US carbon emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years

[skookerasbil]

What Im saying is.........the people in the religion don't get that you don't go to the proctologist to remove a cancer in your forehead!!

 

[xyz]

In 2013 the US emitted 5.8 billion tons of CO2. This is 15% of the world's 39.8 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Based on the last 12 years, the US has been decreasing their CO2 emissions by 0.03 billion tons per year. At this rate, by the year 2030, the US's CO2 emissions will fall to 5.2 billion tons of CO2 per year.

In 2013 China emitted 11 billion tons of CO2. This is 41.5% of the world's 39.8 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Based on the last 12 years, the ROW is increasing their CO2 emissions by 0.5 billion tons per year. At this rate, by the year 2030, the ROW CO2 emissions will be 21.2 billion tons of CO2 per year.

So you have a math degree from Trump University?

Say the US pollutes twice as much, 5.8 billion times 2 equals 11.6 billion tons of CO2. 15% times 2 equals 30%.

How is it that the US can theoretically pollute more than China and still have a lower percentage of it at the same time?

LOL.......nobody cares about your ghey math s0n!!!






ps.....Obama EIA graph displays the exact same thing......will post upon request

 

[ding]

In 2013 the US emitted 5.8 billion tons of CO2. This is 15% of the world's 39.8 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Based on the last 12 years, the US has been decreasing their CO2 emissions by 0.03 billion tons per year. At this rate, by the year 2030, the US's CO2 emissions will fall to 5.2 billion tons of CO2 per year.

In 2013 China emitted 11 billion tons of CO2. This is 41.5% of the world's 39.8 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Based on the last 12 years, the ROW is increasing their CO2 emissions by 0.5 billion tons per year. At this rate, by the year 2030, the ROW CO2 emissions will be 21.2 billion tons of CO2 per year.

So you have a math degree from Trump University?

Say the US pollutes twice as much, 5.8 billion times 2 equals 11.6 billion tons of CO2. 15% times 2 equals 30%.

How is it that the US can theoretically pollute more than China and still have a lower percentage of it at the same time?

LOL.......nobody cares about your ghey math s0n!!!






ps.....Obama EIA graph displays the exact same thing......will post upon request

I see, so then you believe America is the problem, right?

Not sure what you mean?

Of that I am certain.

 

[Crick]

You've still not explained your point. What do you think the US should be doing in this regard?

I can answer that just as soon as you admit that you were wrong about the geologic timing of bipolar glaciation which BTW had no effect on what I was discussing which is why you wouldn't answer what you agreed with. At this point you can't even claim intellectual dishonesty because you have no intellect.

You know, we most likely agree on most things. But not everything. That leads to me occasionally telling you you're wrong (and vice versa). Bipolar glaciation does not exist at present. Bipolar glaciation was rare, but still more common than you contended. That you believe attacking me personally is the appropriate response to such an exchange doesn't speak well for your... fill in the blank.

 

[ding]

That you believe attacking me personally is the appropriate response to such an exchange doesn't speak well for your... fill in the blank.

I have not attacked you personally at all. I have attacked your behaviors. Those are two different things. You are still rationalizing your incompetence and dishonesty. Let me address your latest rationalization and then I will spell out your incompetence and dishonesty.

You know, we most likely agree on most things. But not everything. That leads to me occasionally telling you you're wrong (and vice versa). Bipolar glaciation does not exist at present.

No. I don't think we do agree on most things. Bipolar glaciation does exist at present, we are presently not in a glacial cycle, but there are still glaciers in the northern hemisphere today. They just aren't extensive as they are in a glacial cycle. 12,000 years ago the Great Lakes were formed when the glacier retreated. At that time New York was under 1000 ft of ice.

So what if we do not have extensive glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere today. We aren't supposed to, we are in an interglacial cycle. What does that have to do with bi-polar glaciation being rare and possibly unique. Nothing. There are no other known instance of bipolar glaciation recorded in the geologic record.

