The Lockdown and Global CO2

[DrHenley]

Airlines grounded, people not traveling, the oil companies had to pay people to take oil off their hands, industry shuttered all over the world, China's worst polluting province, Hubei, completely shut down.

Should have put a big dent in the global CO2 levels, right?

Didn't

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/17/the-covid-lockdown-and-co2/
The Covid Lockdown and CO2
Despite the dreams of the anti-human element of the Climate Cabal, which seems to have been hoping that the Covid Lockdown would destroy enough of to human society to allow the Radical Greens to dictate the “post-apocalypse recovery plan” — there has been no apocalypse (there has been an economic downturn…by definition, they turned down the economy), the lockdown hasn’t even made a dent, not even a tiny slowdown, in the growth atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

That is, this year, through May, looks precisely like each of the previous four years. You might be asking: “How can that be?” — factories closed, cars off the road, power plants just ticking over…..

Maybe, just maybe, anthropogenic emissions just don’t make that big of a contribution to the increase….Maybe abandoning fossil fuels and all the advantages of modern society isn’t a solution to rising CO2.

 

[Kevin L]

Airlines grounded, people not traveling, the oil companies had to pay people to take oil off their hands, industry shuttered all over the world, China's worst polluting province, Hubei, completely shut down.

Should have put a big dent in the global CO2 levels, right?

Didn't

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/17/the-covid-lockdown-and-co2/
The Covid Lockdown and CO2
Despite the dreams of the anti-human element of the Climate Cabal, which seems to have been hoping that the Covid Lockdown would destroy enough of to human society to allow the Radical Greens to dictate the “post-apocalypse recovery plan” — there has been no apocalypse (there has been an economic downturn…by definition, they turned down the economy), the lockdown hasn’t even made a dent, not even a tiny slowdown, in the growth atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

That is, this year, through May, looks precisely like each of the previous four years. You might be asking: “How can that be?” — factories closed, cars off the road, power plants just ticking over…..

Maybe, just maybe, anthropogenic emissions just don’t make that big of a contribution to the increase….Maybe abandoning fossil fuels and all the advantages of modern society isn’t a solution to rising CO2.

I always like talking with you about certian things (I like intelligent conversation), so I want to play the "Devil's Advocate" with this idea that man-made climate change is a fallacy.

Everybody seems to object to the expense, inconvienence, and other problems attached to rectifying climate change because "global warming is not proven", and I get that. I wouldn't want to sink trillions and trillions of dollars into fixing a problem that may not exist in the first place.

However . . .

What about the Cold War? There was no absolute, 100% proof that the Soviets were these shuffling and drooling monsters just waiting for the first opportunity to push the button. In fact, I suspect that the Soviets were much more reasonable than us when it came to certian things (and no, I'm not a Communist or a Socialist).

Yet the magnitude of the money spent by the U.S.A. on the Cold War is absolutely staggering. Every material good, every service, every house, every car, diaper, or T-shirt . . . indeed, everything ever bought or sold in the U.S.A. since WWII is less than what we spent on the Cold War (this list of every business transaction does not include land. So, real-estate transactions involving undeveloped land are excluded from my list).

Yet there was never any 100% absolute proof that those Russians were just waiting to nuke us out of existence because they're mindless psychopaths (maybe with the exception of Stalin, but supposedly even he didn't want a nuclear war).

So, my point is to wonder if there's a double-standard here. Why do we only require suspicion to escalate tthe Cold War, yet require absolute proof before implementing radical changes to address global warming? In both cases, the consequences (ie: the end of civilization) are the same.

Also, if we decide that climate change is a conspiracy by certian people to make money or control politics . . . then what should we say about the private companies (like Boeing) who made immense amounts of money building weapons and meeting other military needs during the Cold War?

Fixing global warming would be extremely costly and expensive, but nowhere near as expensive as the Cold War.

P.S. Most of these ideas are not my own. I did get these ideas after listening to one of Carl Sagan's lectures when I was much younger.

 

[Brent S]

I always like talking with you about certian things (I like intelligent conversation), so I want to play the "Devil's Advocate" with this idea that man-made climate change is a fallacy.

Everybody seems to object to the expense, inconvienence, and other problems attached to rectifying climate change because "global warming is not proven", and I get that. I wouldn't want to sink trillions and trillions of dollars into fixing a problem that may not exist in the first place.

However . . .

