What is net zero?

@metal-brain said
But how much CO2 is that? It cannot be zero because that is impossible. All life on the planet would die if it was.

Think of zero, in my example as something between 10 and -10.

So, it can swing either way (more income than expenses, for example).
But, if they cancel each other out, it’s net zero.

@metal-brain said
Then it is not zero. That is all we know.
The amount depends on when you start. Right?

Planting trees has little to do with it. I think you are just making that up. Brazil has the Amazon forest which produces a lot of O2 naturally. Will Brazil always be in compliance even if they double CO2 emissions? Trees also have a tendency to come back naturally if the land is l ...[text shortened]... be planted with trees so what are people waiting for? That can be done now and it would create jobs.

I can see why you're having trouble with such a basic concept. Please, never become my accountant.

@ponderable said
No.

One thing: During the history of mankind (last few thousand years) cO2 was about 300 ppm (give and take a few dozen).

After the advent of the industrial revolution and more so with the upcoming traffic based on burning carbonecous substances, t we now have 400 + (there is some seasonal variation).

The point is: If we want to live in the same conditions as our ...[text shortened]... cular to the street, the thing would be to stop, not to keep the velocity or even accelerate, right?

Can you quantify this supposed 'wall' coming up, it sounds very dramatic. What I'm seeing is a speed bump so immeasurably small the paint is thicker than the actual speed bump.

What the is temp now?
What should it be?

If you were to say there should have been no change in the last 200, 300, 400 years then that would be a very surprising claim, the temp has always changed.

You say we need to put the carbon back in the ground. I agree the plant a tree thing is as ridiculous as the wear a mask thing, it appeals to retards like kev because it's visible and that's all that counts.

Where was the carbon before it was in the ground? Over millions of years the earth has been losing carbon from the carbon cycle, if anything mans actions are freeing the carbon back into the cycle from where it came.

@shavixmir said
Think of zero, in my example as something between 10 and -10.

So, it can swing either way (more income than expenses, for example).
But, if they cancel each other out, it’s net zero.

Zero is not a floating number. It is zero which means nothing.

@soothfast said
I can see why you're having trouble with such a basic concept. Please, never become my accountant.

When zero is not really zero it begs questions.
How much CO2 is net zero? Simple question you cannot answer and you are ashamed of yourself that you cannot give a number. Your psychological projection is noted.

@divegeester said
I’m just explaining to you that net zero co2 emissions doesn’t mean no co2 in the atmosphere, what h is what you seemed to think.

That is why I said "right". I agreed with you. Now....how much CO2 is net zero going to be? If we wait 10 years it will be whatever the CO2 levels are in 10 years. Right?

It all depends when you start. Right?

@divegeester said
How on earth did you get that from my reply to you?

Are you disagreeing with me? Yes or no?

@metal-brain said
When zero is not really zero it begs questions.
How much CO2 is net zero? Simple question you cannot answer and you are ashamed of yourself that you cannot give a number. Your psychological projection is noted.

Ha ha. In fact, you have hijacked your own thread to go off on another one of your delusional atmospheric CO2 fever dreams.

You asked what "net zero" means. Remember? If it wasn't an honest inquiry, then at least own up to that now. I was pretty sure it wasn't an honest inquiry just based on your recent blitherings about CO2 in the science forum, and so I provided you with the bait to get confirmation of my suspicions.

You are so predictable. Doesn't it bother you that AI chat bots are now more spontaneous and lifelike than yourself?

@soothfast said
Ha ha. In fact, you have hijacked your own thread to go off on another one of your delusional atmospheric CO2 fever dreams.

You asked what "net zero" means. Remember? If it wasn't an honest inquiry, then at least own up to that now. I was pretty sure it wasn't an honest inquiry just based on your recent blitherings about CO2 in the science forum, and so I provided yo ...[text shortened]... table. Doesn't it bother you that AI chat bots are now more spontaneous and lifelike than yourself?

If you cannot give a number just say so.
Don't get so insecure about it. Net zero is whatever the CO2 levels are when we get around to implementing net zero. I'm in no hurry. Are you?

@metal-brain said
If you cannot give a number just say so.
Don't get so insecure about it. Net zero is whatever the CO2 levels are when we get around to implementing net zero. I'm in no hurry. Are you?

DumbBot returns.

Please update your programming. I'm not debating CO2 with you here. I answered your (disingenuous) question about the definition of "net zero" with an example, as have others.

The rest of this thread is just you swallowing the bait hook, line, and sinker. Upgrade your RAM to at least 4 bits or something.

@soothfast said
DumbBot returns.

Please update your programming. I'm not debating CO2 with you here. I answered your (disingenuous) question about the definition of "net zero" with an example, as have others.

The rest of this thread is just you swallowing the bait hook, line, and sinker. Upgrade your RAM to at least 4 bits or something.

We all know the answer. I explained it perfectly. It depends when you alarmists get around to it.

I'm in no hurry. Are you?

@metal-brain said
We all know the answer. I explained it perfectly. It depends when you alarmists get around to it.

I'm in no hurry. Are you?

Damnit, and here I was giving you credit for sincerely asking questions.

@vivify said
Damnit, and here I was giving you credit for sincerely asking questions.

I didn't know it would result in a non number. It all depends on when they get around to it so nobody knows. Kind of silly if you ask me. Even the alarmists don't have any idea. They just thought it sounded good at the time.

I'm a patient guy though. At least now people know that zero CO2 would end life on earth as we know it. All plants would die so we would die. Here is a new idea, stop demonizing CO2. All life depends on it.

@metal-brain said
zero CO2 would end life on earth as we know it. All plants would die so we would die. Here is a new idea, stop demonizing CO2. All life depends on it.

Net Zero doesn't mean "eliminate all CO2" just don't add any additional C02.

@vivify said
Net Zero doesn't mean "eliminate all CO2" just don't add any additional C02.

I know. CO2 is essential to all life on earth though. Right?