It is a very good thing we are not in a glacial cycle right now, because it would be very very bad for us if we were. The conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 5 million years still exists today.

Your latest argument is that because we are not in a glacial cycle today, then my point that bi-polar glaciation being rare and possibly unique doesn't matter. That is a stupid argument. The best way to understand future climate change is to study past climate change. So, yes, it really does matter.

Bipolar glaciation was rare, but still more common than you contended.

No. Bipolar glaciation is not common. It is rare and possibly unique. You obviously are not aware that the rarity of bipolar glaciation is the central thesis in that paper. If you were you would not have been arguing against it or still claiming that it more common. You are still being dishonest. What do you not understand about the conclusions of the paper below? The study concluded that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely. The study concluded that no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago. You were incompetent and you are being dishonest.

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

"For major bipolar glaciation to have occurred at Oi-1, CO2 would first have to cross the Antarctic glaciation threshold (,750 p.p.m.v.) and then fall more than 400 p.p.m.v. within ,200 kyr to reach the Northern Hemisphere threshold (Fig. 4). Increased sea ice and upwelling in the Southern Ocean 13,29 and falling sea level 14 could have acted as feedbacks accelerating CO2 drawdown at the time of Oi-1.This is supported by CO2 proxy records and carbon-cycle model results showing a drop in CO2 across the Eocene/Oligocene transition10,13,14, but none of these reconstructions reach the low levels required for Northern Hemisphere glaciation. We therefore conclude that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely, and Mg/Ca-based estimates of deep-sea temperatures across the boundary 5 are unreliable. Our findings lend support to the hypothesis that the 1-km deepening of the carbonate compensation depth and the associated carbonate ion effect on deep-water calcite mask a cooling signal in the Mg/Ca records 4,5. Therefore, the observed isotope shift at Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation 22 accompanied by 4.0 uC of cooling in the deep sea or slightly less (,3.3 uC) if there was additional ice growth on West Antarctica (see Methods and Supplementary Information). This explanation is in better agreement with sequence stratigraphic estimates of sea-level fall at Oi-1(70 620 m)19,20 equivalent to 70–120% of modern Antarctic ice volume, and coupled GCM/ice-sheet simulations showing 2–5 uC cooling and expanding sea ice in the Southern Ocean in response to Antarctic glaciation 29. Additional support for ocean cooling is provided by new records from Tanzania 16 and the Gulf of Mexico 15, where Mg/Ca temperature estimates show ,2.5 uC cooling in shallow, continental shelf settings during the first step of the Eocene/Oligocene transition.

In summary, our model results show that the Northern Hemisphere contained glaciers and small, isolated ice caps in high elevations through much of the Cenozoic, especially during favourable orbital periods (Fig. 3a–c). However, major continental-scale Northern Hemisphere glaciation at or before the Oi-1 event (33.6Myr) is unlikely, in keeping with recently published high-resolution Eocene no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago, pre-Pliocene records from subsequently glaciated high northern latitudes are generally lacking. More highly resolved CO2 records focusing on specific events, along with additional geological information from high northern latitudes, will help to unravel the Cenozoic evolution of the cryosphere. According to these results, this evolution may have included an episodic northern-hemispheric ice component for the past 23 million years."

*********************************************************************************************
Now, on to your intellectual dishonesty, I made several statements that you did not challenge. When I asked you if you agreed with them, you refused to agree or disagree. Why? Because you were behaving dishonestly. That's why.

When I showed you the error you made, instead of admitting your mistake, you doubled down on stupid and were dishonest. This could have all been avoided if you had just admitted your mistake.. I even gave you an opportunity to do so, but you chose poorly.

You've still not explained your point. What do you think the US should be doing in this regard?

I have answered your question in this thread. The point is the US is not the problem.

 

[Crick]

You've still not explained your point. What do you think the US should be doing in this regard?

I can answer that just as soon as you admit that you were wrong about the geologic timing of bipolar glaciation which BTW had no effect on what I was discussing which is why you wouldn't answer what you agreed with. At this point you can't even claim intellectual dishonesty because you have no intellect.

