I Was Wrong

[jabberwock]

I could not bring myself to read all 6 pages. Good job everyone BTW to keep it from getting shut down!

There are about 3 trillion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Last year humans "emitted" about 40 billion metric tons into the atmosphere. That is just over 1% of the totality.

And are we all also aware that there is a CO2 cycle? It is not just piling up, up there in the clouds...

The numbers just don't support the mania.

 

[Court_Appointed_Hypeman]

I could not bring myself to read all 6 pages. Good job everyone BTW to keep it from getting shut down!

There are about 3 trillion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Last year humans "emitted" about 40 billion metric tons into the atmosphere. That is just over 1% of the totality.

And are we all also aware that there is a CO2 cycle? It is not just piling up, up there in the clouds...

The numbers just don't support the mania.

Think about that just a liiiiiitle further while considering that cycle.

 

[fish farmer]

If it wasn't coming from China or India it would just be produced elsewhere. Greenhouse gasses in my opinion are just one of many factors. You wanna see some real waterway pollution watch Jeremy Wades Mighty rivers to fully understand how much pollution is being put into the worlds waterways. Having lived and fished in Florida my entire 52 years I watched our coastal waters become void of life and what's left isn't in good shape. Our coastal waters are filled with fecal matter and pesticide runoff that have killed hundreds of miles of native seagrass. Scientists are finding high amounts of all types of prescription drugs in fish here. The fish certainly aren't getting prescriptions for them. They're being passed from us to them. Every fish swimming in the ocean today has microplastics in their systems. I feel like we've reached a point of no return.

So how does the Florida government, sportsmen, general public feel about these local stressors to Florida ecosystems? I would think being a saltwater fishing paradise, it would get some protection.

 

[Lasse]

There are about 3 trillion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Last year humans "emitted" about 40 billion metric tons into the atmosphere. That is just over 1% of the totality.

The real truth is that before the industrial revolution - the content off CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280 ppm - today it is +420 ppm, It means if it was 3 trillion metric tons 2023 - it was 1.5 trillion metric tons around 1800. That´s 50 % of todays amount

In the same time - the oceans have taken upp a lot of CO2 - which has led to a lowering of the average pH of the oceans with around 0.1pH units ( (from around 8.2 to around 8.1). It seems to be a low figure but pH is an exponential unit - this corresponding to a 26% increase in H+ The Oceans have absorbed around one-third of all CO2 released from fossil fuel during this time - still have the concentration rise with around 140 ppm or with 50% (from 280 ppm)

Since 1990 (33 years) it has rise from 350 ppm to 423 ppm. Source here. A rise of around 20%

If this continue - pH in the Ocean in 2100 will be around 7.8 - the pH where limestone (read stony corals) starts to dissolve. Already now there is part of the ocean already showing pH:s around this.


Sincerely Lasse

 

[jabberwock]

The real truth is that before the industrial revolution - the content off CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280 ppm - today it is +420 ppm, It means if it was 3 trillion metric tons 2023 - it was 1.5 trillion metric tons around 1800. That´s 50 % of todays amount

In the same time - the oceans have taken upp a lot of CO2 - which has led to a lowering of the average pH of the oceans with around 0.1pH units ( (from around 8.2 to around 8.1). It seems to be a low figure but pH is an exponential unit - this corresponding to a 26% increase in H+ The Oceans have absorbed around one-third of all CO2 released from fossil fuel during this time - still have the concentration rise with around 140 ppm or with 50% (from 280 ppm)

Since 1990 (33 years) it has rise from 350 ppm to 423 ppm. Source here. A rise of around 20%

If this continue - pH in the Ocean in 2100 will be around 7.8 - the pH where limestone (read stony corals) starts to dissolve. Already now there is part of the ocean already showing pH:s around this.


Sincerely Lasse

It is an increase of 140 parts per million. That is an increase of 0.014 percent.

 

[jabberwock]

Think about that just a liiiiiitle further while considering that cycle.

Yep, the ocean is part of the cycle. The ocean is HUGE.

This is all a big nothing burger.

