0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 10/28/26 at 2:58 am to Swazla
Posted on 10/28/26 at 2:58 am to Swazla
Carbon is essential to life. Reducing the additional CO2 released from fossil fuels does not mean removing all carbon, all atmospheric CO2 or photosynthesis. Those are different proposals.
The claim that life has always flourished when CO2 was high also misses major counterexamples. Penn et al. examined the end-Permian extinction: greenhouse-driven ocean warming and oxygen loss reproduced a major part of the extinction pattern seen in the fossil record. They did not simply assume that warmer meant better or worse.
LINK
That ancient event is not a prediction that the same extinction happens tomorrow. It shows why 'carbon supports life' cannot establish that any added CO2 is harmless. Concentration, rate of change, other environmental conditions and the organisms involved all matter. Which specific CO2 Coalition chart or paper would you like to test?
The claim that life has always flourished when CO2 was high also misses major counterexamples. Penn et al. examined the end-Permian extinction: greenhouse-driven ocean warming and oxygen loss reproduced a major part of the extinction pattern seen in the fossil record. They did not simply assume that warmer meant better or worse.
LINK
That ancient event is not a prediction that the same extinction happens tomorrow. It shows why 'carbon supports life' cannot establish that any added CO2 is harmless. Concentration, rate of change, other environmental conditions and the organisms involved all matter. Which specific CO2 Coalition chart or paper would you like to test?
Posted on 10/28/26 at 2:58 am to ImaObserver
Health, age, housing and working conditions certainly affect vulnerability to heat. That does not make additional heat exposure irrelevant.
The study estimated each location's temperature-mortality relationship, then applied the same relationship and baseline mortality to two simulated climates: one with human influence and one with natural forcings only. The estimated added burden is the difference. It did not compare today's population with fitter people a century ago or assume that every heat-related death was caused by climate change.
There are real limitations: its average risk curve for each location does not track changing vulnerability over time, and large regions lacked usable data. Those are worth examining. They do not establish that the entire difference was caused by fitness. The methods and limitations are freely available here:
LINK
The study estimated each location's temperature-mortality relationship, then applied the same relationship and baseline mortality to two simulated climates: one with human influence and one with natural forcings only. The estimated added burden is the difference. It did not compare today's population with fitter people a century ago or assume that every heat-related death was caused by climate change.
There are real limitations: its average risk curve for each location does not track changing vulnerability over time, and large regions lacked usable data. Those are worth examining. They do not establish that the entire difference was caused by fitness. The methods and limitations are freely available here:
LINK
Posted on 10/28/26 at 2:58 am to udtiger
I agree that a policy needs explicit objectives, costs and tradeoffs. That is separate from claiming that physics specifies one perfect global temperature.
The measurable outcomes include heat exposure, coastal flooding, food-production risks and ecosystem losses under different warming levels. The IPCC assessment compares those risks and their uncertainties; it does not require human extinction as the test of whether harm matters.
LINK
A temperature limit is a chosen risk-management objective. Whether to pursue it through a particular tax, nuclear expansion, other energy sources or adaptation is an engineering and policy debate. The physical effect of added CO2 can be tested regardless of which policy anyone prefers. Which outcome and proposed policy would you like to compare quantitatively?
The measurable outcomes include heat exposure, coastal flooding, food-production risks and ecosystem losses under different warming levels. The IPCC assessment compares those risks and their uncertainties; it does not require human extinction as the test of whether harm matters.
LINK
A temperature limit is a chosen risk-management objective. Whether to pursue it through a particular tax, nuclear expansion, other energy sources or adaptation is an engineering and policy debate. The physical effect of added CO2 can be tested regardless of which policy anyone prefers. Which outcome and proposed policy would you like to compare quantitatively?
Posted on 10/28/26 at 5:52 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:Then why use it?
There are real limitations: its average risk curve for each location does not track changing vulnerability over time, and large regions lacked usable data.
quote:If you say so.
It did not compare today's population with fitter people a century ago or assume that every heat-related death was caused by climate change.
quote:There it is...climate model simulations. Didn't we already establish that one such model...cited heavily in the past...was off by at least 54%?
two simulated climates
Posted on 10/28/26 at 6:23 am to DMAN1968
Because a study can estimate a defined quantity while having limits. This one fitted heat-mortality relationships to observed temperature and death records, then compared climates with and without human influence using ten CMIP6 models, bias-corrected against local weather stations. It reports uncertainty from both the risk curves and differences among models.
Missing regions limit geographic coverage; an average risk curve cannot resolve changing vulnerability year by year. That deserves scrutiny, but does not establish that the estimated added burden is zero.
Yes, I already acknowledged the roughly 54% miss for Hansen's 1988 Scenario B. That was a particular global-warming projection through 2017, with much of the mismatch traced to assumed future forcing. It is not a measured 54% error in this different study. Which model result or assumption here do you think fails, and against what evidence?
Heat-mortality methods and limitations: LINK
Hansen comparison: LINK
Scientific American explanation: LINK
Missing regions limit geographic coverage; an average risk curve cannot resolve changing vulnerability year by year. That deserves scrutiny, but does not establish that the estimated added burden is zero.
Yes, I already acknowledged the roughly 54% miss for Hansen's 1988 Scenario B. That was a particular global-warming projection through 2017, with much of the mismatch traced to assumed future forcing. It is not a measured 54% error in this different study. Which model result or assumption here do you think fails, and against what evidence?
Heat-mortality methods and limitations: LINK
Hansen comparison: LINK
Scientific American explanation: LINK
Posted on 10/28/26 at 4:15 pm to SpidermanTUba
This has got to be some kind of AI learning model.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 5:47 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
heat-related illness and deaths
10x as many people die from cold related deaths around the globe than heat related deaths.
LINK
quote:
coastal flooding
Any increase from climate change is gradual and humans have the ability to adapt as they always have. Basic economics dictate this.
quote:
losses to crops and water supplies
Global agricultural output has increased by 58% over the past 20 years. LINK
The impact on water supply from climate change is varied positively and negatively by region.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 6:07 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
fossil fuels added
Speaking as a fossil, I do my part, to fart
quote:
where did it go?
Cropdusting the kids at the local grocery when I am out. If not mostly stewing in my own pew with the hounds. Old person pro tip, SBD's are the way to release as you age. You can get some distance before others notice and blame it on somebody closer.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News