And why does it require you wait for me? Seems like a stall. Why have you still not answered this simple question?

You know, we most likely agree on most things. But not everything. That leads to me occasionally telling you you're wrong (and vice versa). Bipolar glaciation does not exist at present. Bipolar glaciation was rare, but still more common than you contended. That you believe attacking me personally is the appropriate response to such an exchange doesn't speak well for your... fill in the blank.

I have not attacked you personally at all. I have attacked your behaviors.

Really? Look up six lines. "At this point you can't even claim intellectual dishonesty because you have no intellect". So now you've chosen to lie.

You are still rationalizing your dishonesty.

I would like you to identify, specifically, where you believe I have lied. If you cannot, I would like a retraction and an apology.

Those are two different things. Let me address your latest rationalization and then I will spell out your errors exactly; behavioral and technical.

That's right we are not in a glacial cycle.

Then the very first line in your very first post that said "The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation"... was that an error or a lie? How about the fourth line that begins "The icehouse world we live in today..."? Did you learn something between writing that and this? Or did you know that was incorrect when you put it down?

The last one ended 12,000 years ago when the Great Lakes were formed and New York had a 1000 ft thick ice sheet on it. So what? What does that have to do with bi-polar glaciation being rare and possibly unique.There is no other instance of bipolar glaciation recorded in the geologic record.

It is an admission on your part that your previous statements were incorrect. When you spoke of a unique occurrence, you were talking about the present day. If there is no bipolar glaciation today (and there isn't), then, per your view, it's never happened at all.

It is a very good thing we are not in a glacial cycle right now, because it would be very very bad for us if we were. The reality is though that the conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 5 million years still exists today.

Of course. We're in an interglacial of the Quaternary or Pleistocene ice age.

Your latest argument is that because we are not in a glacial cycle today, then my point that bi-polar glaciation being rare and possibly unique doesn't matter.

You began this thread claiming that we were in a glacial period. That was obviously incorrect. I agree that bi-polar glaciation is rare. The abstract's conclusions of
"Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation" by DeConto, Pollard, Wilson, Pälike, Lear & Pagani clearly show that they are but clearly state that the Holocene may well have been a period of "episodic northern-hemispheric ice sheets have been possible some 20 million years earlier than currently assumed". So, I am convinced that "unique" is unsupportable.

That is the stupidest thing I have heard today.

Well, you're the only one that knows what you've heard today. And if you want to show us that the rarity of bipolar glaciation matters, you need to explain why. You have a bit of a habit of presenting a point as if it had some huge significance on some contemporary issue without ever identifying the issue or explaining the significance. I'm sorry but I get the impression that you leave these things unsaid because you think you're audience will be more impressed with you if you skip over those clay-filled steps necessary to make that last logical leap as if they were so obvious as to be beneath your obligation to discuss. I'm not impressed because I think there are gaps those leaps won't cross.

The reality is the best way to understand future climate change is to study past climate change. So, yes, it really does matter.

It has value, but that value is NOT setting limits on what is happening today. That human GHG emissions caused no greenhouse warming prior to the Industrial Revolution has ZERO bearing on the question of whether or not it is responsible for warming today. Zero.

Now, on to your intellectual dishonesty, I made several statements that you did not challenge. When I asked you if you agreed with them, you refused to agree or disagree. Why? Because you were behaving dishonestly. That's why.

So my not challenging you and not answering constitutes a lie? You owe all of us an apology. That's pathetic.

When I presented your error on what the link YOU posted was actually stating, instead of admitting your mistake, you doubled down on stupid and were dishonest. This could have all been avoided if you had just admitted your mistake and apologized for being a jerk. I even gave you an opportunity to do so, but you chose poorly.

I posted the entire abstract of that paper (see post #6). Reposting the same text doesn't show me to have made a mistake. I never challenged those statements. There was no dishonesty on my part but for someone to say they have not attacked me personally and then to turn around and call me a jerk seems more than a little dishonest to me.

