How is the US doing on its CO2 emission reduction goals

[speed]

There were 7 peer reviewed scientific papers predicting global cooling in the 1970's.
And 42 predicting global warming.

1970s Climate Papers

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

I can't speak to what you were taught in the classroom by your teacher.

Or by the environmental groups i worked with. You should keep researching, especially with an open mind.

 

[speed]

It's not my feelings that are hurt when you state things that are contrary to easily verifiable history.

Ego problems. Easily verifiable proof is there if you want the truth, some don't. Verify it then!

 

[speed]

How hard is it to comprehend that the answer is open for research and debate? We're not solving for x in a simple equation here.

Very hard for some to open their collective eye's and see the truth.

 

[Tyeeking]

Absolutely.
So you should always look at the citations behind the statements.
If peer reviewed scientific papers validate those conclusions then I would tend to agree.
Wouldn't you?

Are you suggesting that there are peer reviewed scientific papers validating your Wikipedia post that claims global cooling assertions were a function of the press and not the scientific community?

Isn’t the assertion that it was something driven by the media simply an opinion?

 

[Funkworks]

So, how much is too much? Should be simple enough, but it appears that no one really knows.

What do you mean with "should be simple"?

How fast is too fast for a rocket? "Should be simple".
How much fat is too much fat in a meal? "Should be simple".
How close to quicksand is too close? "Should be simple".
How hard can you knock on glass before it cracks? "Should be simple".
How much air can you blow in a balloon before it pops? "Should be simple".

We're talking about a planet here. It's not like we can test a dozen of them in a lab to find an answer. Not a function of only a few parameters either.

If you can tell me a limit and somehow prove we won't cross it, please do so. No one is, so we're worried. Better safe than sorry because there's no going back. Pretty simple.

 

[kuririn]

Or by the environmental groups i worked with. You should keep researching, especially with an open mind.

Your viewpoint is based on the environmental groups you worked with.
My viewpoint is based on 49 scientific papers over the course of a decade.
Which approach is anecdotal and which is more open minded?

Are you suggesting that there are peer reviewed scientific papers validating your Wikipedia post that claims global cooling assertions were a function of the press and not the scientific community?

The statement was a general reference to all Wikipedia articles.
You stated that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source of information. I said absolutely, but you need to go beyond the statements and validate that with the citations.

So you should always look at the citations behind the statements.
If peer reviewed scientific papers validate those conclusions then I would tend to agree.

 

[Donnager]

There were 7 peer reviewed scientific papers predicting global cooling in the 1970's.
And 42 predicting global warming.

1970s Climate Papers

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

I can't speak to what you were taught in the classroom by your teacher.

I am wondering if any of those 49 peer-reviewed papers were correct with regard to timeline and impact/magnitude.

CO2 emissions since 1900 have not been static. They have increased, and decreased, though mostly increased. For the times where emissions went way up (see 1939-1945) or way down (See 2020/2021), did atmospheric CO2 follow this? If so, why? If not, why not?

From Caltech

During the COVID-19 pandemic, carbon dioxide increased at the same rate in the atmosphere despite lower emissions, say researchers from campus and JPL; plus, what is good for ozone reduction is bad for methane removal ​

“We’re past the point where we can think of these as two separate problems,” says Joshua Laughner, lead author of the study and a former postdoctoral fellow in the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences who now works at JPL, which Caltech manages for NASA. “To understand what is driving changes to the atmosphere, we must consider how air quality and climate influence each other.”

Published in November 2021 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the paper developed out of a workshop sponsored by the W. M. Keck Institute for Space Studies and led by scientists on campus and at JPL. The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting limitations put on travel and other economic sectors by countries around the globe drastically decreased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions within just a few weeks. However, while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years. While the drop in emissions was significant, the growth in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 was within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes. Also, the ocean did not absorb as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it has in recent years, probably due to the reduced pressure of carbon dioxide in the air at the ocean’s surface.

“During previous socioeconomic disruptions, like the 1973 oil shortage, you could immediately see a change in the growth rate of CO2,” says David Schimel, head of JPL’s carbon group and a co-author of the study. “We all expected to see it this time, too.”....

... Notably, emissions returned to near pre-pandemic levels by the latter part of 2020, despite reduced activity in many sectors of the economy.

