Time delays are generally the way the movement attempts to explain the unexplainable. It doesn’t work in explaining sea level rises starting in 1880 unless you believe there was a secret industrial source of CO2 in 1860.
Have any of you followers of statistics got comparisons for:
1) The total CO2 emissions for a B737 or B757 with just over 200 people on board on a just over 1 hour flight from Nantes LFRS to Nice LFMN
Versus
2) 5 x buses with 40 passengers per bus over the same distance over a period of 10 to 12 hours.
It would be nice to have some actual facts for the discussion we are having and surfing the net with a broadband which usually maxes out at 180kb/s takes forever.
Silvaire wrote:
Turning this around a bit… the hypothesis is that Hawaii is too far from industrial CO2 production to respond in less than a year to a substantial reduction in man-made CO2. What then is producing the continuously upward trend in measured data from 2020 from 2019 – if it isn’t CO2 from remote man made sources? Is it local man-made sources that have somehow not been reduced?I don’t think so. The data seems to me unrelated to man’s activity, just as the data on continuous sea level rise since 1880 or longer is not correlated in any way to industrial activity that didn’t increase much until about 1950.
1. Yes – there also has been a local decline (Less planes, Crusiseships, commute, etc.).
2. The emission 2015-2019 has created the upward trend in 19/20 – one of the core reasons that scientists are looking at Mauna Loa Data is exactly that it is remote enough that it has a mediating effect and is not that much affected from any short term events
3. I have provided data that the trend in Mauna Loa is actually influenced a bit
4. 1880 you say? What a coincidence that we have exponential growth of man made carbon emissions since about 1850 …
Earlier you said there is no significant industrial source of man made CO2 within 2500 miles, now it is a significant driver of the data in Hawaii.
The data for rise in sea level is pretty much linear, with the rate constant since 1880. This is at odds with CO2 data which being exponential does not start rising in any significant way until 70 years later.
Silvaire wrote:
This is at odds with CO2 data which being exponential does not start rising in any significant way until 70 years later.
Please make yourself familiar with exponential growth – the picture I posted shows exactly that from 1850.
And btw: The source of this growth from the mid of 19th century is not at all “secret”. So called “Trains” (you might had heard of it) Where invented in the 20/30s of the 19th century and started to become really common at the mid of the century. In the 80s the production of electricity from fossil fuels started to kick in. Both not a secret…
And no-one said it’s significant – there is an effect and it can be seen in the data – but it’s not big enough to offset the long term global trend. What is the problem?
Silvaire wrote:
This is at odds with CO2 data which being exponential does not start rising in any significant way until 70 years later.
Not true that carbon growth only started “70 years later”. Look at the graph. It’s exponential since at least 1850.
It is obvious that at any time before 1950 there were very little man made CO2 emissions (between zero and 1/16 of current emissions) but that sea level rise per year was only slightly less than recently.
Silvaire wrote:
is obvious that at any time before 1950 there were very little man made CO2 emissions but that sea level rise per year was only slightly less than today.
So what is your point? That an exponential growth in one parameter can not lead to linear growth in another? Or that a small increase in emission in 1850-1900 (btw. has not been so small but increased 50 times) can not lead to a significant increase of MSL?
Have a nice day.
This discussion is totally pointless. Either you believe that your “independent thinking” is as good as that of people who have literally spent decades studying and understanding the subject, or you do not. In neither case is there much to discuss.