I have answered your question in this thread. The point is the US is not the problem.

The question is what do you believe is the significance of your observation and what do you believe the US should do. You have answered neither of those questions.

 

[ding]

And why does it require you wait for me? Seems like a stall. Why have you still not answered this simple question?

I answered it post #6 and post#25 and now in post #27. The point of this thread is that we are not the problem. How many more times do I need to tell you this?

Really? Look up six lines. "At this point you can't even claim intellectual dishonesty because you have no intellect". So now you've chosen to lie.

So me saying and proving that you were incompetent and dishonest in your comments is attacking you? Please tell me how I should have said it so you would not see it as an attack.

I would like you to identify, specifically, where you believe I have lied. If you cannot, I would like a retraction and an apology.

You were incompetent in your analysis of the findings in the scientific paper titled, "Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation" And when confronted with your error, you were dishonest by not admitting your error. How many more times do I need to point this out to you?

Let's see... in post#10, 12 and 26 of this thread you claimed I had not told you what my point of this thread was, while I actually did in posts #6 and #25.

In post #26 of this thread you still refuse to admit the error you made from YOUR interpretation of the abstract of the scientific paper titled, "Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation" even after I presented portions of the actual paper which proved that the study concluded that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely and that no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago.

In post #26 you lied when you said I said we were in a glacial period when I have never said that.

You have shown the exact same incompetence and dishonesty in:

In your thread, "What the science says" after you had been shown the error you made in YOUR interpretation of the abstract of the scientific paper titled, "Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation" you tried to cover up your incompetence in posts #1415 and #1417 by lying that there was no current northern hemisphere glaciation. An argument that was an outright lie and dishonest in that it has no bearing on when the first known bipolar glaciation occurred.

In post #1420 you lied that I had not answered your fallacious argument, when in reality I proved that you did lie about there not being any northern hemisphere glaciation currently and provided extensive information on the conditions necessary for glaciation in my post of #1418 of the same thread.

In my thread, "The modern icehouse world we live in is geologically rare" you refused to admit the error you made from YOUR interpretation of the abstract of the scientific paper titled, "Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation" even after I presented portions of the actual paper which proved that the study concluded that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely and that no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago.

In that same thread you tried to cover up your incompetence in post #21 by lying that there was no current northern hemisphere glaciation. An argument that was an outright lie and dishonest in that it has no bearing on when the first known bipolar glaciation occurred. You did so after being shown the error that you made in YOUR interpretation of the abstract of the scientific paper titled, "Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation"

In post #25 of that same thread you lied when you said I said we were in a glacial period. When in post #24 I wrote, "We are in an interglacial cycle."

Then the very first line in your very first post that said "The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation"... was that an error or a lie? How about the fourth line that begins "The icehouse world we live in today..."? Did you learn something between writing that and this? Or did you know that was incorrect when you put it down?

We do live in an icehouse world and we do have bipolar glaciation. I've been to them. Google northern hemisphere glaciers. Your ignorance proves that you are incompetent on climate change. You still cannot seem to grasp the difference between extensive glaciation, glaciation and episodic ice sheets.

Well, you're the only one that knows what you've heard today. And if you want to show us that the rarity of bipolar glaciation matters, you need to explain why. You have a bit of a habit of presenting a point as if it had some huge significance on some contemporary issue without ever identifying the issue or explaining the significance. I'm sorry but I get the impression that you leave these things unsaid because you think you're audience will be more impressed with you if you skip over those clay-filled steps necessary to make that last logical leap as if they were so obvious as to be beneath your obligation to discuss. I'm not impressed because I think there are gaps those leaps won't cross.

In post #25 of this thread I explained why, "The best way to understand future climate change is to study past climate change. So, yes, it really does matter."

Of course. We're in an interglacial of the Quaternary or Pleistocene ice age.