 

[jabberwock]

The real truth is that before the industrial revolution - the content off CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280 ppm - today it is +420 ppm, It means if it was 3 trillion metric tons 2023 - it was 1.5 trillion metric tons around 1800. That´s 50 % of todays amount

In the same time - the oceans have taken upp a lot of CO2 - which has led to a lowering of the average pH of the oceans with around 0.1pH units ( (from around 8.2 to around 8.1). It seems to be a low figure but pH is an exponential unit - this corresponding to a 26% increase in H+ The Oceans have absorbed around one-third of all CO2 released from fossil fuel during this time - still have the concentration rise with around 140 ppm or with 50% (from 280 ppm)

Since 1990 (33 years) it has rise from 350 ppm to 423 ppm. Source here. A rise of around 20%

If this continue - pH in the Ocean in 2100 will be around 7.8 - the pH where limestone (read stony corals) starts to dissolve. Already now there is part of the ocean already showing pH:s around this.


Sincerely Lasse

pH is logarithmic, not exponential.

 

[bluemon]

It is an increase of 140 parts per million. That is an increase of 0.014 percent.

That's not how math works...

Let me put this in simpler terms. What you are suggesting is that going from a population of a billion in China to two billion next year is a "14 percent increase in Chinese people" because the world population is 7 billion.

No. That's a 100% increase.

 

[jabberwock]

That's not how math works...

Let me put this in simpler terms. What you are suggesting is that going from a population of a billion in China to two billion next year is a "14 percent increase in Chinese people" because the world population is 7 billion.

No. That's a 100% increase.

Yeah, no... It is the parts per million thing.

 

[bluemon]

Yeah, no... It is the parts per million thing.

And...?

420 ppm is 150% of 280 ppm.

A difference of 140ppm. Which is 50% of 280 ppm. Therfore a 50% increase.

Not 0.014 percent like you are suggesting. A 0. 014 percent increase would be an increase of 0.0392 ppm.

0.0392 =/= 140

See where you are wrong?

 

[CoralB]

Yes and as many here know- will be posting lots of pics. We were to return Saturday but booked a last minute cruise and and are on the cruise. Im on a tour bus right now or else I would not be online.

Are you referring to pics of Hawaii???

 

[jabberwock]

And...?

420 ppm is 150% of 280 ppm.

A difference of 140ppm. Which is 50% of 280 ppm. Therfore a 50% increase.

Not 0.014 percent like you are suggesting. A 0. 014 percent increase would be an increase of 0.0392 ppm.

0.0392 =/= 140

See where you are wrong?

280 is 0.028% of a million
420 is 0.042% of a million
the difference is 140 ppm
which is 0.014% of a million

Let's check that: 0.042% - 0.028% = 0.014%

I mean, I might be wrong, and I would accept it if I were, but I think the math checks out.

 

[bluemon]

On a more cheerful note, anyone have any snorkeling recommendations in the US?

I am a bit scared of deep water so SCUBA is a bit out of the picture, but I did go snorkeling in Hawaii a long time ago and remember having a blast. I even saw a small moray?

Is Hawaii still the golden standard in the US?

 

[Doctorgori]

I could not bring myself to read all 6 pages. Good job everyone BTW to keep it from getting shut down!

Shhh, keep your voices down
All this climate change/coal burning discussion will be moot once the military industrial complex finally break out those Alpha Centauri warp drives they been hiding from congress all these years…
…. ( been watching those UAP hearings LOL)
…. of course thats assuming those “greys” did actually run out of gas, crash and get thier motors stolen/reverse engineered by Lockheed (after traveling 20 billion light years),

…free energy is just around the corner…

 

[Reefering1]

So how does the Florida government, sportsmen, general public feel about these local stressors to Florida ecosystems? I would think being a saltwater fishing paradise, it would get some protection.

