[alancalverd]

Oh come now. Your lines represent an opinion, not the data or anything much to do with it.  If you read the large print published by NOAA alongside the graph, they say that there is no discernible reduction in CO2 levels or trend ascribable to COVID, but what do they know? 
 

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Why does the CO2 emitted by a volcano have any major effect on world climate, I'm pretty sure if it was volcanos the boards of BP shell esso etc would have pointed this out.

[chiralSPO]

About 9% drop in oil use this year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271823/daily-global-crude-oil-demand-since-2006/

About a 3% drop in coal use
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-coal-consumption-1978-2020

So ~12% decrease in the principal acknowledged sources of anthropogenic CO2

That's... that's not how arithmetic works... (otherwise I could cut down on my caviar consumption by 72% and my vodka consumption by 38% and get paid to eat like an oligarch)

[chiralSPO]

no discernible effect

Discernible to whom and by what method? As demonstrated by the argument between Bored chemist and alancalverd, it would seem that, maybe, just eyeballing isn't a good way to impose a limit of detection for the average slope of a slightly noisy sloped sinusoidal curve?

It's like the bootlegger who assures you that there isn't any methanol in their moonshine, cause it tastes pure... And then a quick GC is like: oh, theres 0.44% methanol in here, don't drink this!

Ok, back to CO₂! Let's see if anybody has actually quantitatively looked at the data... oh look here it is:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html

co2_data_mlo_anngr.png (73.24 kB . 666x489 - viewed 1506 times)

and the data show that 2020 had an overall increase in CO₂ levels (+2.3 ppm) about 9% less than the overall in 2019 (+2.5 ppm).

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

no discernible effect

Discernible to whom and by what method? As demonstrated by the argument between Bored chemist and alancalverd, it would seem that, maybe, just eyeballing isn't a good way to impose a limit of detection for the average slope of a slightly noisy sloped sinusoidal curve?

It's like the bootlegger who assures you that there isn't any methanol in their moonshine, cause it tastes pure... And then a quick GC is like: oh, theres 0.44% methanol in here, don't drink this!

Ok, back to CO₂! Let's see if anybody has actually quantitatively looked at the data... oh look here it is:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

and the data show that 2020 had an overall increase in CO₂ levels (+2.3 ppm) about 9% less than the overall in 2019 (+2.5 ppm).

Yes but there has bee. A big volcanic eruption in hawaii since the 80s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pu%CA%BBu_%CA%BB%C5%8C%CA%BB%C5%8D

[chiralSPO]

Oh you're right. Nobody realized that there are volcanos in Hawaii until now. Decades of work invalidated! *swoon*


Oh, wait a minute, it's ok folks: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/

[chiralSPO]

Sorry for the extra snark y'all, but I just get really frustrated having the same silly little arguments over and over about whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, when we should be arguing about what to doing about it!

It's not natural cycles with the sun or our orbit. It's not volcanos. We can trust our data (whether that's CO₂ measurements, or surface temperatures, or IR emissions, isotope ratios...) Sea levels are rising. The water is acidifying. Land ice and permafrost are receding. Storms are becoming more frequent and stronger.

And I get that science is not a 'consensus is correct' kind of field... but when the one guy in the room disagrees with "all the experts" he must have a very compelling case. Not just, "Sunspots!" or "how do you know your instruments aren't wrong?"

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Oh you're right. Nobody realized that there are volcanos in Hawaii until now. Decades of work invalidated! *swoon*


Oh, wait a minute, it's ok folks: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/

So they are literally selecting the data they wish?

[alancalverd]

Discernible to whom and by what method?

Discernible to NOAA, by statistical analysis, or so their website says. Not quite the same as drawing arbitrary lines on a graph to substantiate an unstated point.

Nor

and the data show that 2020 had an overall increase in CO2 levels (+2.3 ppm) about 9% less than the overall in 2019 (+2.5 ppm).

choosing a single exceptional comparator to make some other point. That isn't quantitative analysis worthy of a science forum.

[Bored chemist]

Your lines represent an opinion, not the data or anything much to do with it.

I drew the lines through the data. OK, Paint isn't the best tool for that, but it is still better than your  unevinced claim.
If nothing else it actually got you to try to support your assertion, so that's good.

they say that there is no discernible reduction in CO2 levels or trend ascribable to COVID,

Well, with a reduction of the order of a few percent in fossil fuel consumption, you wouldn't expect to discern it.

Also, while "the eye of faith" may be a poor way to establish reality, it's a great deal better than Alan's idea that you can add together the individual percentage reductions to get the total reduction.
If the use of gas, shale-oil  and peat have also fallen by 5 or 10 %  does that mean the total reduction is now about 50%?
as one might put it:

That isn't quantitative analysis worthy of a science forum.

Better yet, if the Whitby Jet industry has benefitted from people staying in the UK and has trebled production, does that mean we are now using about 250% as much fossil carbon?

Not quite the same as drawing arbitrary lines on a graph to substantiate an unstated point.

I stated my point quite clearly.