What about the Cold War? There was no absolute, 100% proof that the Soviets were these shuffling and drooling monsters just waiting for the first opportunity to push the button. In fact, I suspect that the Soviets were much more reasonable than us when it came to certian things (and no, I'm not a Communist or a Socialist).

Yet the magnitude of the money spent by the U.S.A. on the Cold War is absolutely staggering. Every material good, every service, every house, every car, diaper, or T-shirt . . . indeed, everything ever bought or sold in the U.S.A. since WWII is less than what we spent on the Cold War (this list of every business transaction does not include land. So, real-estate transactions involving undeveloped land are excluded from my list).

Yet there was never any 100% absolute proof that those Russians were just waiting to nuke us out of existence because they're mindless psychopaths (maybe with the exception of Stalin, but supposedly even he didn't want a nuclear war).

So, my point is to wonder if there's a double-standard here. Why do we only require suspicion to escalate tthe Cold War, yet require absolute proof before implementing radical changes to address global warming? In both cases, the consequences (ie: the end of civilization) are the same.

Also, if we decide that climate change is a conspiracy by certian people to make money or control politics . . . then what should we say about the private companies (like Boeing) who made immense amounts of money building weapons and meeting other military needs during the Cold War?

Fixing global warming would be extremely costly and expensive, but nowhere near as expensive as the Cold War.

P.S. Most of these ideas are not my own. I did get these ideas after listening to one of Carl Sagan's lectures when I was much younger.

Well said.

 

[Brent S]

Airlines grounded, people not traveling, the oil companies had to pay people to take oil off their hands, industry shuttered all over the world, China's worst polluting province, Hubei, completely shut down.

Should have put a big dent in the global CO2 levels, right?

Didn't

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/17/the-covid-lockdown-and-co2/
The Covid Lockdown and CO2
Despite the dreams of the anti-human element of the Climate Cabal, which seems to have been hoping that the Covid Lockdown would destroy enough of to human society to allow the Radical Greens to dictate the “post-apocalypse recovery plan” — there has been no apocalypse (there has been an economic downturn…by definition, they turned down the economy), the lockdown hasn’t even made a dent, not even a tiny slowdown, in the growth atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

That is, this year, through May, looks precisely like each of the previous four years. You might be asking: “How can that be?” — factories closed, cars off the road, power plants just ticking over…..

Maybe, just maybe, anthropogenic emissions just don’t make that big of a contribution to the increase….Maybe abandoning fossil fuels and all the advantages of modern society isn’t a solution to rising CO2.

I just googled ‘have co2 emissions dropped since the pandemic’ and the vast majority of articles are saying they plummeted.
I only copied one here, and didn’t compare the sources of the articles but I’ve seen pictures of smog being way less in cities as well. Isn’t wanting to breathe cleaner air worth some investment?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ic-lockdown/&usg=AOvVaw3LiVkDOmvDAGZsrpsv7ZZ9

 

[Kevin L]

Well said.

Thank you.

 

[DrHenley]

I just googled ‘have co2 emissions dropped since the pandemic’ and the vast majority of articles are saying they plummeted.
I only copied one here, and didn’t compare the sources of the articles but I’ve seen pictures of smog being way less in cities as well. Isn’t wanting to breathe cleaner air worth some investment?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjd--2ftdbpAhUNZd8KHYfjBtQQFjABegQIAxAB&url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-co2-emissions-saw-record-drop-during-pandemic-lockdown/&usg=AOvVaw3LiVkDOmvDAGZsrpsv7ZZ9

First thing, that never gave a reference to the actual study, but did eventually say what magazine it came from.
So I did YOUR WORK for you and found the "study" (which is actually more of an opinion piece than a study)

The "study" talked about the reduction in emissions, not the reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels. Nobody is disputing that CO2 emissions have dropped.

When it got around to the effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, the "study" said this:

Observations of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are available in near-real time13,14, but the influence of the natural variability of the carbon cycle and meteorology is large and masks the variability in anthropogenic signal over a short period15,16. Satellite measurements for the column CO2 inventory17 have large uncertainties and also reflect the variability of the natural CO2 fluxes18, and thus cannot yet be used in near-real time to determine anthropogenic emissions.​

Let me translate: The measured atmospheric CO2 levels haven't actually dropped so we just threw out some technobabble to obfuscate that fact.

 

[Proud Prepper]

First thing, that never gave a reference to the actual study, but did eventually say what magazine it came from.
So I did YOUR WORK for you and found the "study" (which is actually more of an opinion piece than a study)

The "study" talked about the reduction in emissions, not the reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels. Nobody is disputing that CO2 emissions have dropped.