For the above, the predictions and models that are being touted as gospel, were at best, incomplete. It took some tap dancing to rationalize what actually occurred and *loosely* make the observations fit the model/data.

If we couldn't move the needle during Covid, do you really believe these tiny, incremental changes in power generation in a few select countries will offset what is going on in China/India, especially when a great deal of the emission reductions in Europe/US/Aus are being simply moved there? I suspect that moving emission points to a country with low oversight probably does not decrease their emissions.

When I read the above article, I see that the determination was "within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes". Other than being a poor response, it implies that some large part of the data is noise, and not relevant to what we as a species are trying to accomplish. This hardly seems like justification for what is likely the most expensive single infrastructure project in the United States, ever.

I could get behind a project that actually had a budget, a plan for implementation, and a schedule, with progress reports. Giving the powers that be a blank check with no progress requirements, in the current information void is unlikely to meet expectations.

Also, until someone can provide evidence that CO2 (one study is not evidence) is not the consequence of global warming, rather than the opposite, I'm going to remain skeptical. It is tough to handle a problem where the cause is also the effect, depending on who you talk to.

Unfortunately, politicians make hay with confusion, and there's plenty here to go around.

 

[Tyeeking]

There were 7 peer reviewed scientific papers predicting global cooling in the 1970's.
And 42 predicting global warming.

In other words it would be wise to take peer reviewed scientific papers not as gospel but rather with some skepticism. Obviously they are not the final word.

Why do you suppose the media in the 1970’s ran with the global cooling narrative rather than the global warming narrative when the peer reviewed scientific paper score so heavily favored the global warming team?

 

[Funkworks]

Also, until someone can provide evidence that CO2 (one study is not evidence) is not the consequence of global warming, rather than the opposite, I'm going to remain skeptical. It is tough to handle a problem where the cause is also the effect, depending on who you talk to.

I don't think you realize just how much research and data there is on this. But to put it simply:

1. Estimate how much GHG is emitted each day
(1.5B cars + heating and cooling 200 countries + factories, etc).
2. Estimate were these GHG go (1 part in the sky, 1 part in the ocean, 1 part to plants).
3. Estimate the temperature rise caused by the part in the sky.

There are many thousands of studies on this. They include a lot of math and chemistry so they scare most people away. But there are also penty of available articles that summarize them. Not knowing about them does not mean there is no evidence.

More reading than one can handle in a lifetime:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/atmospheric-science

 

[Dotini]

It's interesting that Greta Thunberg is in jail. She was arrested on the 2nd day of a protest at the destruction of a shanty town standing in the way of a new coal plant in Germany.

 

[kuririn]

If we couldn't move the needle during Covid, do you really believe these tiny, incremental changes in power generation in a few select countries will offset what is going on in China/India, especially when a great deal of the emission reductions in Europe/US/Aus are being simply moved there? I suspect that moving emission points to a country with low oversight probably does not decrease their emissions.

Not tiny and incremental and not just a few select countries.
196 countries signed the Paris Climate Agreement.
Both India and China have officially committed to a carbon neutrality policy.
India by 2070 and China by 2060.

Scientists cheer India’s ambitious carbon-zero climate pledge

India’s 2070 goal could help limit global warming to 1.5 °C, say researchers — but it will require the nation to juggle steep emissions cuts with lifting a significant proportion of its population out of poverty.

www.nature.com

EV production and sales in China have taken off. The EV percent of market share of light vehicles in 2021 was 21% in China and only 6.5% in the US. They are leaving us in the dust.

EV-Volumes - The Electric Vehicle World Sales Database

EV-volumes is a database of sales statistics, charging infrastructure, batteries, car models, and sales forecasts for plug-in cars. EV-volumes also delivers market studies and reports

www.ev-volumes.com

In other words it would be wise to take peer reviewed scientific papers not as gospel but rather with some skepticism. Obviously they are not the final word.

In my opinion everything should be taken with a dose of healthy skepticism.
If your doctor says you have cancer and need an operation to survive I would get a second or third opinion. But if 42 doctors concur and 7 do not, I would be a fool not to get the operation, right?

Why do you suppose the media in the 1970’s ran with the global cooling narrative rather than the global warming narrative when the peer reviewed scientific paper score so heavily favored the global warming team?