Because there was very little change in the consumption of fossil fuel

It seems that everyone has focused on the fact that people used their cars less, but forgotten that many people heated their homes more.

[alancalverd]

f nothing else it actually got you to try to support your assertion, so that's good.

Please don't label NOAA's published analysis as my assertion. I don't do plagiarism. 

[Bored chemist]

Please don't label NOAA's published analysis as my assertion. I don't do plagiarism. 

Well... you forgot to cite it...

But if you look at the Mauna Loa data, there is nothing to suggest that 2020 or 2021 (so far) were in any way different from any other year in terms of temperature and CO2 concentration.

Citing (sort- of) the data is not the same as citing the interpretation, is it?

[Zer0]

Hi Chiral!
🙂

Thanks for All those Statistical slides.

Honestly, it's Scary!

Aren't there ways to just suck up the  CO2 back from the environment?

We are still not really capable of controlling climate, but atleast We could try somehow?

Have WE reached the Point of No Return?
☹️

[chiralSPO]

Hi Chiral!
🙂

Thanks for All those Statistical slides.

you're welcome :-)

Honestly, it's Scary!

It's certainly not comforting...

Aren't there ways to just suck up the  CO2 back from the environment?

Yeah, but there are two major problems with it: how much money and material and energy is spent cleaning it up, and what do we do with it then? There are some advances being made with people using captured carbon dioxide to make fuels (at least that's carbon neutral), solvents, simple edible organic compounds, and even diamonds (cool, but not practical). Some are trying to pump it into volcanic chambers where it can be absorbed by the calcined minerals.

We are still not really capable of controlling climate, but atleast We could try somehow?

We need to try a lot harder (and faster!)

Have WE reached the Point of No Return?
☹️

There isn't a point of no return really (Earth has had many climates before), it's just an issue of whether we can return in our lifetimes (unfortunately, almost certainly not mine or yours–climates typically change slowly, and I doubt that we will be able to just "pop it back" to the way it was).

We can begin our return at any moment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, helping to regenerate carbon-negative ecosystems, investing in industrial-scale carbon capture/conversion technologies, and maybe even trying to increase the albedo of various parts of the globe with mirrors.

[chiralSPO]

Hi Chiral!
🙂

Thanks for All those Statistical slides.

you're welcome :-)

Honestly, it's Scary!

It's certainly not comforting...

Aren't there ways to just suck up the  CO2 back from the environment?

Yeah, but there are two major problems with it: how much money and material and energy is spent cleaning it up, and what do we do with it then? There are some advances being made with people using captured carbon dioxide to make fuels (at least that's carbon neutral), solvents, simple edible organic compounds, and even diamonds (cool, but not practical). Some are trying to pump it into volcanic chambers where it can be absorbed by the calcined minerals.

We are still not really capable of controlling climate, but atleast We could try somehow?

We need to try a lot harder (and faster!)

Have WE reached the Point of No Return?
☹️

There isn't a point of no return really (Earth has had many climates before), it's just an issue of whether we can return in our lifetimes, (unfortunately, almost certainly not mine or yours–climates typically change slowly, and I doubt that we will be able to just "pop it back" to the way it was), or those of our grandchildren, or if we are jut going to have to limit the change and adjust to a new normal. (+1.8 °C is not great, but it's better than +4.2 °C!!)

We can begin our return at any moment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, helping to regenerate carbon-negative ecosystems, investing in industrial-scale carbon capture/conversion technologies, and maybe even trying to increase the albedo of various parts of the globe with mirrors.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Oh you're right. Nobody realized that there are volcanos in Hawaii until now. Decades of work invalidated! *swoon*


Oh, wait a minute, it's ok folks: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/

Looking into this further, it seems they have located their co2 monitors by volcanoes

[Bored chemist]

Oh you're right. Nobody realized that there are volcanos in Hawaii until now. Decades of work invalidated! *swoon*


Oh, wait a minute, it's ok folks: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/

Looking into this further, it seems they have located their co2 monitors by volcanoes

Everyone knows that.
So..?

[chiralSPO]

Aren't there ways to just suck up the  CO2 back from the environment?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/world/carbon-capture-storage-climate-iceland-intl-cmd/index.html

211018110821-01-carbfix-climeworks-iceland-carbon-storage-super-169.jpeg (137.24 kB . 1100x619 - viewed 1427 times)

It opened last month and currently removes about 10 metric tons of CO2 every day, which is roughly the the same amount of carbon emitted by 800 cars a day in the US. It's also about the same amount of carbon 500 trees could soak up in a year.
It's a fine start, but in the grand scheme of things, its impact so far is miniscule. Humans emit around 35 billion tons of greenhouse gas a year through the cars we drive and flights we take, the power we use to heat our homes and the food — in particular the meat — that we eat, among other activities.

[alancalverd]

Aren't there ways to just suck up the  CO2 back from the environment?

Plant trees - or just stop cutting them down.

[chiralSPO]

even diamonds

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/made-from-co2-concrete-lululemons-diamonds-spark-investor-excitement-2021-10-04/