Doubts about climate change?

@Thinkerbell

@Thinkerbell We already have many low lying areas being inundated by sea water during regular winter storms and high spring tides.

There’s nothing wrong with owing an 11 million dollar mansion when you had a career as a lawyer.

@Thinkerbell So you're basing everything you know about climate change on the behavior of one former community organizer????
[i][big]ROTFL !!![/big][/i]

@TexChik You should have put Mar Largo up there too. I’m pretty sure it will be impacted by climate change. It’s some very expensive land owned by the Trump family who have amassed great wealth by ripping off everyone they have ever done business with. They continue to rip off their rabid supporters to this day which is how they can amass a $250 million legal fund to pay for all those lawyers.
If you don’t believe that they rip their supporters off then check your bank statements for continued donations to the Trump family fund. If you ever made a one off donation of $5 to Trump when he was President then you will still be contributing.
Personally I couldn’t give a shit if you are still contributing.

@Thinkerbell @LordShadowfire wishes a word in private.

@ElwoodBlues

[quote]" So you're basing everything you know about climate change on the behavior of one former community organizer????"[/quote]

One?
Nah, not at all, Ellie.

The community organizer's good friend, Al Gore, will surely warn Barack when it's time to flee Martha's Vineyard, and I will closely be watching what this Nobel-Prize-winning climate expert has to say.

Al (more circumspectly than Barack) owns a mansion in Montecito, CA, with a nice view of the ocean from a mountainside, about 500 feet above sea level. Al's mansion will still be well above water when the entire Antarctic ice cap melts, and sea levels rise about 230 feet.

But Al has overlooked a couple of things. His Montecito digs won't be secure against the wildfires that surely will threaten, as the climate changes.

And of course, the overheated dry spells will alternate with extreme rainstorms that will likely cause mudslides that will inundate his mansion, or rip it from its foundations and send it careening into the rising ocean.

Oh, well... what's one mansion more ore less to the likes of Al Gore? 😂 😂 😂

@Thinkerbell Actually, the Obamas' house is a few hundred feet back from the shoreline. I scoped it out on google earth when the announcement was made. You can't build close to the Atlantic beach anywhere along that Edgartown Great Pond / Tisbury Great Pond area. So the Obamas still have a few decades to enjoy their property.

And with net worth of around $70 million (they got a TON of money out of their respective books) they may consider that they've got their money's worth out of that house after 20 or 30 years.

Alternatively, they just might be optimists. They might be noticing how the rate of CO2 increase isn't as steep as it used to be (second derivative going negative, if you get my drift). That reduction in the rate of CO2 increase has already pushed the inflection point a decade or more into the future.

And that leads us to one of the things you climate deniers tend to get wrong. Predictions made based on the rate of CO2 increase between 1980 & 1990 are very different from predictions made based on the rate of CO2 increase between 2010 & 2020. Because most of society has been taking those predictions seriously and cutting back on greenhouse gases.

The system isn't static. Humanity is responding. And you climate denier conveniently ignore that fact when you cite old predictions.

As another example of that, you'll find some deniers saying "whatever happened to predictions about that alleged ozone hole? Why don't we hear about IT anymore?"

Well, the fact is, we reduced worldwide usage of CFCs by over 99%. When humanity changes its behavior, the environment responds. The reduction of the ozone hole is a great success story in two ways. It shows how humanity can affect the atmosphere worldwide, and it shows how humanity can clean up its mess and fix the ozone worldwide.

@justanothername spare us your liberal conjecture and slanders. Trump doesnt whine about climate change , or try to force others to live the way he wants, while he does the exact opposite. That's what libs do.

@TexChik As I said the PR speil worked a treat.

@ElwoodBlues

[quote]"Actually, the Obamas' house is a few hundred feet back from the shoreline. I scoped it out on google earth when the announcement was made."[/quote]

What's important is the elevation, not the setback. Did you check that also?
But it looks like the Obamas have the requisite 2 meters to hold out until 2100. 😏

[quote]"(second derivative going negative, if you get my drift)"[/quote]

The second derivative has often gone negative (see red arrows below for examples).
I doubt that the one you are referring to is distinguishable from the noise.


