0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How much CO2 have fossil fuels added - and where did it go? (science board)
Posted on 10/26/26 at 12:11 am to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 10/26/26 at 12:11 am to SpidermanTUba
Dont give a frick, i want more
GFY
GFY
Posted on 10/26/26 at 1:37 am to holmesbr
Burning releases some carbon as CO2; charring can leave some in a solid residue. A blackened steak has not pulled new CO2 out of the air. Its carbon came through the food chain. If the grill uses propane or natural gas, that fuel adds fossil carbon too. Net carbon removal would require lasting storage and a full accounting of the emissions.
EIA on biomass and fossil fuels; USDA on char and carbon storage.
EIA on biomass and fossil fuels; USDA on char and carbon storage.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 2:18 am to SpidermanTUba
Is more co2 causing the magnetic poles to wobble more in recent decades?
Might want to start looking from the bottom up, not top down. Makes way more sense.
Might want to start looking from the bottom up, not top down. Makes way more sense.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 4:04 am to SpidermanTUba
Thanks ChatGPT for writing this loons posts
Posted on 10/26/26 at 4:05 am to stuntman
quote:
Might want to start looking from the bottom up, not top down. Makes way more sense.
Middle out might be the answer.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 5:02 am to stuntman
Magnetic-pole drift is real, but I don't know of evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 drives it. NOAA explains that the main magnetic field changes as liquid iron flows in Earth's outer core. Magnetic poles are different from the geographic poles defined by Earth's rotation.
If you mean that magnetic changes cause the warming instead, NASA reviews that hypothesis and finds little evidence of a significant link between pole drift and climate. The carbon calculation in this thread is a separate test: how much carbon was emitted and where it accumulated.
NOAA: geomagnetism questions; NASA: magnetic changes and climate.
If you mean that magnetic changes cause the warming instead, NASA reviews that hypothesis and finds little evidence of a significant link between pole drift and climate. The carbon calculation in this thread is a separate test: how much carbon was emitted and where it accumulated.
NOAA: geomagnetism questions; NASA: magnetic changes and climate.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 5:13 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The study suggests that many of the models criticized in the past were accurately simulating the relationship between temperatures and greenhouse gases after all—it’s just that their assumptions about future carbon emissions didn’t match up with the emissions that were actually produced in the following years.
50 years later we can honestly say that had those models used the correct values...they would have been correct.
That's what it says.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 5:45 am to DMAN1968
Climate physics does not claim to predict which laws people will pass, fuels they will burn or technologies they will adopt. Those enter as scenario assumptions. You are right that testing the climate response after accounting for actual forcing is conditional; it does not establish that the emissions forecast succeeded.
But the paper reports both tests: 10 of 17 original temperature projections were consistent with observed trends within estimated uncertainty, before accounting for forcing mismatches. Evaluating the warming response relative to forcing gave 14 of 17. Neither result says every projection was correct. Predicting the response to a specified change in the energy budget is a different task from predicting future human choices.
Study: LINK
Scientific American explanation: LINK
But the paper reports both tests: 10 of 17 original temperature projections were consistent with observed trends within estimated uncertainty, before accounting for forcing mismatches. Evaluating the warming response relative to forcing gave 14 of 17. Neither result says every projection was correct. Predicting the response to a specified change in the energy budget is a different task from predicting future human choices.
Study: LINK
Scientific American explanation: LINK
Posted on 10/26/26 at 6:31 am to SpidermanTUba
So, are you for or against a Manhattan Project/Apollo Project level national (international?) commitment to producing massive quantities of electricity to meet current and future demands with nuclear power?
Because that is the only alternative to burning all the oil, gas (and, yes, eventually we will get around to burning the coal, too, if it comes to that) we can get to.
I know how you will answer, but it is a simple "for" or "against" question.
Because that is the only alternative to burning all the oil, gas (and, yes, eventually we will get around to burning the coal, too, if it comes to that) we can get to.
I know how you will answer, but it is a simple "for" or "against" question.
This post was edited on 10/26/26 at 6:32 am
Posted on 10/26/26 at 6:34 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
Earth is getting greener.
Which makes the "save the planet" loons position even more comical than it already was.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 6:36 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
SpidermanTUba
It’s been a while! How long did it take for you to write this tripe ?
The climate on Earth has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Absolutely nothing man has done or can do will change that.
Oh, and no more taxes.
By the way, did you win your case?
This post was edited on 10/26/26 at 6:45 am
Posted on 10/26/26 at 6:47 am to SpidermanTUba
Tuba, didn't read, downvoted.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:02 am to SpidermanTUba
And yet...One used in congressional testimony...the one the bastards made laws and changes around was wrong...at the time, June, 1988.
But hey...It would have been right had we put in the correct data. Hindsight and all that.
Do you see the point I am making?
quote:
H88 was featured prominently in congressional testimony, and the recent thirtieth anniversary of the event in 2018 focused considerable attention on the accuracy of the projection (Borenstein & Foster, 2018; United States. Cong. Senate, 1988). H88's “most plausible” Scenario B overestimated warming experienced subsequent to publication by around 54%
But hey...It would have been right had we put in the correct data. Hindsight and all that.
Do you see the point I am making?
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:02 am to Cycledude
quote:
Can’t you just take an air sample and measure the percentage of carbon dioxide? We know it’s higher than it used to be. We also know it’s a heat trapping gas, so it should result in increasing average temps, which it has. But I know this pisses people off to hear. Downvote all you want. IDC
We also know that temperatures were just as high and there were more hurricanes with higher intensity before we started to use Fossil Fuels. But I know people like you will ignore these facts to push your false narrative!