When it got around to the effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, the "study" said this:

Observations of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are available in near-real time13,14, but the influence of the natural variability of the carbon cycle and meteorology is large and masks the variability in anthropogenic signal over a short period15,16. Satellite measurements for the column CO2 inventory17 have large uncertainties and also reflect the variability of the natural CO2 fluxes18, and thus cannot yet be used in near-real time to determine anthropogenic emissions.​

Let me translate: The measured atmospheric CO2 levels haven't actually dropped so we just threw out some technobabble to obfuscate that fact.

Doc, you cant help anyone see the truth who's ignorance is based on a belief system. No matter how much proof you show them. I'm ok with there choices, except when it has a negative effect on me and my family.

 

[Proud Prepper]

I always like talking with you about certian things (I like intelligent conversation), so I want to play the "Devil's Advocate" with this idea that man-made climate change is a fallacy.

Everybody seems to object to the expense, inconvienence, and other problems attached to rectifying climate change because "global warming is not proven", and I get that. I wouldn't want to sink trillions and trillions of dollars into fixing a problem that may not exist in the first place.

However . . .

What about the Cold War? There was no absolute, 100% proof that the Soviets were these shuffling and drooling monsters just waiting for the first opportunity to push the button. In fact, I suspect that the Soviets were much more reasonable than us when it came to certian things (and no, I'm not a Communist or a Socialist).

Yet the magnitude of the money spent by the U.S.A. on the Cold War is absolutely staggering. Every material good, every service, every house, every car, diaper, or T-shirt . . . indeed, everything ever bought or sold in the U.S.A. since WWII is less than what we spent on the Cold War (this list of every business transaction does not include land. So, real-estate transactions involving undeveloped land are excluded from my list).

Yet there was never any 100% absolute proof that those Russians were just waiting to nuke us out of existence because they're mindless psychopaths (maybe with the exception of Stalin, but supposedly even he didn't want a nuclear war).

So, my point is to wonder if there's a double-standard here. Why do we only require suspicion to escalate tthe Cold War, yet require absolute proof before implementing radical changes to address global warming? In both cases, the consequences (ie: the end of civilization) are the same.

Also, if we decide that climate change is a conspiracy by certian people to make money or control politics . . . then what should we say about the private companies (like Boeing) who made immense amounts of money building weapons and meeting other military needs during the Cold War?

Fixing global warming would be extremely costly and expensive, but nowhere near as expensive as the Cold War.

P.S. Most of these ideas are not my own. I did get these ideas after listening to one of Carl Sagan's lectures when I was much younger.

Complete nonsense. You could spend 100% of the world's GDP on stopping global climate change and you would fail. That's the difference.

 

[Kevin L]

Complete nonsense. You could spend 100% of the world's GDP on stopping global climate change and you would fail. That's the difference.

If you say so.

But . . . if human survival hangs in the balance, shouldn't we at least try . . . just on principle?

 

[DrHenley]

If you say so.

But . . . if human survival hangs in the balance, shouldn't we at least try . . . just on principle?

Try what? Willingly submitting to extortion? HELL NO!
Kevin, the left's climate change racket has nothing to do with actually improving the climate and everything to do with giving third world dictators a way to extort money from the US. It's all about wealth redistribution, nothing else. If they were actually concerned about pollution, they would be going after China, but somehow China get's a pass. Explain that to me!

Give us some real things to try that actually might work, and sure, we might try them. Check my signature, I'm CARBON NEGATIVE.

 

[Kevin L]

Try what? Willingly submitting to extortion? HELL NO!
Kevin, the left's climate change racket has nothing to do with actually improving the climate and everything to do with giving third world dictators a way to extort money from the US. It's all about wealth redistribution, nothing else. If they were actually concerned about pollution, they would be going after China, but somehow China get's a pass. Explain that to me!

Give us some real things to try that actually might work, and sure, we might try them. Check my signature, I'm CARBON NEGATIVE.

I understand.

India is also a very big contributor to CO2.

 

[Brent S]

That is a depressing fact, China, India, and a whole list of other countries aren’t going to be on board with cutting emissions.even if the US stopped completely the world will continue down the same path. I don’t feel that is an excuse to say fcxx it though. There are cleaner and better energy Sources out there and they should be pursued. If the US developers better technology then we not only have cleaner energy but can market it to the world. That’s a win all the way around.

