Blade Runner Redux - Tesla Cybertruck!

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I don't clean as frequently as my wife, but I think it comes down to differences in behavior in general. She's less careful and makes perhaps 4x more mess or more than I do, but then cleans more often. I'm more careful, preferring not to make the mess in the first place, and clean less frequently.

Seems to reason not emitting something in the first place is easier than trying to emit and then try to remove later, though containment is easier to deal with than cleaning something uncontained.

I guess it depends on what you are doing. Sometimes making a big mess and then cleaning it up is more time and cost effective than trying to not make a mess while getting a job done. Construction comes to mind. You could do a little work, then clean it all up, then do more, but it's more time friendly to just put all the waste into a growing pile and take care of it and the cleanup at then end when the work is done.

I would think reducing CO2 emissions would be less expensive than removing existing CO2 in the atmosphere but the proposals to reduce seem to be very expensive. Natural production and removal of CO2 also DWARF man made production. If there was a way to encourage more natural removal or limit natural production at some level, it might be more efficient than working on the man made side.

[redpoint5]

Sure, anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 30 gigatons is small compared to nature's 750, but it isn't insignificant. It is 4% more than "normal".

If a tree is falling towards you, does it matter if it began falling by itself or if someone cut it down in how you will respond? Likewise it doesn't matter if CO2 is man made or not in determining what to do about it.

The real discussion is determining the net harm of rising CO2 concentrations, and what appropriate measures should be taken to address it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Sure, anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 30 gigatons is small compared to nature's 750, but it isn't insignificant. It is 4% more than "normal".

If a tree is falling towards you, does it matter if it began falling by itself or if someone cut it down in how you will respond? Likewise it doesn't matter if CO2 is man made or not in determining what to do about it.

The real discussion is determining the net harm of rising CO2 concentrations, and what appropriate measures should be taken to address it.

Anthropogenic carbon emissions are equal to burning all the world's forest,15-times each year.Does that seem like 4%?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Anthropogenic carbon emissions are equal to burning all the world's forest,15-times each year.Does that seem like 4%?

Dunno where 15x comes from...

I was looking at first results from a google search for anthropogenic vs natural CO2 emissions. Saw several references to 30 vs 750.

As I say though, it doesn't matter "who" is doing the emitting in determining what to do about it.

[Xist]

Google:

No results found for Anthropogenic carbon emissions are equal to "burning all the world's forest 15 times each year".

30:750 is 1:15.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Dunno where 15x comes from...

I was looking at first results from a google search for anthropogenic vs natural CO2 emissions. Saw several references to 30 vs 750.

As I say though, it doesn't matter "who" is doing the emitting in determining what to do about it.

Craig Dilworth's book,'Too Smart For Our Own Good' is the source.Annual coal,petroleum,and natural gas combustion releases as much carbon dioxide as if you burned all the forest on Earth,fifteen times a year.Each year.
If the Earth had no oceans,was 100% landmass,and completely covered with trees,burning all that down each year still wouldn't release as much carbon.It would take 1.6-Earth's worth of fire to equal anthropogenic carbon emissions.
Arithmetic appears to elude those at the top of the climate denial community.Pity.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Google:

30:750 is 1:15.

next permalink after this one.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Google:

30:750 is 1:15.

You're looking for 'world-forest-equivalent' (wfe).I've never seen this metric used,except with Dilworth.
If we had public education in the United Sates,everyone would already know this.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Just to suspend carbon emissions,you'd have to...

That's for taking 'errorhead' in a good humor.

To suspend carbon emmissions is a 'big ask'. Is it not sufficient to take [as a limit] the 5% emitted due to construction and turn it into an impoundment?

People supporting pets and professional sports need to step up and admit their folly. And Bitcoin and social media.

[redpoint5]

Sounds great! Let's make it an official religion and call members, Amish.