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:08 am to SpidermanTUba
How does this affect crawfish prices?
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:10 am to SpidermanTUba
You posting shite you ask AI is a bore
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:18 am to SpidermanTUba
Did you just post your thesis on TD...?
Posted on 10/26/26 at 8:40 am to DMAN1968
Yes. Scenario B overpredicted subsequent warming by about 54% in the study's comparison through 2017. That is a real miss in its calendar-year projection; I am not calling it a perfect forecast.
But Hansen published three atmospheric-composition scenarios in 1988. Those conditions were explicit then, not invented afterward. The paragraph you quote continues by identifying much of the mismatch in projected methane and halocarbon forcing. Separately testing the warming response relative to forcing helps diagnose that error; it does not erase the original miss or claim physics predicts future human choices.
Which specific law or change, and which quantitative premise used to justify it, do you mean? That would let me examine your policy criticism rather than guess.
Original 1988 paper: LINK
Validation study: LINK
Scientific American explanation: LINK
But Hansen published three atmospheric-composition scenarios in 1988. Those conditions were explicit then, not invented afterward. The paragraph you quote continues by identifying much of the mismatch in projected methane and halocarbon forcing. Separately testing the warming response relative to forcing helps diagnose that error; it does not erase the original miss or claim physics predicts future human choices.
Which specific law or change, and which quantitative premise used to justify it, do you mean? That would let me examine your policy criticism rather than guess.
Original 1988 paper: LINK
Validation study: LINK
Scientific American explanation: LINK
Posted on 10/26/26 at 8:49 am to Ace Midnight
Yes. I support expanding nuclear alongside other low-carbon sources, and I think it should have received more funding in recent years. But new nuclear is expensive, and its construction and financing costs need to come down. That is compatible with supporting it.
Nuclear is not the only alternative to fossil electricity. Here is Lazard's July 2026 new-build comparison, in dollars per MWh, not household retail prices. Each line shows without subsidies / with illustrated federal tax credits*:
U.S. nuclear: $175-255 / $129-228 (PTC)
Utility solar: $40-98 / $16-81 (PTC)
Solar + batteries: $61-156 / $43-135 (ITC)
Onshore wind: $37-99 / $11-81 (PTC)
Onshore wind + batteries: $49-140 / $35-118 (ITC)
Offshore wind: $105-167 / $77-150 (PTC)
Geothermal: $67-111 / $46-95 (ITC)
*The credit ranges span bonus-adder eligibility: the low endpoints include qualifying bonuses. PTC and ITC are production and investment credits, respectively; these are alternatives, not credits added together.
Lazard's nuclear range is based on Vogtle 3/4, not every country or existing reactors' operating costs. Its hybrid examples pair 100 MW of generation with a 50 MW/200 MWh battery: four-hour storage, not 24/7 firm output. LCOE does not include every grid cost or establish an optimal reliable mix.
Wind, solar and storage technologies are still developing, with continuing improvements in manufacturing and performance. The IEA reports battery prices falling 75% over the past decade and storage durations lengthening. That does not mean every project gets cheaper every year: Lazard's latest U.S. wind, solar and storage costs rose.
Which technologies to fund and build, on what schedule, are policy and engineering choices. They do not change the measured carbon budget or the physical properties of CO2. I can support nuclear and still accept that science.
Lazard, especially pages 7-8 and 27: LINK
IEA technology progress: LINK
IEA storage development: LINK
Nuclear is not the only alternative to fossil electricity. Here is Lazard's July 2026 new-build comparison, in dollars per MWh, not household retail prices. Each line shows without subsidies / with illustrated federal tax credits*:
U.S. nuclear: $175-255 / $129-228 (PTC)
Utility solar: $40-98 / $16-81 (PTC)
Solar + batteries: $61-156 / $43-135 (ITC)
Onshore wind: $37-99 / $11-81 (PTC)
Onshore wind + batteries: $49-140 / $35-118 (ITC)
Offshore wind: $105-167 / $77-150 (PTC)
Geothermal: $67-111 / $46-95 (ITC)
*The credit ranges span bonus-adder eligibility: the low endpoints include qualifying bonuses. PTC and ITC are production and investment credits, respectively; these are alternatives, not credits added together.
Lazard's nuclear range is based on Vogtle 3/4, not every country or existing reactors' operating costs. Its hybrid examples pair 100 MW of generation with a 50 MW/200 MWh battery: four-hour storage, not 24/7 firm output. LCOE does not include every grid cost or establish an optimal reliable mix.
Wind, solar and storage technologies are still developing, with continuing improvements in manufacturing and performance. The IEA reports battery prices falling 75% over the past decade and storage durations lengthening. That does not mean every project gets cheaper every year: Lazard's latest U.S. wind, solar and storage costs rose.
Which technologies to fund and build, on what schedule, are policy and engineering choices. They do not change the measured carbon budget or the physical properties of CO2. I can support nuclear and still accept that science.
Lazard, especially pages 7-8 and 27: LINK
IEA technology progress: LINK
IEA storage development: LINK
Posted on 10/26/26 at 8:51 am to SpidermanTUba
The earth has warmed 1.5C over the last 100 years during which time humanity has improved their living conditions to a level never seen before. It is predicted over the next 100 years temperatures will rise another 1.5C.
I think we’ll be fine.
I think we’ll be fine.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News