Then you have no excuse for not knowing that there is northern hemisphere glaciation still today, or in expecting it to be extensive or in believing this was an argument against bipolar glaciation being rare and possibly unique. And since this was a direct answer to my statement that we are in an interglacial cycle, you have no excuse for lying that I said we are in a glacial cycle.

It has value, but that value is NOT setting limits on what is happening today. That human GHG emissions caused no greenhouse warming prior to the Industrial Revolution has ZERO bearing on the question of whether or not it is responsible for warming today. Zero.

You have clearly demonstrated that you have no idea of its value or that you even believed it had value. You are ignorant on this subject.

So my not challenging you and not answering constitutes a lie? You owe all of us an apology. That's pathetic.

No. Your laziness in only reading and abstract instead of the full paper coupled by your incompetence in understanding what you did read coupled with your dishonesty in failing to admit your mistake after it was proven to you beyond a shadow of doubt coupled with your dishonesty in attempting to cover up your mistake, coupled with you failure to acknowledge accepted beliefs in the climate community leads me to the conclusion that you incompetent and dishonest.

I posted the entire abstract of that paper (see post #6). Reposting the same text doesn't show me to have made a mistake. I never challenged those statements. There was no dishonesty on my part but for someone to say they have not attacked me personally and then to turn around and call me a jerk seems more than a little dishonest to me.

I posted the full paper and took the conclusions from the full paper. So now you have admitted that you never even looked at it. Here it is for like the 4th time.

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

See page 655. What do you have to say now?

The question is what do you believe is the significance of your observation and what do you believe the US should do. You have answered neither of those questions.

Let me know when you are ready to admit your mistake and apologize. Then we'll talk. Until then I have a promise that I made to you that I plan on keeping.

 

[Crick]

Your grasp of reality - ie what you and I have actually said and done here - is seriously flawed. You may take your 'discussion' and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[ding]

Your grasp of reality - ie what you and I have actually said and done here - is seriously flawed. You may take your 'discussion' and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

I wondered if you would double down on stupid and now I know.

You never knew I posted the full paper. Amazing. Simply amazing.

 

[Crick]

I refer to your accusations that I have lied and your contention that you have not attacked me personally.

You owe me an apology.

 

[ding]

I refer to your accusations that I have lied and your contention that you have not attacked me personally.

You owe me an apology.

I already addressed this. I did not make a personal attack. You did all of those things.

 

[skookerasbil]

In 2013 the US emitted 5.8 billion tons of CO2. This is 15% of the world's 39.8 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Based on the last 12 years, the US has been decreasing their CO2 emissions by 0.03 billion tons per year. At this rate, by the year 2030, the US's CO2 emissions will fall to 5.2 billion tons of CO2 per year.

In 2013 China emitted 11 billion tons of CO2. This is 41.5% of the world's 39.8 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Based on the last 12 years, the ROW is increasing their CO2 emissions by 0.5 billion tons per year. At this rate, by the year 2030, the ROW CO2 emissions will be 21.2 billion tons of CO2 per year.

So you have a math degree from Trump University?

Say the US pollutes twice as much, 5.8 billion times 2 equals 11.6 billion tons of CO2. 15% times 2 equals 30%.

How is it that the US can theoretically pollute more than China and still have a lower percentage of it at the same time?

LOL.......nobody cares about your ghey math s0n!!!






ps.....Obama EIA graph displays the exact same thing......will post upon request

But winning s0n...........the energy projection graph means the AGW contingent is ummmm........... not winning.. In other words...........the science is not mattering.

 

[skookerasbil]

I refer to your accusations that I have lied and your contention that you have not attacked me personally.

You owe me an apology.

I already addressed this. I did not make a personal attack. You did all of those things.

Ahhh.....listen......these AGW people are part of this Snowflake Generation......devastated by words. Wouldn't last a week in my field. I love the head explosions, embellishments and personal attacks in here. It reinforces everything Ive been saying about progressives for decades. Its all good.....in fact, Id be out of this forum in a heartbeat if I wasn't always making these people do public mental meltdowns.