[c=009E4F]https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide[/c]

@TexChik Exactly. This tells it and proves it is NOT a thing like nothing else does. There is the proof, where they live. The ones pushing the GM agenda. It's laughable.

@SW-User Al Gore has a beach front home too

@Thinkerbell Easier to see the 2nd derivative when we're zooming in on the first derivative:


Actually, it's pretty apparent in this world chart too

@ElwoodBlues

Let me know when these "pretty apparent" changes have a significant effect on the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 levels.
We were doing better in 1973 and 1990.


[c=009E4F]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-historic/[/c]

@Thinkerbell The 2nd derivative is more apparent when looking at the first derivative. That's why I showed the first derivative.

@ElwoodBlues

Your charts showed plots of various total carbon emissions by year, [i]not[/i] their first derivatives.

Mine looked for any effects that the "pretty apparent" changes in your plots may have had on world atmospheric CO2 levels.

@Thinkerbell Emissions per year IS the first derivative of total emissions over time!!

And of course, change in emissions per year is the second derivative of total emissions over time.

@ElwoodBlues

No, a plot of the year-over-year [i]change[/i] in emissions vs year would be (an approximate) plot of the first derivative.

Let E(t) be the total emissions per year t.

You would need to plot ΔE/Δt as a function t to (approximately) display the first derivative, dE/dt directly.

@Thinkerbell [quote]a plot of the year-over-year change in emissions vs year would be (an approximate) plot of the first derivative.[/quote] Exactly. And the NEW EMISSIONS each year is the same as the year-over-year change in emissions.

Each year's new emissions is ΔE. Δt is one year; the same in all these plots.

You sound like you came at this from an economics background; I came at it from a physics background, but we're saying the same thing.

@ElwoodBlues

[quote]"Exactly. And the NEW EMISSIONS each year is the same as the year-over-year change in emissions."[/quote]

If a country emits 1 billion tons of CO2 in the year 2000, and then emits 1 billion tons in 2001, the year-over-year change in annual emissions is ZERO.

The change in TOTAL CUMULATIVE emissions would 1 billion tons for EACH of those years.

To make you happy, here is a chart of the annual change of atmospheric CO2, as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.


[c=009E4F]https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html[/c]

No sign of any effect of the "pretty apparent" changes in annual CO2 emissions shown on your graph.
In fact, the average growth rate has increased more or less linearly from less than 1 ppm/year in 1965 to almost 2.5 ppm/year in 2015.

Which means what?
Maybe the figures that many countries publish are not reliable, perhaps?
Especially those put out by the CCP...? 🤔

What about John Kerry’s jet? @ElwoodBlues

@Thinkerbell [quote]If a country emits 1 billion tons of CO2 in the year 2000, and then emits 1 billion tons in 2001, the year-over-year change in annual emissions is ZERO.[/quote] Agreed. And that's the SECOND derivative.

[quote]The change in TOTAL CUMULATIVE emissions would 1 billion tons for EACH of those years.[/quote] Agreed. And that's the original time series function, no derivative.

[quote]here is a chart of the annual change of atmospheric CO2, [/quote] And that is the FIRST derivative, as I've been trying to convey.

And as your Mauna Loa time series shows, measuring CO2 at only one point can be kind of noisy. So a yearly average of well distributed measurements can be smoother and reveal more underlying trends.


@jackjjackson John Kerry’s jet? No doubt he buys carbon offsets. No doubt he's been doing it since the Kyoto Protocol. Are you old enough to recall John McCain talking about "cap & trade"? There was a time when the GOP didn't reject climate science OR evolution.
[b]https://www.nrdc.org/stories/should-you-buy-carbon-offsets[/b]

@jackjjackson

Aw, c'mon, Jack... elites like Kerry are entitled to their jets and lavish mansions. 😂

Yet he’s gotten away with the fraudster act for 6o plus years. @Thinkerbell

@Thinkerbell @jackjjackson You've both dropped the original subject; can I infer then, that you're yielding the point that the geographically averaged first derivative of carbon over time shows a negative second derivative, and that that negative second derivative could, in some quarters, be reason for optimism?

I just want to settle the original issue before we move on to the free market system as it applies to CO2.