Don't think it was "the media" collectively.
And yeah, why would some outlets print an attention grabbing sensationalistic headline?
That would never happen.
Would it?

 

[Tyeeking]

And yeah, why would some outlets print an attention grabbing sensationalistic headline?

I’ll keep that in mind while listening to the daily global warming/climate change hysteria.

 

[Funkworks]

I’ll keep that in mind while listening to the daily global warming/climate change hysteria.

If you don’t like mainstream journalism, get your news straight from the scientists:

Journal Rankings on Atmospheric Science

www.scimagojr.com

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[Tyeeking]

If you don’t like mainstream journalism, get your news straight from the scientists:

Journal Rankings on Atmospheric Science

www.scimagojr.com

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

climate.nasa.gov

What is the “consensus” on what the ideal global climate is? What is the “consensus” on how much of climate change is anthropogenic vs other causes? Is there a “consensus” on whether it is wiser to spend valuable and finite resources on adaptation vs efforts to halt climate change?

 

[Funkworks]

What is the “consensus” on what the ideal global climate is? What is the “consensus” on how much of climate change is anthropogenic vs other causes? Is there a “consensus” on whether it is wiser to spend valuable and finite resources on adaptation vs efforts to halt climate change?

Look it up, I gave you all you need.

Not sure you actually want anything from me but here‘s some more. I doubt I can do much else.

AAAS Reaffirms Statement on Climate Change

www.aaas.org

 

[Tyeeking]

Both India and China have officially committed to a carbon neutrality policy.
India by 2070 and China by 2060.

So the two largest countries in the world commit to (but are not bound by any agreement) to “carbon neutrality” 40-50 years from now. Glad to see that they are taking climate change so seriously.

 

[kuririn]

Glad to see that they are taking climate change so seriously.

I guess you didn't catch the rest of the post:

EV production and sales in China have taken off. The EV percent of market share of light vehicles in 2021 was 21% in China and only 6.5% in the US. They are leaving us in the dust.

China's Energy Transition - How Far Has the Country Come?

China's energy transition is underway with plans for massive renewable energy infrastructure projects. Will it be enough to meet its carbon targets?

www.china-briefing.com

Excerpt:
"According to the National Energy Administration (NEA), China’s installed renewable energy capacity reached 1063 gigawatts (GW) in 2021, accounting for 44.8 percent of China’s total power generation capacity."

BTW for comparison the US percent of energy production from renewables is 20%.

So yeah, China is committed and way ahead of the US.
And as far as India is concerned:

Climate Action: All Eyes on India and Net-Zero by 2050

A groundbreaking analysis finds a pathway for India to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050....

www.nrdc.org

"India is one of the few countries on track to meet its Paris Agreement targets. The country is on track to meet its main targets—to reduce emission intensity by 33% to 35% of its gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 from 2005 levels and achieve 40% of installed power capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2030."

From predominantly fossil fuel electrical production to carbon neutral in less than a lifetime is astounding. Were you expecting overnight?

 

[Tyeeking]

I guess you didn't catch the rest of the post:

China's Energy Transition - How Far Has the Country Come?

China's energy transition is underway with plans for massive renewable energy infrastructure projects. Will it be enough to meet its carbon targets?

www.china-briefing.com

Excerpt:
"According to the National Energy Administration (NEA), China’s installed renewable energy capacity reached 1063 gigawatts (GW) in 2021, accounting for 44.8 percent of China’s total power generation capacity."

And from the same report renewables only accounted for 29.9% of actual production. In addition the use of coal for production has been increasing and is expected to do so for at least a few more years.

 

[kuririn]

And from the same report renewables only accounted for 29.9% of actual production.

Only 29.9%?
Total installed renewable energy capacity increased from 650 GW in 2017 to 1063 GW in 2021.
That's an increase of more than 63% in four short years.
BTW US total is 20%.

In addition the use of coal for production has been increasing and is expected to do so for at least a few more years.

Correction: use of coal is anticipated to peak in 2025.
And the reason for the continued use of coal in the short term:
"We expect the current increase in coal production and consumption to be a response to short-term issues of energy supply, and that the country will begin to ease coal consumption once the current situation stabilizes, and other energy sources catch up."
Source: same report.

 

[dr wogz]

I think we also need to point out that India & China both have massive populations; each easily triple that of the US.. and in India's case, half the land mass of the US. So, for them to make a dent is a pretty big deal.

