how much carbon pollution was emitted from buildings and vehicles set on fire by leftwing rioters last yr ?

[yidnar]

with all the talk of carbon emissions why hasnt environmentalists commented on the carbon emitted by rioters that burned down city blocks and set hundreds of vehicles in total on fire ? Protesters set nearly 100 vehicles on fire at Kenosha dealership

 

[Old Rocks]

with all the talk of carbon emissions why hasnt environmentalists commented on the carbon emitted by rioters that burned down city blocks and set hundreds of vehicles in total on fire ? Protesters set nearly 100 vehicles on fire at Kenosha dealership

Now that is a pretty damned stupid post. Given the fires around the world in 2020, the fires set in the riots do not even register. Australia burned a huge area, as did areas in Europe and Canada, and the Nordic nations. Siberia burned a huge area, also. And this number is just for the fires in California up to September of last year;

"It’s estimated that the 2020 California wildfires have already generated more than 91 million metric tons of CO2, according to data from the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED). That’s about 25% more than annual emissions from fossil fuels in the state, Niels Andela, an atmospheric scientist from Cardiff University in the U.K., told Mongabay."

‘Off the chart’: CO2 from California fires dwarf state’s fossil fuel emissions

California is burning with a ferocity never seen before in the Golden State. So far this year, fires have burned through more than 1.4 million hectares (3.4 million acres) of land — about half the size of Belgium — according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. What’s...

news.mongabay.com

 

[BlindBoo]

Depends on what is being burned. Probably a negligible amount

Now that is a pretty damned stupid post. Given the fires around the world in 2020, the fires set in the riots do not even register. Australia burned a huge area, as did areas in Europe and Canada, and the Nordic nations. Siberia burned a huge area, also. And this number is just for the fires in California up to September of last year;

"It’s estimated that the 2020 California wildfires have already generated more than 91 million metric tons of CO2, according to data from the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED). That’s about 25% more than annual emissions from fossil fuels in the state, Niels Andela, an atmospheric scientist from Cardiff University in the U.K., told Mongabay."

‘Off the chart’: CO2 from California fires dwarf state’s fossil fuel emissions

California is burning with a ferocity never seen before in the Golden State. So far this year, fires have burned through more than 1.4 million hectares (3.4 million acres) of land — about half the size of Belgium — according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. What’s...

news.mongabay.com

The trees of the forest are part of the natural carbon cycle. Their burning releases the carbon they pulled out of the atmosphere during their lifetime. Unlike the sequestered carbon release when we burn fossil fuels

 

[Sunsettommy]

Depends on what is being burned. Probably a negligible amount


The trees of the forest are part of the natural carbon cycle. Their burning releases the carbon they pulled out of the atmosphere during their lifetime. Unlike the sequestered carbon release when we burn fossil fuels

The forests of millions of years ago pulled a massive amount of CO2 from the air too, burning releases it today.

The difference is that you have a dumb ideology to defend because you are a science illiterate and a leftist lackey.....

 

[yidnar]

Now that is a pretty damned stupid post. Given the fires around the world in 2020, the fires set in the riots do not even register. Australia burned a huge area, as did areas in Europe and Canada, and the Nordic nations. Siberia burned a huge area, also. And this number is just for the fires in California up to September of last year;

"It’s estimated that the 2020 California wildfires have already generated more than 91 million metric tons of CO2, according to data from the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED). That’s about 25% more than annual emissions from fossil fuels in the state, Niels Andela, an atmospheric scientist from Cardiff University in the U.K., told Mongabay."

‘Off the chart’: CO2 from California fires dwarf state’s fossil fuel emissions

California is burning with a ferocity never seen before in the Golden State. So far this year, fires have burned through more than 1.4 million hectares (3.4 million acres) of land — about half the size of Belgium — according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. What’s...

news.mongabay.com

carbon is carbon commie !

 

[BlindBoo]

The forests of millions of years ago pulled a massive amount of CO2 from the air too, burning releases it today.

The difference is that you have a dumb ideology to defend because you are a science illiterate and a leftist lackey.....

Somebody piss in you post tosties again today?

Yes burning the sequester CO2 from million of years ago is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the current era.

Those burning forests don't release any sequester carbon from millions of years ago. Only the carbon stored in it's lifetime.

What exactly are you trying to say, besides those lame insults?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Somebody piss in you post tosties again today?

Yes burning the sequester CO2 from million of years ago is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the current era.

Those burning forests don't release any sequester carbon from millions of years ago. Only the carbon stored in it's lifetime.

What exactly are you trying to say, besides those lame insults?

Because the CO2 of millions of years ago are the same as the CO2 of today, really you didn't know that?

 

[Old Rocks]

Because the CO2 of millions of years ago are the same as the CO2 of today, really you didn't know that?

And just what the hell is that supposed to mean? CO2 is a GHG, and it did millions of years ago exactly what it does today. Increase it, and you have a warmer earth, decrease it, a cooler earth. We have seen evidence of that in the geological record.

 

[Old Rocks]

carbon is carbon commie !

