Recently I was inspired to update something I presented a while ago and that is the relationship between global atmospheric CO2 and fossil fuel outputs, here is that update.
To start off; here are a couple of informative graphics that show us the overall composition of our atmosphere. I think it’s interesting that CO2 is only 0.0417% of the overall atmosphere.
Here are some simplified generalized graphics to show the global carbon cycle and provides us with a rudimentary understanding of how much of each component contributes to global atmospheric carbon. Source of the graphics
The numbers in the graphics represent GtC (gigatons of carbon) and we can use that data to make a few calculations to get an idea of what’s happening.
So we can see from the averages on the spreadsheet that the average percentage that fossil fuel contributes to the overall carbon in the atmosphere is 0.8272%.
Now here is another graphic representing the total amount of carbon contributed to atmospheric carbon by countries burning fossil fuels.
You can see in that pie chart that the United States of America contributed 14% of the total atmospheric carbon contributed by burning fossil fuels.
Now we can do some logical deduction and another calculation:
- Burning fossil fuels contributes 0.8272% of the total carbon contributed to atmospheric carbon.
- United States of America is responsible for 14% of the total fossil fuel carbon contributed to atmospheric carbon.
- We can calculate that United States is responsible for 0.12% of the total carbon contributed to atmospheric carbon by burning fossil fuels.
So now that we know that the United States of America is contributing a whopping 0.12% of the total carbon by burning fossil fuels, we can extrapolate that information to say that if the United States were to completely cease burning fossil fuels tomorrow the result would be a 0.12% reduction in carbon contributions to atmospheric carbon, which if you round that to the nearest whole percentage the rounded value is statistically indistinguishable from zero, in fact it actually rounds to the number zero.
Think about what I presented for a couple of minutes and how the 21st century apocalyptic global warming advocates are telling us that we must immediately cease to use things like gas stoves, gasoline powered cars, coal & gas fired power plants, natural gas, propane, jet fuel, etc to stop the imminent global warming disaster that always seems to be right around the corner, but every time we turn the corner there’s nothing there. Is ripping that gargantuan 0.12% (statistically indistinguishable from 0%) of contributed carbon from the atmosphere worth yanking the rug out from under our entire economy, society, and culture and putting us back in the dark ages knowing full well that it won’t do a damn thing to actually curb the predicted global warming apocalypse, remember it’s going to be hell on earth and humanity won’t survive. This is irrational reasoning, it’s pure…
I’ve written this dozens of times; cleaning up the environment would be a great thing for the planet and the entire human race. The best I can tell, everyone and everything would benefit from having a clean planet where resources aren’t squandered and pollution of all kinds are kept to a bare minimum, but all the cultish hype and Magic 8 Ball prediction lies surrounding the “settled science” we hear from apocalyptic climate change advocates is just a bunch of correlation = causation arrogant science-speak irrationally extrapolated bull shit.
I know where I stand regarding the cultish climate propaganda I’ve been fed over the last 30+ years and the Magic 8 Ball predictions made by these “settled science” climate alarmists, it’s like a cross between a new fad religion and pure political propaganda; but heck, you’re free to come to your own conclusions based on the data I presented.
[UPDATE: 2/23/2024 Added the following video]
Society's Building Blocks 
The problem with all efforts to insist the US (or the UK, or the EU) lead the way in decarbonization is that contributions of each of those is too small on their own to make any difference. The climate alarmists want to believe that if someone leads the way, everyone else will follow, setting aside their individual goals altruistically for the benefit of all mankind. This ignores reality, the political goals of other nations (Russia, China, India, the developing world as a whole…), and human nature. At best, everyone shaking hands on reducing CO2 emissions to pre-industrial levels is global exercise of the prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone will be confident that everyone else is crossing their fingers behind their backs, and thus everyone will think that either than pull an economic/political/sociological advantage by not agreeing to the climate agenda, or everyone will renege on the climate agenda out of fear that others will pull an advantage over them. Or some idiot country will go through with its decarbonization, and quickly succumb to its enemies who retained economic/political/military resources.
LikeLiked by 1 person