Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Emissions Reached Record High In 2010
iONiUM writes "Last year, greenhouse gas emissions rose to a record amount of 30.6 gigatons, according to estimates from the International Energy Agency. From an article at the Guardian: 'Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change for the Treasury in 2006, warned that if the pattern continued, the results would be dire. "These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a 'business as usual' path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path... would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100," he said.'"
jamie points out a recent report that the cost of solar cells has dropped about 21 percent this year, leading to predictions that solar power may become cheaper than nuclear and fossil power within five years.
This isn't good news from either an environmental standpoint or that of human health. There have been several informative studies which have shows that an increase of carbon dioxide intake (through soda) leads to an increase in obesity, diabetes and overall ill-health. As the amount of carbon dioxide is taken into the body it reduces oxygen concentration at the celluar level.
Think back to the dawn of the industrial revolution. People were happy and died of old age. As carbon dioxide started to be pumped into the atmosphere people began to get sick at younger ages. No one died of cancer in Egyptian times but now around a quarter of us will! If you feel a bit run-down or your Chiropractor finds serious subluxations due to chronic carbon dioxide intake, there's a simple method to help: DRINK PLENTY OF WATER!
Yes, it's that simple: increase your water intake.
As your body breaks down the water, the oxygen within floods to all your cells helping to push out the bad CO2. Also try eating water-rich foods such as organic celery, watermelon, tomatoes and cucumbers. Refrain from eating leafy things, they contain LOADS of carbon dioxide and will counter any water you take in.
There are many, many well researched YouTube videos (look for "chiropractic" or "maximum living") which will help you in your studies. Be sure to view the ones which have many thumbs up. Those are, basically, peer reviewed and sure to be informative.
Reduce your intake of carbon dioxide, go vegan and organic, get plenty of sleep, visit a chiropractor for regular adjustments to promote optimal nerve function. Enjoy long life!
Take care,
Bob.
Chiropractic Saves Lives!
> a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100
And a 50% chance of it not rising by more than 4C degrees by 2100.
Love sees no species.
There is certainly a connection here. There are now hundreds of people that have been killed due to the climate change resulting from carbon emission from fossil fuel burning. If this is not a wake-up call, I don't know what is.
I believe the retard republican politicians that claim warming is not happening.
we've got nothing to worry about.
Polycrystalline PV cells went down this year because there is a glut, a crapload of panels were produced for an order and then not purchased and now they are being dumped into the retail channel with benefits for all who are not making them. This is a momentary lull. And where the fuck is my Nanosolar? I want some to cover a 1962 Streamline travel trailer. It has a curved roof and I don't want to use trackers (I want to maintain aerodynamics) so Nanosolar glued to the roof panels would be an ideal solution.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You can NOT have a story about solar power without a prediction somewhere with the ole "in the next 5-10 years". It's amazing that 15 years of reading such articles, the solar power industry always seems to be 5-10 years away from a major boom.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
There are lots of excellent alternatives to fossil fuels coming down the pike: solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, fuel cells. I like the idea of solar cells on every rooftop, with hydrogen fuel cells in the basement to capture the surplus daytime power and recharge the electric cars overnight. I also like the idea of a windmill at every major intersection, to power a square mile or so of residences and businesses.
They're building a big solar thermal power plant in the Mojave desert, to accompany several others already up and running. Arizona's building a big one as well.
Solar photovoltaic technology is advancing, both in efficiency and in cheaper manufacturing costs. I think ultimately solar will provide 20-25% of people's electric needs.
And transportation is going to be electric, as batteries improve. Hybrid car sales are huge, and every manufacturer is getting into the act. They're somewhat expensive today, but economies of scale and improvements in the tech will only bring down costs and increase profits. Probably in 20 years every car on the road will be either a hybrid or fully electric.
What'll be interesting will be to see just how much impact this eventual shift away from combustible carbon fuels has on the climate. The scientific community largely agrees that humans have caused global warming, but what happens if we stop being the cause and it still gets warmer? All that carbon we've already produced is to blame? Or is it a few major volcanoes in the past century? Or climate shifts that have little to do with human activities? Should be an interesting 88 years coming up; wish I could be around to see it happen. But my daughter will, I hope.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
"would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100," he said.'"
Is there any chance we could see the error bar on that 4C temperature change... With that long a prediction I suspect the correct scientific representation would be
4C +- 100C (Remember, that is a 90 year extrapolation!)