Stupid is stupid, dumb fuck. The amount of GHG's in the atmosphere determines the warmth in the atmosphere. And the riots of last summer did not contribute enough even to make a blip in the total amount we humans put into the atmosphere in 2020.

 

[BlindBoo]

Because the CO2 of millions of years ago are the same as the CO2 of today, really you didn't know that?

The ratio of Carbon isotopes is measurably different in the millions of years old hydrocarbons than the CO recently absorbed from the atmosphere by living things.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The ratio of Carbon isotopes is measurably different in the millions of years old hydrocarbons than the CO recently absorbed from the atmosphere by living things.

Ha ha, which is irrelevant since they have the same IR absorbing properties.

I have yet to see you and rock head realize that the change in warm forcing of additional CO2 since 1880 is very small and subject to a logarithmic decline of increasing warm forcing effect.

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide​

I recast Willis’ first graph as a bar chart to make the concept easier to understand to the layman:

Since CO2 only absorbs around 5-6% of the OLWR, it doesn't change the "heat" budget much at all. CERES shows increasing flow of OLWR as the world warms up is an indication that additional CO2 isn't stopping the increased outflow.

and this recent lack of CO2 to temperature relationship,

This is 101 stuff that even most warmist scientists agree on, their worry is the postulated POSITIVE feedback loop, which isn't showing up.

No evidence that CO2 is driving climate changes, you need to drop this delusion.

 

[BlindBoo]

carbon is carbon commie !

Carbon Commies huh?

Ha ha, which is irrelevant since they have the same IR absorbing properties.

I have yet to see you and rock head realize that the change in warm forcing of additional CO2 since 1880 is very small and subject to a logarithmic decline of increasing warm forcing effect.

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide​

View attachment 515889

I recast Willis’ first graph as a bar chart to make the concept easier to understand to the layman:

View attachment 515890

Since CO2 only absorbs around 5-6% of the OLWR, it doesn't change the "heat" budget much at all. CERES shows increasing flow of OLWR as the world warms up is an indication that additional CO2 isn't stopping it.

View attachment 515894
and this recent lack of CO2 to temperature relationship,

View attachment 515895

This is 101 stuff that even most warmist scientists agree on, their worry is the postulated POSITIVE feedback loop, which isn't showing up.

No evidence that CO2 is driving climate changes, you need to drop this delusion.

The million years old carbon is different and it is important for at least two reasons. We can measure the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by our fuel use and since the C14 ratio is what has changed in the C that life absorbs, it is another world wide marker that will show in the geologic record for this age.

I doubt we'll see the climate change due to the small amount of warning we've added. I doubt we'll see a change in the weather patterns either.

But please, keep marching to your own drummer......

 

[Sunsettommy]

Carbon Commies huh?


The million years old carbon is different and it is important for at least two reasons. We can measure the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by our fuel use and since the C14 ratio is what has changed in the C that life absorbs, it is another world wide marker that will show in the geologic record for this age.

I doubt we'll see the climate change due to the small amount of warning we've added. I doubt we'll see a change in the weather patterns either.

But please, keep marching to your own drummer......

Where have I disputed that mankind adds CO2 into the atmosphere?

Take your time finding that quote.....

 

[BlindBoo]

Where have I disputed that mankind adds CO2 into the atmosphere?

I give up, without even looking, because I never said that you did.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I give up, without even looking, because I never said that you did.

Then why did you go into that C14 marker diatribe?

The fact remains that CO2 molecules of millions of years ago are exactly the same as CO2 molecules today.

Which you never disputed, but you then dragged in that silly C14 stuff when I never disputed mankind's emissions of the overrated gas in the first place.

Meanwhile you completely ignored the very small role CO2 has on the heat budget evidence.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And just what the hell is that supposed to mean? CO2 is a GHG, and it did millions of years ago exactly what it does today. Increase it, and you have a warmer earth, decrease it, a cooler earth. We have seen evidence of that in the geological record.

Ohh you are really stupid today since I never disputed that CO2 absorbs IR or that humans emit it into the atmosphere, never disputed that is has a small warm forcing effect either

You sure have a terrible memory of my many posting affirming all this reality here in the forum.

I was responding to this statement:

The trees of the forest are part of the natural carbon cycle. Their burning releases the carbon they pulled out of the atmosphere during their lifetime. Unlike the sequestered carbon release when we burn fossil fuels

I replied with this:

"The forests of millions of years ago pulled a massive amount of CO2 from the air too, burning releases it today."

CO2 emission is always natural since it actually happens, but we emit only around 3% of the yearly total in various ways.

Your stupidity never ceases to entertain.

 

[BlindBoo]

Then why did you go into that C14 marker diatribe?

The fact remains that CO2 molecules of millions of years ago are exactly the same as CO2 molecules today.

Which you never disputed, but you then dragged in that silly C14 stuff when I never disputed mankind's emissions of the overrated gas in the first place.

Meanwhile you completely ignored the very small role CO2 has on the heat budget evidence.

They're not the same. The C14 isotope ratio is different.

You can say I ignore whatever you want, but if you don't actually read what I type your point is lost.

"I doubt we'll see the climate change due to the small amount of warning we've added."