 

[Brent S]

Wanting a cleaner planet shouldn’t be a left or right issue. It benefits us all.

 

[Kevin L]

Wanting a cleaner planet shouldn’t be a left or right issue. It benefits us all.

The holy grail that will go a long way toward fixing global warming would be controlled hydrogen fusion.

The ironic thing about fusion is that it would take care of gasoline and diesel sources of carbon dioxide emissons.

A gallon of synthetic gasoline can be made in the lab from renewable sources for about 20× what it costs to get it from the ground.

Cheap fusion energy would make renewable gasoline cheaper . . . to the point where it could challenge gasoline from crude oil and/or shale.

 

[Brent S]

The holy grail that will go a long way toward fixing global warming would be controlled hydrogen fusion.

The ironic thing about fusion is that it would take care of gasoline and diesel sources of carbon dioxide emissons.

A gallon of synthetic gasoline can be made in the lab from renewable sources for about 20× what it costs to get it from the ground.

Cheap fusion energy would make renewable gasoline cheaper . . . to the point where it could challenge gasoline from crude oil and/or shale.

I am still a solar fan. Battery storage is the key to making it viable though. Electric cars and trucks have far superior abilities than regular ones if we can improve the batteries enough.

 

[DrHenley]

Just don't fool yourself into thinking electric cars are more eco friendly.

That electricity to recharge the batteries doesn't just appear out of nowhere, it has to be generated, and the batteries are a hazardous waste when you dispose of them. That's one reason I like hydrogen fuel cells - no hazardous waste to dispose of. And hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

Here is the latest development in producing hydrogen from water:
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...drogen-from-water-at-near-perfect-efficiency/

 

[Kevin L]

Just don't fool yourself into thinking electric cars are more eco friendly.

That electricity to recharge the batteries doesn't just appear out of nowhere, it has to be generated, and the batteries are a hazardous waste when you dispose of them. That's one reason I like hydrogen fuel cells - no hazardous waste to dispose of. And hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

Here is the latest development in producing hydrogen from water:
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...drogen-from-water-at-near-perfect-efficiency/

My grandfather was an engineer and physicist in a nuclear power plant (Kerr-Magee), and we bandied ideas back and forth on occasion.

I have this idea that the Great Salt Lake in Utah could provide huge amounts of clean energy, as could the Dead Sea in Israel.

I would set acre after acre of individual solar panels on anchored pontoons in the Great Salt Lake. These panels would have windshield washers to keep them clean for the best light-gathering efficiency.

This solar energy would be used to do electrolysis of the salt water, and the resulting hydrogen could be piped to a huge storage tank.

The hydrogen would be dawn off in a constant trickle to power fuel cells, or possibly an internal combusion engine that powers a generator.

The tank level would very with night and day, depending on demand, but whenever there's sun, the tank would be topped off. This means that power would be just as much available at night as during the day.

I choose the Great Salt Lake because there's very little in the way of aquatic life, so environmental concerns are not as much of an issue (same story with the Dead Sea).

The oxygen from this electrolysis project could be sold on the side as medical oxygen, or--perhaps--welder's oxygen.

Because hydrogen can be piped (electricity--except in a superconductor--loses more and more power with a longer cable than with a short wire.

So, I could imagine hydrogen pipelines crossing the country.

 

[Brent S]

Just don't fool yourself into thinking electric cars are more eco friendly.

That electricity to recharge the batteries doesn't just appear out of nowhere, it has to be generated, and the batteries are a hazardous waste when you dispose of them. That's one reason I like hydrogen fuel cells - no hazardous waste to dispose of. And hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

Here is the latest development in producing hydrogen from water:
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...drogen-from-water-at-near-perfect-efficiency/

I agree hydrogen is a great possibility too. Energy is everywhere and abundant. We just need to look for safe ways to harness it. A combination of ways to harness and utilize it will be required to move away from fossil fuels. Electric cars aren’t pollution free, but the principal of them is more efficient than internal combustion engines. They have far fewer moving parts, produce more power and don’t require oil changes. How that electricity is produced and stored will be the next tech wave I’d like to be invested in.

 

[bigpaul]

a 10 week lockdown isn't going to make a heck of a lot of difference to climate change or the environment, but in those countries that have a permanent fog and smog problem the air is cleaner and you can see things(like mountains and the stars) that you could never see under normal conditions.