As for the Greta comment about her being arrested for trying to protect a 'shanty town'. It was actually a village that is succumbing to an open pit coal mine. This village is one of a string of towns the mine has swallowed up..



quote:
The Garzweiler is one of three massive open-pit coal mines in Germany's state of North Rhine-Westphalia, along the Dutch border, where lignite coal is mined — a dirty, brown coal responsible for a fifth of Germany's carbon emissions. Nearly 50 villages in this region have been evacuated and destroyed for the ever-expanding mines, and Winzen's village of Keyenberg — more than a thousand years old — is set to be next.

 

[kramer714]

Even if you don't believe in man made climate change, don't you believe that coal is very polluting? I'm talking about pollution during mining it and pollution from burning it. ... ignoring the CO2 from it. Having said that, even the type of coal that they are proposing mining in Germany is bad.

Lignite coal is very low in carbon (energy) as compared to other coal (or other fuel sources)
-low energy means you need to mine more of it for the same heat output
-low energy means it takes more energy to transport it
-low energy means there are more residues remaining as compared to there energy sources for a given heat output

Lignite coal is surface mined
-strip mines (surface mines) release heavy metals in runoff polluting water, soil, crops, livestock in addition to people, can be mitigated partially but seldom is.
-surface mines are notorious for being abandoned, we end up cleaning up after them

Coal including lignite release many heavy metals and carcinogenic compounds. Lignite is worse that other forms of coal

Even if we cant agree on global warming - man made climate change, can we at least agree that mining and burning coal is bad?

 

[alexzogh]

counting down the posts to either a reference to hitler or this thread gets locked

I am highly tolerant of dissent (of my own beliefs), but I see others may not.
This reminds me of an excellent essay on the evaporative cooling of group beliefs and note it would be a damn shame to see individuals on either side get frustrated with the rocketry forum and leave due to a topic that is not relevant to the hobby.

Lots and lots of places on Reddit, Discord, Facebook, Twitter you could argue, or find your tribe of believers on this topic.

 

[jderimig]

How much is too much?

We can go alot higher, >1000ppm with still a net benefit for humans. CO2 effect is saturated. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

It's what we were taught in school as a fact. Just like global warming is now.. i mean climate change. So, it was not just in a few press reports, it was in our textbooks, on the news every night, talked about on PBS, all the talk in the environmental movement, etc...
And contrary to your assertions, most scientific studies at the time promoted the notion of global cooling, not global warming. I saw the change when i worked for The Wilderness Society and Norbert Reedy. It's all about control of the people. Your one of the cult believers and not even facts will persuade cultists. The truth is there for all to see, but most won't even look because their afraid they will be wrong...again.
Just as an aside, wiki cannot be used by my daughters schooling as a reference.
We will be hit by another asteroid or comet and all this will be moot...

If your teachers taught you “global cooling”, your teachers were fools and taught you fringe ideas. And if it was in your textbooks, I’m wondering where you went to school and where you district got its books from. It was not on the news every night. And it definitely was not the talk of the environmental movement. I’m not sure where you got those ideas.

 

[Dotini]

Even if you don't believe in man made climate change, don't you believe that coal is very polluting? I'm talking about pollution during mining it and pollution from burning it. ... ignoring the CO2 from it. Having said that, even the type of coal that they are proposing mining in Germany is bad.

Lignite coal is very low in carbon (energy) as compared to other coal (or other fuel sources)
-low energy means you need to mine more of it for the same heat output
-low energy means it takes more energy to transport it
-low energy means there are more residues remaining as compared to there energy sources for a given heat output

Lignite coal is surface mined
-strip mines (surface mines) release heavy metals in runoff polluting water, soil, crops, livestock in addition to people, can be mitigated partially but seldom is.
-surface mines are notorious for being abandoned, we end up cleaning up after them

Coal including lignite release many heavy metals and carcinogenic compounds. Lignite is worse that other forms of coal

Even if we cant agree on global warming - man made climate change, can we at least agree that mining and burning coal is bad?

Personally, I agree that the climate is warming, and is mainly due to the activities of humanity since the Industrial Revolution. And of course coal is one of the worst offenders in this respect. So it is incredibly interesting that the Germans, some of the most savvy and intelligent people on Earth, are returning to coal, as is the UK. Perhaps these retrograde actions are due to perceived emergencies in the realms of economics and politics?