Well, I would like to see it in details. First of all there were huge wild fires last year, and we got harsh winter too - so CO2 release can easily be attributed to this. Also winter made lot of not so smart people believe that global warming is a scam or not so serious as thought and released breaks.
Anyway, we need long term technological solutions. People are working on it. So let's hope it will be good enough.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
If Earth's climate warms by just 3 degrees...
adjust your air conditioner.
we're coming out of the great recession!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and were not going to do anything even when it's too late.
the powers that be are going to let lots of people die because it's profitable.
too many people...
Absolute statements are never true
Its really simple. People are stupid in analyzing risk. They tend to underplay risk that is common or that they control and exagerrate risk that is out of their control or is unusual. If eating say garlic hamburgers gave you a 10% risk of death by heart attack, they wont bat an eye. But if there was a 1% chance of death from vampires, then they would gladly eat garlic hamburgers. Death by vampiric attack is more attention getting than heart attack. Is nuclear power risky? yes but the consequences are arguably less severe than global warming + peak oil. However people still irrationally fear nuclear power more since the dangers of nuclear power are more attention getting and unusual This is thinking irraitonally.
Somebody had to.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
How long to we have to listen to endless stories on the need for "Climate Control" measures? I've been hearing dire forecast for 20 years, none of which has ever even remotely come true. Let's face it Climate control is not about Climate, it's about control.
Just as the ozone layer is rebuilding itself? Maybe it's because we cut down on all that laughing gas?
jamie points out a recent report that the cost of solar cells has dropped about 21 percent this year, leading to predictions that solar power may become cheaper than nuclear and fossil power within five years.
Which in turn says:
If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which Iâ(TM)m hopeful that we will do, youâ(TM)re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,
Basically, they are hoping to be competitive with consumer rates and are decades away, at best, and if ever, from being competitive with base load rates. That's an idiotic statement of someone trying to drive stock prices which have absolute no connection with reality.
For solar, it would literally be a major break through to provide peak load competitive prices and they are no where near being close to being competitive with base load generation. Even moreso, voltaic requires HALF the price of base load to be competitive with base load as it can only generate power half the time. Only solar-thermal looks to be able to ever be price competitive with base load pricing and even that is just now coming out of the gate.
Reality says the commentary is full of shit.
Haven't we hit peak oil? The problem will take care of itself when we have no fossil fuels to burn.
People fear Nuclear power because the dangers are terrible. People don't fear coal power because of all the successful lobbying by the coal industry. That anyone can look you in the face and say the words "clean coal" is beyond astounding. The fact that coal is terrible, however, does not make nuclear great. The simple truth is that humans have demonstrated themselves to be generally incapable of safely operating nuclear plants under capitalism, which is how the entire world is run. (Ask China's leaders how their bank accounts are doing...)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'll be dead by then. I say we burn up every last bit of oil that exists and leave the next generations to be the hippies who become one with earth.
Answer: Numbers may rise or drop by milions of percent or gazilion of gigatons, but the fact remains: greenhouse gases are still __less than 0.04%__ of earth's atmosphere. IPCC are lawyers not scientists.
Someday most of us will figure out as people get more and more uneducated, they will fear and not understand technology, it's evil and causes evil things. We'll all be back in caves soon enough.
Why? Why bother, I mean? What, exactly, are we hoping to accomplish by trying to develop stricter emission standards year after year? We're obviously not really solving the problem... and although granted, we may be possibly slowing down the rate at which it would otherwise happen if we didn't do anything, it doesn't take a genus to realize that if the measures you are taking to solve a problem aren't really getting you any closer to a solution, then perhaps it's time to try to switch tactics.
It won't be easy. It won't be cheap. But it will be worth it.
Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of the human race is either too cheap or too lazy, or else too consumed with making as much money as they can right here and now to be willing to actually do something about it. And the rest are just a vocal minority who unfortunately don't have the power to effect any significant change.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Just a bunch of political nazi's trying to control the world any way they can. This is a decent article on the subject. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lowi6.html
In case you haven't noticed, fossil fuels are being depleted, and will all be gone pretty soon anyway. Oil will be gone in ~50 years. Coal will be gone in about ~100 years. So all these carbon emissions will eventually stop whether anybody wants to make a legislative effort or not.
Every year, even though standards continue to get stricter and stricter, this continues to happen.
That's because those 'tighter emission controls' push energy intensive business out of Western nations to countries like China which are far less efficient.
