KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I asked the questions because I saw a guy say:
1. Thru history, normal temp fluctuations precede CO2 fluctuations. Warmer temps mean more vegetation which means more rotting vegetation which means more CO2. Made sense to me.

2. Man-made CO2 is a small fraction of overall CO2, and proposed green regulations will only decrease the small fraction by a small fraction, having negligible effect on the overall level.
Kudos to you for asking instead of just believing "a guy"!
I don't know where you encountered this guy (in person, reading, video, etc) but we are faced far too often with people who just "fall in line" because they believe what someone said.
Note that I am a guy, but I used charts and gave you a link to the documents that contained those charts.
I also did my best to find well known, reliable, and neutral sources!
If you like, you can go to the document and there are footnotes and/or references indicating where the specific data from the charts come from so ultimately you can read the specific information on how that data was determined (government studies are almost always available and most documents done by universities and private agencies can be had through inter-library loan as the worst case).
It is a pain, but there is usually a route to the truth if it is the truth and usually not a route if it isn't!
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I figure this chart may help when it comes to "what" is producing the co2 in the US at least. I was curious, and this helped spell it out.

Source.



I wonder if the cow farts are included in Industry or Agriculture?
Cow farts definitely should be under agriculture!

Agriculture is the science and art of cultivating plants and livestock.
I had to look that up because I had no idea whether livestock was part of agriculture!
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
These so-called debates over global warming and climate change usually turn my stomach because of the sheer ignorance displayed.

Thanks go to KEW, Irvrobinson, and to a lesser extent highfigh, for recognizing that carbon in its various forms (different levels of oxidation) are part of cycle in nature, the carbon cycle. Apparently they do remember basic high school biology. (highfigh, you'd get full recognition if you didn't make the wrong conclusions from basic facts ;).)

In the carbon cycle, animals and microorganisms use oxygen from the air to chemically obtain energy from food carbohydrates. This process, called respiration, carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced. In this cycle, green plants and algae also use sunlight to convert CO2 into carbohydrates, producing oxygen in the process. This part is not minor – there is an equilibrium between the rates respiration and rates of photosynthesis.

As the carbon cycle goes round, the rates of CO2 formation and the rates of CO2 consumption become critical. In addition to animal and plant respiration, CO2 is also produced by non-biological oxidation – fire. Burning wood, coal, oil, and gasoline, produces large amounts of CO2, altering the ebb & flow of the carbon cycle. In addition, clearing northern and tropical forests has significantly reduced the amount of photosynthesis. Some of this cleared forest is replaced by agriculture, but the amount of agriculture-produced photosynthesis is quite a bit less than the forest it replaced.

As a result of all this, changing the rates of CO2 formation or CO2 consumption has a big effect. Much bigger than if you only look at the total amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Nearly all of this change has occurred over the last 150 years.

There are several important physical, chemical, and physiological properties of CO2 that should be remembered:
  • CO2 is a minor component of air, a trace gas, presently amounting to 0.04% (410 parts per million, ppm), having risen from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm.
  • CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and is not classified as toxic or harmful. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy and give the lungs a stuffy feeling. Concentrations of 7% to 10% (70,000 to 100,000 ppm) may cause suffocation, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen, with dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness appearing within a few minutes to an hour.
  • Not all CO2 produced by respiration gets released directly to the air. Much of it can be stored dissolved in water, in the seas, underground, and in ice.
  • The amount of CO2 that dissolves in water or ice is temperature dependent. Cold water can contain much more CO2 than warm water. As the planet warms, much of the CO2 dissolved in the ocean is released to the atmosphere. Polar ice cap and permafrost soil can trap large amounts CO2, keeping it out of the cycle – until global warming releases it by melting the ice or permafrost.
  • CO2, when dissolved in water, undergoes a chemical reaction with water, producing bicarbonate, a weak acid, and ultimately carbonate, a stronger acid. As the atmospheric content of CO2 increases, the oceans and fresh water of the world are gradually becoming more acid.
  • CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, it reflects heat. It keeps the Earth warmer, much as blanket keeps us warmer on a cold night. As the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the warmer oceans and fresh water release greater amounts of stored CO2, and the permafrost and polar ice caps melt, releasing even more CO2.
  • CO2 is the most significant long-lived greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution man-made emissions – primarily from use of fossil fuels and deforestation – have rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming.
It is overwhelmingly clear that this change over the last century & a half has indeed happened and that it's significant. To argue that it is natural vs. man-made is ignorant – or worse, its a self-serving effort by the carbon-based energy corporations to delay any efforts at forstalling global warming. We don't know for certain that any efforts to slow global warming can help, but we do know that doing nothing will continue to make things worse. [\Rant/School Lecture OVER]
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
KEW already provided this very good graph showing CO2 levels over the past 2000 years. Thanks!
1561486673158.png