 

[kuririn]

So it is incredibly interesting that the Germans, some of the most savvy and intelligent people on Earth, are returning to coal, as is the UK. Perhaps these retrograde actions are due to perceived emergencies in the realms of economics and politics?

It's no secret that it did so due to the cutoff of Russian natural gas.
I assume you're dancing around it for fear of being locked out.
Don't think you can be locked out for stating a fact.
Kudos to the Germans for taking a moral stance.
As for the Greta Thunberg situation, according to what I have read a compromise was reached between an environmental party and the German government. Initially there were several villages that were going to be closed. The compromised settled on one. The protesters feel that no village should be closed, and that the environmental party sold them out.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

So, how much is too much? Should be simple enough, but it appears that no one really knows.

The answer is 430 ppm.

It’s sort of like asking a doctor exactly how many cigarettes is too much. One cigarette won’t hurt you. One a month probably won’t either. One a week you might start to notice. One a day Is probably bad for you. A pack a day is definitely bad. So how many cigarettes is too much? Is it between one a week and one a day? Or can you go over one a day, but keep it under 20? Is it 3 a day or is it 7. What is it EXACTLY? Give me a number!

That hypothetical cigarette question basically boils down to, “How sick is too sick.” Maybe you’re ok with a little cough. Maybe you’re not that worried about a little elevated blood pressure. How about COPD? Cancer? A stroke? Is there an exact number of smokes that can limit you to a mild cough and still guarantee no COPD? Or is there a chance you might be off in your calculations and end up overshooting and get cancer?

How much is too much CO2 is a similar question. It boils down to “How much temperature rise is too much.” According to the IPCC recommendations, the goal should be no more than 1.5 degrees C warming, and that’s a goal the US and other nations have agreed to aim for. And according to the IPCC, CO2 needs to stay under 430 ppm to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C.

So if you want an exact number, there you go — 430 ppm.

 

[speed]

It depends on how many consequences you are willing to tolerate.

I’d say it’s already too much. The weather has already changed noticeably in my lifetime, which is really too fast for weather to be changing. I don’t like the number of 100, 105, 110 degree days we get now. Only 25 years ago, these kinds of temperatures were extremely rare, but now we see this extreme heat nearly every year around here. I’m not a fan of the droughts and mandatory water rationing. And the fires! My state has always had wildfires, but not like the ones we have almost every year now. So for me, between the extreme heat, drought, water shortages, and fires that directly impact my own life, I wish it weren’t like this, and I don’t want it to get worse, and I think we have enough CO2.

So, how much is too much? In ppm, thx...

 

[speed]

Short summary:

CO2 absorbs heat sort of like black paint absorbs heat. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer it gets.

The rate of CO2 increase is presently faster than what human civilization has ever lived in (the last 10,000 years), and so is the rate of warming. A warmer atmosphere means more energy in the system, which causes more extreme weather events. You imply a threshold, but it's more about not adding more CO2 than necessary. The less CO2 we add, the cheaper and easier it will be to live in the coming decades (and centuries, so it's largely for the kids).

This graph here, it's rising too fast for comfort.

View attachment 557643

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Again, how much is too much?

 

[speed]

What do you mean with "should be simple"?

How fast is too fast for a rocket? "Should be simple".
How much fat is too much fat in a meal? "Should be simple".
How close to quicksand is too close? "Should be simple".
How hard can you knock on glass before it cracks? "Should be simple".
How much air can you blow in a balloon before it pops? "Should be simple".

We're talking about a planet here. It's not like we can test a dozen of them in a lab to find an answer. Not a function of only a few parameters either.

If you can tell me a limit and somehow prove we won't cross it, please do so. No one is, so we're worried. Better safe than sorry because there's no going back. Pretty simple.

Should be really simple. Hundreds of billions spent studying the climate by thousands of "scientists" yet none of them know how much is too much? How absurd. Their the best and the brightest aren't they? Some like DR. S. Fred Singer, think otherwise. He is the man behind atmospheric satellite research. I don't know the limit, that's why i'm asking. Also, i'm not worried about that were all going to die due to "climate change", i mean global warming.
So, again, how much is too much? If you don't know just say...I don't know.