Our waters are doomed. Every other year the gulf coast is plagued with red tide and blue/ green algea caused by nutrient rich releases from lake okeechobee. Months of potentially toxic decomposing algae and many thousands of dead fish washing up everywhere, this heat wave is a blip. Is it of concern?, sure. But unless we're ready to cut the human population in half, our efforts are best spent cleaning up the pollution of our waterways(run-off, sewage, plastics, etc). I haven't heard one person say the climate isnt changing(I don't think so anyways). Overall sentiment is "what can we do about it?"
My opinion is that every single "answer" revolves around big changes that don't really help if you look at the big picture, meanwhile these changes mean big money for somebody... if these people really believed what they are saying, why are they ignoring the obvious, common sense, approach to helping the earth NOW. Pollution of waters, emissions, etc. I don't agree with electric cars but how about better catalytic converters, natural gas, and stop dumping **** in the lakes, rivers and oceans.

 

[jabberwock]

On a more cheerful note, anyone have any snorkeling recommendations in the US?

I am a bit scared of deep water so SCUBA is a bit out of the picture, but I did go snorkeling in Hawaii a long time ago and remember having a blast. I even saw a small moray?

Is Hawaii still the golden standard in the US?

I saw a six footer in Hawaii. It was escaping a tide pool. Quite impressive.

 

[jabberwock]

Our waters are doomed. Every other year the gulf coast is plagued with red tide and blue/ green algea caused by nutrient rich releases from lake okeechobee. Months of potentially toxic decomposing algae and many thousands of dead fish washing up everywhere, this heat wave is a blip. Is it of concern?, sure. But unless we're ready to cut the human population in half, our efforts are best spent cleaning up the pollution of our waterways(run-off, sewage, plastics, etc). I haven't heard one person say the climate is changing(I don't think so anyways). Overall sentiment is "what can we do about it?"
My opinion is that every single "answer" revolves around big changes that don't really help if you look at the big picture, meanwhile these changes mean big money for somebody... if these people really believed what they are saying, why are they ignoring the obvious, common sense, approach to helping the earth NOW. Pollution of waters, emissions, etc. I don't agree with electric cars but how about better catalytic converters, natural gas, and stop dumping **** in the lakes, rivers and oceans.

I experienced a bad red tide at St George a couple years ago. Pooh is worse than CO2.

 

[bluemon]

280 is 0.028% of a million
420 is 0.042% of a million
the difference is 140 ppm
which is 0.014% of a million

Let's check that: 0.042% - 0.028% = 0.014%

I mean, I might be wrong, and I would accept it if I were, but I think the math checks out.

That's not how you compare number / growth.

You almost got to the right answer but are missing one crucial step. Yes the difference is 0.014%, but that has to be relative to the starting percentage which is 0.028%.

0.014% is 50 percent of 0.028%.

I think what is tripping you up is that there are too many percentage symbols.

Let me give you another analogy.

Think of a nice cheeseburger.

You start off with a 100g patty. The whole burger is 1000g (a lot of bacon and veggies). 10% of burger is patty

You upgrade to a double patty. Now you have 200g of patty. Now around 20% (not exactly 20 but still) of burger is patty.

Would you say that is a 100% increase of patty? Or would you say that is a 10% increase of patty? (which is what you are suggesting with you math.)


It is a 100% increase of patty because it doubled

 

[jabberwock]

That's not how you compare number / growth.

You almost got to the right answer but are missing one crucial step. Yes the difference is 0.014%, but that has to be relative to the starting percentage which is 0.028%.

0.014% is 50 percent of 0.028%.

I think what is tripping you up is that there are too many percentage symbols.

Let me give you another analogy.

Think of a nice cheeseburger.

You start off with a 100g patty. The whole burger is 1000g (a lot of bacon and veggies). 10% of burger is patty

You upgrade to a double patty. Now you have 200g of patty. Now around 20% (not exactly 20 but still) of burger is patty.

Would you say that is a 100% increase of patty? Or would you say that is a 10% increase of patty? (which is what you are suggesting with you math.)


It is a 100% increase of patty because it doubled

If the patty is CO2, and the rest of the burger is the rest of the atmosphere, then yes I agree, the patty increased 100%, but relative to the totality of the burger, it is an infinitesimal increase.

 

[Reefering1]

I experienced a bad red tide at St George a couple years ago. Pooh is worse than CO2.

you ever see the chunky, smelly, floating blue/green stuff?