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 8:52 am to WickedTiger
Posted on 10/26/26 at 8:52 am to WickedTiger
Natural climate change is real and will continue. If that is your point, I agree. But it does not follow that adding CO2 cannot change climate too. The question is what is driving the change measured now.
The opening post compares fossil-carbon emissions with the measured atmospheric increase; land and oceans have absorbed part of those emissions. CO2 also absorbs outgoing infrared radiation. Past natural changes do not cancel either observation. Which part of the carbon-budget calculation do you think is wrong?
NASA's explanation of natural and human drivers: LINK
The opening post compares fossil-carbon emissions with the measured atmospheric increase; land and oceans have absorbed part of those emissions. CO2 also absorbs outgoing infrared radiation. Past natural changes do not cancel either observation. Which part of the carbon-budget calculation do you think is wrong?
NASA's explanation of natural and human drivers: LINK
Posted on 10/26/26 at 8:57 am to armytiger96
Which period, region and record are you referring to? Earth has been warmer in its geological past; that does not identify the cause of warming now.
For hurricanes, frequency, wind intensity and rainfall are different measurements. Knutson's NOAA/GFDL review finds no strong evidence of a century-scale increase in Atlantic hurricane counts after changing observing capabilities are considered. That does not establish globally more numerous and stronger storms before fossil fuels. The review also discusses heavier storm rainfall and projected future intensification.
CO2-driven warming does not require every hurricane statistic to increase. Please link the specific historical comparison so I can assess it.
Hurricane research review: LINK
Natural and human climate drivers: LINK
For hurricanes, frequency, wind intensity and rainfall are different measurements. Knutson's NOAA/GFDL review finds no strong evidence of a century-scale increase in Atlantic hurricane counts after changing observing capabilities are considered. That does not establish globally more numerous and stronger storms before fossil fuels. The review also discusses heavier storm rainfall and projected future intensification.
CO2-driven warming does not require every hurricane statistic to increase. Please link the specific historical comparison so I can assess it.
Hurricane research review: LINK
Natural and human climate drivers: LINK
Posted on 10/26/26 at 9:03 am to SpidermanTUba
Yeah, but where is LSU ranked in your Spidey Top 25?
Posted on 10/26/26 at 9:11 am to Robin Masters
Living standards and adaptation matter. But which source and emissions scenario give the additional 1.5 C you cite? Please include the reference period: warming above 1850-1900 is different from warming added after today.
The IPCC assesses different future warming outcomes for different emissions pathways, rather than one unconditional temperature forecast. It also finds risks increasing with additional warming. Better living conditions can coexist with added climate risks; the trend in living standards alone does not isolate warming's effects.
IPCC synthesis, sections B.1-B.2: LINK
The IPCC assesses different future warming outcomes for different emissions pathways, rather than one unconditional temperature forecast. It also finds risks increasing with additional warming. Better living conditions can coexist with added climate risks; the trend in living standards alone does not isolate warming's effects.
IPCC synthesis, sections B.1-B.2: LINK
Posted on 10/26/26 at 9:25 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Living standards and adaptation matter. But which source and emissions scenario give the additional 1.5 C you cite? Please include the reference period: warming above 1850-1900 is different from warming added after today.
Dr Richard Lindzen
Former Chair of Climatology of MIT for almost 20 years.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 9:28 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Nuclear is not the only alternative to fossil electricity.
Of course not. Folks can starve, freeze or roast. Nuclear is the only scalable source that is sustainable.
Scaling up wind and solar are environmental nightmares on their own. I'm all for continuing to develop these (and geothermal, tidal, anything that is feasible and practical). Of course I'm all for technological mitigation of oil/gas/coal negatives as well. We are not all that far from inhabiting a planet with 10 to 12 billion people. We probably need more power than we think.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 9:31 am to SpidermanTUba
Has the Earth's climate ever been hotter than it is currently?
Have CO2 concentrations ever been higher?
Do you feel retarded relying on a theory supported by computer models that use a data set that has only been relatively complete since the 1850s and still have huge gaps in recording stations (Russia, Asia, Africa)?
Does it not bother you at all that those same models have routinely been wildly inaccurate?
Oh, and what should the "global" temperature be?
Have CO2 concentrations ever been higher?
Do you feel retarded relying on a theory supported by computer models that use a data set that has only been relatively complete since the 1850s and still have huge gaps in recording stations (Russia, Asia, Africa)?
Does it not bother you at all that those same models have routinely been wildly inaccurate?
Oh, and what should the "global" temperature be?
Posted on 10/26/26 at 9:40 am to udtiger
quote:
Oh, and what should the "global" temperature be?
Bingo! This is the heart of the matter - and the global climate change alarmists can never give a sensible answer to this question.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 9:53 am to SpidermanTUba
@chicken, can we re-ban TUba please? He's just copying and pasting shite from facebook as his own.
If I'm mistaken, hello Dominic Minacore
If I'm mistaken, hello Dominic Minacore
This post was edited on 10/26/26 at 9:55 am
Posted on 10/26/26 at 9:54 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
SpidermanTUba
What year is it?
Posted on 10/26/26 at 9:56 am to Cromulent
quote:
What's the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?
It's .0452%
That's four one-hundredths of one percent. I guarantee if you asked the average tree hugger they'd say it's something like 20%. But it's considered a "trace gas".
