get one molecule of CO2 and two of water. CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 +2H2O

For every molecule of oil that is burnt, you get approximately one of each. 2CH2 + 3O2 = 2CO2 + 2H2O.

Are you reminded of your chemistry now?

TJH

[NotSure]

It should maybe not be a surprise that e.g. Indians, with a median household income of $3,000/annum might consider that e.g. Americans, median household income of $43,000, are somewhat better placed to "make sacrifices"?

Indians can consider what they want, but the US will only cut back on consumption if American voters agree. I am fairly confident that a majority will not and I cannot see any politicians getting elected there (or here) on a platform of significantly lowering peoples' standard of living.

Absolutely. Yet many seem to believe the already impoverished developing economies are the ones that should be reducing their standard of living still further - that climate change is their 'fault' and it's OK that 'we' in the West need do nothing (though not necessarily yourself - my quoted comment above was in response to an earlier post).

Edit: I am merely trying to say that it is unlikley the developing world are going to accept a 'solution' that means they remain locked at or below their current standard of living while we perpetuate our own.

[scrumpyjack]

It should maybe not be a surprise that e.g. Indians, with a median household income of $3,000/annum might consider that e.g. Americans, median household income of $43,000, are somewhat better placed to "make sacrifices"?

Indians can consider what they want, but the US will only cut back on consumption if American voters agree. I am fairly confident that a majority will not and I cannot see any politicians getting elected there (or here) on a platform of significantly lowering peoples' standard of living.

Quite, one plan might be to take a leaf out of Putin's book. Move 60,000 US personnel to their air base in Greenland, then declare that a majority of the people in Greenland want to be part of the US and declare it US territory. (Blinken has said they no longer want to buy Greenland)

Then as the US becomes increasingly uninhabitable they can move to Greenland

[XFool]

Remind us:

How much new H2O are we introducing to the atmosphere these days?*
How much new CO2 are we introducing to the atmosphere these days?

For every molecule of natural gas that is burnt, you get one molecule of CO2 and two of water. CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 +2H2O

For every molecule of oil that is burnt, you get approximately one of each. 2CH2 + 3O2 = 2CO2 + 2H2O.

And, at the temperatures on planet Earth, all that CO2 exists as a gas in the atmosphere. Whither H2O?
I remain unaware that, at the temperatures on planet Earth, H2O can only exists in the vapour phase. AFAIK, so does everybody else...
(Perhaps it never rains on Denier World?)

Plus: Exactly how much water exists in the atmosphere as vapour is itself very dependent on the temperature - as I feel sure you know.
Plus: Clouds.

As I said previously - "Complicated!"

But we are, yet again, merely going round in circles, while staying in exactly the same place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water#Water_and_planetary_habitability

[Midsmartin]

A predictable response from you. You might like to look at the infrared absorption spectra of water vapour and carbon dioxide, for a start.


---

I believe that the important point is that water vapour exists in the atmosphere for a very short time before falling as rain/snow, whereas co2 has a half life measured in decades. Consequently water vapour cannot drive an increase in long term temperature, but can respond to the effects of changes in co2. This stuff has been studied for many decades. It's not as though climate scientists have never thought to look at water vapour.

[XFool]

It's not as though climate scientists have never thought to look at water vapour.

Or any of the other 'usual suspects' that are forever shuffled forward, over and over again...

[Nimrod103]

It's not as though climate scientists have never thought to look at water vapour.

Or any of the other 'usual suspects' that are forever shuffled forward, over and over again...

How do you explain the sea level data? Sea level appears not to have changed based on the longest and most reliable data series.

[XFool]

How do you explain the sea level data? Sea level appears not to have changed based on the longest and most reliable data series.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

[Sorcery]

A predictable response from you. You might like to look at the infrared absorption spectra of water vapour and carbon dioxide, for a start.


---

I believe that the important point is that water vapour exists in the atmosphere for a very short time before falling as rain/snow, whereas co2 has a half life measured in decades. Consequently water vapour cannot drive an increase in long term temperature, but can respond to the effects of changes in co2. This stuff has been studied for many decades. It's not as though climate scientists have never thought to look at water vapour.

Not strictly true re residency of C02 in the atmosphere, Henry's law describes the process by which CO2 is forced into the ocean due to higher partial pressure in the atmosphere. A lot of CO2 already produced has dissolved into the ocean where it fairly instantly disassociates into various ions including bicarbonate which helps create a buffer.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2009.0349

The oceans are huge reservoirs of CO2 already, increasing them further with C02 is not likely to harm them, the ocean has a pH of 6.1, it has not changed by very much since industrialisation.

In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to human actions. During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units.1 Apr 2020

Once dissolved it get's locked up by diatoms, shellfish and other animals into calcium carbonate which "rains" onto the sea floor and ultimately gets locked up as rock.

It would be interesting to look at a graphs of anthropogenic CO2 produced over the years, versus CO2 concentrations in the air., except I can't find one at the moment!

Previous estimates have the oceans absorbing 2 gigatons of C02 per year, this suggests it might be more :
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post- ... ly-thought
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-o ... ore-carbon

Note I am motivated to write this because I don't think more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to be as bad as some greens think. If we can take the "climate emergency" away we may find we have the time and technology we need to stop producing so much of it. It's not as mad or bad as thinking we can get reliable electricity from wind.

[XFool]

...All very well, however that buffer has not prevented the continued measured rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, has it?

[Nimrod103]

How do you explain the sea level data? Sea level appears not to have changed based on the longest and most reliable data series.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

I only scan read this, but it seems to ignore the North Shields and Newlyn data, presumably because that data doesn't fit with their preconceived conclusion.

[Midsmartin]

Nimrod, I'm no expert on sea level measurements, so I Googled the two places you mention. It appears that UK sea levels were rising at 1.4mm a year for a period when the global average was found to be 1.7mm per year.

Seems pretty much in agreement given that sea level may rise by different amounts in different parts of the world. And that variation means that wet should use global measurements, not just one or two locations.

https://www.ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends

So I'm unsure what it is about the data that your referring to? Am I missing something?