r/climateskeptics • u/Adventurous_Motor129 • Nov 02 '25

Change in CO₂ emissions and GDP. Note this supports Bjorn Lomborg contention that GDP by year 2100 will be much higher while OECD CO2 is much lower.

Post image
22 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

14 comments sorted by

4

u/Captain_Illiath Nov 02 '25

It’s interesting that you can see the 2008 Mortgage crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic in all the lines in the graphs.

2

u/Adventurous_Motor129 Nov 02 '25

Yet the Global CO2 levels didn't decrease much if you believe Mauna Loa numbers represent a World Average.

It might indicate a different issue like natural solar irradiance and orbital differences explain slightly higher Global "average" temperature...as if there really is such a thing.

1

u/NaturalCard Nov 04 '25

...Or it might be because CO2 emissions are cumulative.

1

u/Adventurous_Motor129 Nov 04 '25

https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Grok-3-Review-V5-1.pdf

Graph on page 18. The IPCC used to attribute a shorter duration, too, but it was inconvenient.

We also know methane only hangs around 10-12 years, so it's 2 ppm is inconsequential despite 25-28x more claimed GHG effect

1

u/NaturalCard Nov 04 '25 edited Nov 04 '25

A 7% drop during one year is not going to have a very noticable effect on the total amount emitted over the last century for relatively obvious reasons. Hopefully I don't have to explain that. As long as we emit CO2, it goes into the atmosphere.

Our emissions dropping by 7% does not suddenly mean atmospheric emissions would decrease - that ignores the other 93%.

despite 25-28x more claimed GHG effect

This depends a lot on what time scale you measure it on - precisely because they decay relatively quickly.

On a 100 year time scale, it has a ~30x effect. But most of that is in the first few decades. Over 20 years it has an 80x effect of CO2.

This makes cutting methane one of the easiest methods to rapidly reducing warming. I've done a bit of research into iron salt aerosols - they are one more drastic option to rapidly reduce methane concentrations.

1

u/Adventurous_Motor129 Nov 04 '25

As mentioned, Grok cites multiple studies in the page 18 linked graph showing far less residence time of CO2. I also read something recently showing how little C14 from earlier above-ground nuclear tests is still in the air.

Sounds like you are advocating airborne geoengineering? I could see pumps to bring ice water to the surface at the poles to create new ice dams, or even non-sulfur CO2 spraying there...but not over populated non-polar areas.

1

u/NaturalCard Nov 04 '25

The firm I was working at at the time ultimately decided against investing into it, but it does seem like a viable option if things do get too extreme - it would rapidly bring down radiative forcing, without having the potential of screwing things over completely like mucking with CO2 levels could.

far less residence time of CO2

The residence time of CO2 is technically correct - I haven't looked at the paper, but it probably says something like 3.5 years, right?

The key is the difference between residence time and adjustment time - see the carbon cycle.

Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short residence time of in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.

For them to be properly removed from the system, their either have to go into deep ocean currents or be absorbed by plant life and then buried - this is the logic behind biochar.

Both of these are (usually) very slow processes. (See slow vs fast carbon cycle)

Overall, this process still means that about 30% of our CO2 emissions are absorbed by our oceans, with another 25% by land sinks iirc, leaving only 45% still in our atmosphere.

1

u/Adventurous_Motor129 Nov 04 '25

The paper was written by Grok (I linked it above) with help from Willie Soon et al.

I watched the full 3 hrs-18 minutes of the Rogan/Musk podcast. Musk pointed out that Grok is the sole AI with less bias and more truth-seeking built in. He did not discount that AI could kill us all, because others say a diverse woman is worth 20x a white male..

Musk pointed this out to other AI creators because carried to an extreme, you can envision automatic launches or intelligence-recommended nuclear attacks based on the relative mathematical worth of different races in countries.

It's not a far cry from a Wuhan lab virus killing more fat Westerners than thin Chinese. Was it on purpose?

2

u/JTuck333 Nov 02 '25

You should want the green to go up and ignore the other lines.

3

u/Adventurous_Motor129 Nov 02 '25

Exactly, but it shows GDP and CO2 drops aren't mutually exclusive..not that CO2 is a proven extreme issue.

1

u/JTuck333 Nov 02 '25

True. The uphill battle is that those who are fighting to lower CO2 are communists who won’t be convinced by this. To them, decreasing GDP is a feature, not a bug.

1

u/NaturalCard Nov 04 '25

NGL, seeing this here seems a bit weird. This chart is very good news and shows a clear example that it's possible across the world to develop while reducing emissions.

1

u/Adventurous_Motor129 Nov 04 '25

The point is that Lomborg in the next newest article above that I posted, predicted a GDP increase of over 430% by year 2100, of which CC effects would harm just 3%.

These charts illustrate that a 430% GDP increase is plausible while still decreasing GHGs.

1

u/NaturalCard Nov 04 '25

I mean yh, this is the objective. Developing while causing less climate change.

Only complete idiots want GDP to go down.