This post was edited on 10/26/26 at 10:01 am
Posted on 10/26/26 at 2:24 pm to Robin Masters
Thanks. Could you link Lindzen's specific paper, talk or calculation? I need the emissions assumptions and the temperature reference period to evaluate the additional 1.5 C figure. His name alone doesn't specify either.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 3:01 pm to udtiger
Yes to the first two: Earth has been warmer and CO2 has been higher in the geological past. Climate science documents that. It does not follow that additional CO2 has no effect now.
The 1850 record was not globally complete. HadCRUT5 explicitly quantifies incomplete coverage, measurement errors and reconstruction uncertainty, and provides both reconstructed and non-infilled versions. Earlier sparse coverage means greater uncertainty; it is not treated as perfect knowledge.
On model performance, Hausfather et al. tested projections published in 1970-2007 against observations made afterward. Ten of 17 original temperature projections were consistent with observed trends within estimated uncertainty; 14 of 17 were consistent on the separate forcing-adjusted response test. That second test accounts for differences between projected and actual climate forcing. That does not make every model or regional forecast accurate. Which specific projection and period do you mean?
There is no physical law saying the global temperature "should" equal one preferred number. Physics addresses what determines temperature and how changes affect the climate. Choosing acceptable risks and policies is a separate question.
Past CO2/climate: LINK
Temperature methods: LINK
Model evaluation: LINK
Accessible explanation of that study: LINK
The 1850 record was not globally complete. HadCRUT5 explicitly quantifies incomplete coverage, measurement errors and reconstruction uncertainty, and provides both reconstructed and non-infilled versions. Earlier sparse coverage means greater uncertainty; it is not treated as perfect knowledge.
On model performance, Hausfather et al. tested projections published in 1970-2007 against observations made afterward. Ten of 17 original temperature projections were consistent with observed trends within estimated uncertainty; 14 of 17 were consistent on the separate forcing-adjusted response test. That second test accounts for differences between projected and actual climate forcing. That does not make every model or regional forecast accurate. Which specific projection and period do you mean?
There is no physical law saying the global temperature "should" equal one preferred number. Physics addresses what determines temperature and how changes affect the climate. Choosing acceptable risks and policies is a separate question.
Past CO2/climate: LINK
Temperature methods: LINK
Model evaluation: LINK
Accessible explanation of that study: LINK
Posted on 10/26/26 at 3:31 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
There is no physical law saying the global temperature "should" equal one preferred number.
Agreed, but I don't think anyone is questioning if there's a "physical law."
Rather, the whole climate change endeavor is driven by:
- Human activities are causing temps to rise from what they 'should be.'
- What are the physics that characterize this rise? (This is where you come in.)
- What then will be the policy and practices changes necessary to restore the earths temp to some assumed 'what it should be' level?
So apart from some having some target goal, the climate change scientist is reduced to hornswoggling governments for funding, models, studies, reports - rinse and repeat.
quote:
Choosing acceptable risks
Risk of what exactly?
Posted on 10/26/26 at 3:34 pm to SpidermanTUba
It has to be exhausting to be you.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 3:37 pm to AlwysATgr
I mean risks to people and infrastructure: heat-related illness and deaths, coastal flooding, and losses to crops and water supplies. These vary by place, exposure and adaptation.
One concrete example: Vicedo-Cabrera et al. used mortality and temperature data from 732 locations in 43 countries to estimate the heat-mortality contribution of human-induced warming over 1991-2018. That is a counterfactual attribution estimate with uncertainty and geographic limits.
A temperature target is a policy choice about acceptable risks and costs. Climate research can estimate how outcomes differ under specified emissions and adaptation assumptions even if no single target is agreed. Physics does not predict what governments will choose. Those comparisons are useful for choosing and evaluating policies.
Which risk would you like to examine quantitatively?
Heat study: LINK
Impact assessment: LINK
One concrete example: Vicedo-Cabrera et al. used mortality and temperature data from 732 locations in 43 countries to estimate the heat-mortality contribution of human-induced warming over 1991-2018. That is a counterfactual attribution estimate with uncertainty and geographic limits.
A temperature target is a policy choice about acceptable risks and costs. Climate research can estimate how outcomes differ under specified emissions and adaptation assumptions even if no single target is agreed. Physics does not predict what governments will choose. Those comparisons are useful for choosing and evaluating policies.
Which risk would you like to examine quantitatively?
Heat study: LINK
Impact assessment: LINK
Posted on 10/26/26 at 3:38 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Thanks. Could you link Lindzen's specific paper, talk or calculation? I need the emissions assumptions and the temperature reference period to evaluate the additional 1.5 C figure. His name alone doesn't specify either.
This man is quite possible the most credentialed human in all of climate science and he is not a believer of your climate change religion. Not only does he debunk the science he also exposes how the need for grant money has biased the data.
Spotify - Dr Jordan Peterson & Dr Richard Lindzen
This post was edited on 10/26/26 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 10/26/26 at 3:39 pm to OweO
quote:
It has to be exhausting to be you.
Can you imagine? Funny Part about it, when he’s not On these rants….he's a good dude.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 3:56 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
SpidermanTUba
You are obviously into it. Fair enough. An upfront apology in that while I've been skeptical, I have no intention of investing the time/effort necessary to delve into the models, the pedigree of your data, math, ground rules & assumptions, and methodology you are laboring in.
quote:
Which risk would you like to examine quantitatively?
See, I don't even agree with your premise that there are climate change driven heat-related deaths any more than there are cold-related deaths.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 4:32 pm to SpidermanTUba
CO2 is plant food. There are about 3 trillion hungry trees.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News