While looking through Wikipedia, I'd like to add a few more. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth's_atmosphere:
First comes CO2 concentration over the recent years of 1958 - 2018
1561486850124.png


Yearly change in CO2 concentration 1958 - 2018. Note how the trend line only increases over that time span.
1561486946590.png


From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#Past_concentration
For a longer time span, the next graph shows Atmospheric concentration over the last 40,000 years
1561487074680.png


And over the last 400,000 years. Note how the recent increase in CO2 is larger than those from the Ice Age cycles.
1561487135948.png
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Which countries contribute how much CO2 emissions?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

By total CO2 emissions only in 2017 (on the left) and by CO2 emissions per person (on the right)
1561487504534.png


And cumulative emission from 1970-2017 (on the left) vs. 2017 only (on the right)
1561487677277.png


And finally, China's CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2009. The unmistakable conclusion is that China's recent rapid rise in burning coal for power and automobile use has generated a recent rapid increase in CO2 production.
1561487802522.png
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
And finally, China's CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2009. The unmistakable conclusion is that China's recent rapid rise in automobile use has generated a recent rapid increase in CO2 production.
View attachment 29955
Nope!
They are burning a sh!t-ton of coal over there!
Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Industry
China’s economic growth has primarily been powered by coal, which constituted an average of 69.9 percent of the country’s energy consumption between 1985 and 2016.Burning coal comes at a steep environmental cost, as it produces up to twice the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) as other fossil fuels. While nationwide coal usage has declined since 2014, China still consumes more coal than the rest of the world combined. As of 2017, coal represented 60.4 percent of the country’s total energy use.
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
ChinaPower is made possible by a generous contribution from Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Nice of Carnegie to keep a proper view of China's emergence as a world power since news from China is controlled by the government!

I'd encourage you to go to the link and check out the interactive bubble chart! (as well as it is a great site over-all)
From that chart, China is producing 1.43 gigatonnes of CO2 from oil and 7.2 gigatonnes (~5 times as much) from coal!
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
Nope!
They are burning a sh!t-ton of coal over there!

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

Nice of Carnegie to keep a proper view of China's emergence as a world power since news from China is controlled by the government!

I'd encourage you to go to the link and check out the interactive bubble chart! (as well as it is a great site over-all)
From that chart, China is producing 1.43 gigatonnes of CO2 from oil and 7.2 gigatonnes (~5 times as much) from coal!
We burn a ton of coal too apparently.

 
Phase 2

Phase 2

Audioholic Chief
Yep agreed 100% There is no doubt we are the major contributor to the increased CO2 since the industrial revolution. I doubt we will ever slow this down given human nature of greed and only acting when a crisis is reached. Since half our country is in denial of the science, and big oil spends billions confusing the science much like big tobacco did years ago when a link was reached between cigarette smoking and increase cancer, it is unlikely we will make the changes necessary to slow down let alone reverse the damage we've done.

The reality is, at least 1/3rd of the worlds population that can't afford to relocate will suffer dire consequences of it's impact in the next 50 years or so. I really believe Earth will eventually select out a good chunk of our population to cause a rebalancing. No matter how badly we mess this planet up, the worst case scenario is we cause our own extinction and Earth will fully renew itself a hundreds if not thousands of years later. We are but a blip in the history of planet Earth.
Gene, hope you are well and doing good Boss! Don't know if you read up on with all the plastics thats been dumped in the oceans it's huge! I read a article the plastics are already in the foods we eat. About the size of a credit card. I watched a show a few years back that Rockefeller use to dump raw gasoline into the rivers cuz he didn't know what to do with it and didn't know what it was at the time. That's when he, Rockefeller was the kerosene king. The cancer rate so out of control just in this country alone. Here in Louisiana, Plaquemine Parish has the highest leukemia cancer rate in the world. There's a old navy base here in Iberia parish that was built at the end of the Korean War. Well the Navy gave the base Iberia parish, but word is around here they also buried some nuclear waste around the parish. Guess what, leukemia cancer is hi around that end of the parish. I had a nurse who worked at the Tulane University medical Center told me that they see a lot of children with birth defects and leukemia. Sad it is indeed.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Nope!
They are burning a sh!t-ton of coal over there!

