Here, have another shovel!
Oh, dang, there's no shovel icon. You might have to buy your own.
Look, we are currently adding 10 Gt of CARBON to the atmosphere every year. That is equivalent to 36.7 Gt of CO2. We have been adding at a steadily increasing rate for several decades now. By the end of the century, if we do nothing to curb CO2 emissions, we will have been adding at that rate for over a century, resulting in a doubling of CO2 concentration since preindustrial. 10 Gt CARBON per year for over a century is MORE than on a trillion tons of CARBON. And that's if we somehow manage to not increase the rate at which we add CARBON to the atmosphere, which has been steadily increasing. If you want that in terms of CO2, multiply by 3.67.Hillhater wrote: ↑Aug 02 2019 11:34am
Who is in the hole here ?
I notice you have now changed your ranting to CO2, from just Carbon..
And why dont you state that figure for remaining ANTHROPOGENIC carbon in the atmosphere if you are so familiar with it ?
You guys are handy with bullsh1t , but a bit shy on real answers !
Have you figured out how that “fridge” idea was going to chill the icecap yet ?
Nice avoidance bill..
Ahh ! So your “trillion “. has now become 600 Gt !,jimw1960 wrote: ↑Aug 02 2019 12:34pm...... Here is a 2016 paper on the subject (published in a peer reviewed science journal, unlike the stuff you come up with). https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/6 ... 5-2016.pdf
It says that as of 2016, cumulative CO2 emissions were already 565 Gt of CARBON (2075 GtCO2 if you prefer in terms of CO2--that's over 2 trillion tons of CO2!). So by end of this year, we will be over 600Gt CARBON. .....
I know the numbers jim, and i know how to read a study....... As for how much is still in the atmosphere, if you bother to read the paper, you will learn that an increase of 1 ppm CO2 = 2.12 Gt CARBON. We have added about 132 ppm to the atmosphere since preindustrial concentration. So, that adds up to 280 Gt CARBON still in the atmosphere due to human activity---.
Here is some basic math...
That would help! But like capturing landfill emissions, it's a lot of area with a small concentration of released gas. So lots of pipes and membranes for little gas.
It's amusing to watch you try but fail to understand science.
And they did land a lander there (Venera 13) and its descent rate matched the expected gravity. But only within about 1%! It could be 8.78m/s^2 or 8.96m/s^2! No one knows! There's NO PROOF!
Yah, but just one, that's not science. Haven't these NASA "scientists" ever heard of the scientific method? They need to send the exact same probe back to the exact same place with the exact same instruments, at the exact same time and measure the exact same rate of decent or it isn't repeatable. This isn't rocket science!
Its amusing to watch how far off topic you will go to in order to avoid answering a question and deflect attention from your shortcomings.
I give up on your ignorant ass. I've never met a mind so closed by a political world view. If you look at the context of my original post (not even talking to you) it was relating to what it would be like if humans had never discovered and used fossil fuels. My comment was just an off the cuff statement that the Earth would not have had a trillion of carbon added to the atmosphere. If you don't think we are on track to exceed a trillion tons of carbon added to the atmosphere before we stop using fossil fuels, then you sir are a fool. And if you somehow think that will be good for humanity, you are an even bigger fool. Anyway, respond all you want, but I'm done with your ignorance.
You've gone back to being a type 1 denier - "the climate isn't warming, stupid!" The reason you'll get laughed at isn't because scientists can prove you wrong - it's because anyone in the US can prove you wrong by their experiences over the last 30 years. Try telling someone in Barrow, Alaska that the climate's not getting warmer, as the lack of sea ice lets storms erode away their town.
It's amazing how he can't see his inconsistencies even when they are pointed out to him and the world is on fire all around him. He's probably also an anti-vaxxer and subscriber to a bunch of other conspiracy theories, like chemtrails.billvon wrote: ↑Aug 05 2019 11:54amYou've gone back to being a type 1 denier - "the climate isn't warming, stupid!" The reason you'll get laughed at isn't because scientists can prove you wrong - it's because anyone in the US can prove you wrong by their experiences over the last 30 years. Try telling someone in Barrow, Alaska that the climate's not getting warmer, as the lack of sea ice lets storms erode away their town.
I expect you to quickly flip-flop back to being a type 2 or 3 by dinner. Hard to keep up with your rapidly changing denial system.
And you have remaind a useless mind reader who consistently attacks the messenger rather than address the actual message.