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
I searched that link for a graph that compares CO2 from burning coal with that from running cars and trucks, but didn't find it. It's not worth quibbling about. The Chinese are burning large amounts of both coal and oil, and they're producing more and more CO2 in the process. They equate burning large amounts of fossil fuels with economic prosperity, and they are not willing to change that voluntarily. Apparently, neither are we.

I did learn that manufacturing concrete also produces large quantities of CO2 as well.
 
Last edited:
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I searched that link for a graph that compares CO2 from burning coal with that from running cars and trucks, but didn't find it. It's not worth quibbling about. The Chinese are burning large amounts of both coal and oil, and they're producing more and more CO2 in the process. They equate burning large amounts of fossil fuels with economic prosperity, and they are not willing to change that voluntarily.

I did learn that manufacturing concrete also produces large quantities of CO2 as well.
Want to see more interesting stuff in connection with concrete, check out Sand Wars.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
I searched that link for a graph that compares CO2 from burning coal with that from running cars and trucks, but didn't find it. It's not worth quibbling about. The Chinese are burning large amounts of both coal and oil, and they're producing more and more CO2 in the process. They equate burning large amounts of fossil fuels with economic prosperity, and they are not willing to change that voluntarily. Apparently, neither are we.

I did learn that manufacturing concrete also produces large quantities of CO2 as well.
That's interesting. Our city just approved a new concrete plant and people aren't very happy.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I searched that link for a graph that compares CO2 from burning coal with that from running cars and trucks, but didn't find it. It's not worth quibbling about. The Chinese are burning large amounts of both coal and oil, and they're producing more and more CO2 in the process. They equate burning large amounts of fossil fuels with economic prosperity, and they are not willing to change that voluntarily. Apparently, neither are we.

I did learn that manufacturing concrete also produces large quantities of CO2 as well.
There is not a chart comparing coal to the specific amount of emissions from cars and trucks.
However, the graph does compare coal to oil (which includes emissions from cars and trucks).
Right now, CO2 from oil in the US is our biggest source of emissions, and not such a big portion of China's; however, the potential for car emissions to become much much worse certainly exists in China.

I really hope the economics, over the next few years, make electric vehicles cost competitive with the ICE.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Thanks go to KEW, Irvrobinson, and to a lesser extent highfigh, for recognizing that carbon in its various forms (different levels of oxidation) are part of cycle in nature, the carbon cycle. Apparently they do remember basic high school biology. (highfigh, you'd get full recognition if you didn't make the wrong conclusions from basic facts ;).)
If you're going to tell me I'm wrong, at least show where I made errors.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I searched that link for a graph that compares CO2 from burning coal with that from running cars and trucks, but didn't find it. It's not worth quibbling about. The Chinese are burning large amounts of both coal and oil, and they're producing more and more CO2 in the process. They equate burning large amounts of fossil fuels with economic prosperity, and they are not willing to change that voluntarily. Apparently, neither are we.

I did learn that manufacturing concrete also produces large quantities of CO2 as well.
What about any process that uses yeast? Brewing and baking have to contribute, too.
 
H

herbu

Audioholic Samurai
1. The trophy for research clearly goes to Swerd.
2. Our own experts don't agree.
3. If we reach the same conclusion, we should not "quibble" about conflicting data.
4. Are the "97% of scientists" from the same pollsters that said Hillary was going to win by a landslide?

I appreciate all the time and research, but will admit the charts and data raise more questions for me. I know that when data supports a desired conclusion, we tend to stop digging. I am all for taking actions that have a net benefit. But when those actions are painful, I like to be sure about the benefit.
 
Ponzio

Ponzio

Audioholic Samurai
I had a pessimistic view of the "alarmist" view on climate change, assuming that the planet always had swings in temperatures throughout history for various reasons (meteors slamming into Siberia, volcanic eruptions, Saddam blowing up the Kuwaiti oil fields, etc.) but ever since a 2002 when a report and video that a section of Greenland (Larsen C Ice Shelf) the size of Manhattan claved off I've changed my views.

To deny what the science proves and what you can see with your own eyes seems foolish at best and dangerous at worst. And now a section of the same Larsen C Ice Shelf the size of Rhode Island is predicted by the same scientists to cleave off soon.
Iceberg Larger Than Rhode Island Is Poised to Break From Antarctica Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/antarctica-about-spawn-one-largest-icebergs-recorded-history-180961720/#MOClWQM588qztLHY.99 Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top