The whole 'global warming' scam would be depressing if it wasn't so freaking hilarious. It's almost as though the Chinese have paid Western leaders to destroy their own economies and ship all their manufacturing to China.
No matter what we do, all available fossil fuels will be burnt. The world is so hungry of them.
They haven't slowed extraction but try to get more and more. All the oil pumped, all the coal mined, all the tar sands processed, all the gas collected will be burned. (well, a small part goes to chemical transformation, plastics...)
If you don't want to add some more CO2 in the atmosphere, you shouldn't have extracted more fossil fuels first...
(and forget this CO2 offset indulgences scam)
The carbon offset credit industry is booming! Now we'll get those solar powered windmill hover cars we've been promised all these years!
But really - global warming or not - we're not very good at inhaling greenhouse gases. I don't see why the global warming naysayers often don't acknowledge that those emissions DO lower air quality for humans.
The planet is just fine. It will be just fine. The people are fucked.
Just ask the people of Pompeii how the planet is doing.
Just when you thought the idiots couldn't get any stupider someone comes and proves you wrong.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
1. Supply cannot be adjusted to demand. My understanding is that wind is especially bad for this, as it is windiest in the evenings, after major industrial energy consumers have closed down for the day. We currently have very few options for storing generated power for later use. Batteries and capacitors are nowhere near ready for this task. There are a few hydroelectric stations that pump water up in to large resevoirs during the night for use during the daytime surge in demand. The areas where wind and solar are most effective, there is often little in the way of hills and water, making resevoir-based energy storage impractical. Also, resevoir storage requires the costly construction of a resevoir, pumps, and an entire hydroelectic generating station.
You might think that wind and solar could be used to provide baseline power, while "traditional" coal and nuclear adjust to peaks. Unfortunately, this is only partially true. Many PLWR and BLWR nuclear designs (almost all American designed plants are one of these two types) are not able to idle. This means that if the load on the plant falls beyond a certain level, the plant must perform a full shutdown or risk heat damage. This might not sound too badm but these same plants take at least a full week to restart, and require lots of electricity to do so.
Hydro is able to adjust it's output very rapidly, however there are only so many locations where hydroelectric dams can be installed. People often cite massive untapped locations far away from existing populations. Excellent! Now all we need to do is build costly and inefficient long-distance transmission lines to carry that power to where it will be useful.
Coal is also able to adjust output quickly, but, well... it's coal.
2. The second problem is that of dealing with a phenomenon called "reactive power". This is when voltage and current on an A/C line are thrown out of phase. Ideally, as voltage reaches it's peak, so does current. If you're voltage and current get thrown more than a few degrees off, you're home outlet may still be delivering 100 volts and 15 amps, but not really either at the same time. First you get 110 volts, but low amps, followed quickly my undervoltage and full 15 amps. This means that the usefull power on the line is diminnished.
Reactive power occurs as a result of inductive loads such as electric motors and transformers. As the coils in the motors rotate past the magnets, or the electric field rises and falls in a transformer, these devices become generators. This "reactive" generation is always slightly out of phase with the input power, and so the power that they feed back on to the grid causes voltage and current on the grid to skew slightly. Multiply this effect by the number of inductive loads on the grid (refridgerators, industrial equipment, televisions) and you can start to have a real problem.
Electrical generation sources that employ large turbines are able to adjust the magnets inside their generators to help counteract reactive power by producing power that is out of phase, but in the opposite direction.
Traditional wind turbines are unable to do this, though I believe some newer designes can, at least to some degree. Solid state inverters such as are used to interface solar cells to the grid are not able to to this at all, and so there is a very real limit to their usefulness on the current power grid.
Anyhow, I'm all for wind and solar. I just don't think they are able to provide a complete solution. Nuclear seems to be the way to go, but it must be done right. The Canadian Advanced Candu Reactors look like a viable option. They are designed such that they cannot melt down, produce relatively safe waste, and are capable of idling quite safely. I don't know why everyone insists on using dangerous PHWR designs.
Never eat more than you can lift -- Miss Piggy
I believe there's a Turkish solar panel maker that has hybrid PV/hot water panels (which increase PV efficiency as well as generate hot water) but I don't know if they can or do sell into the US market, or if there's a US-built competitor that does the same thing?
How can this happen? Every year for one week NBC Universal turns their logo green and makes everyone feel guilty unless they drive a hybrid car. This is impossible! All those hippies are riding bicycles and eating organic foods and turning off their lights. Are you telling us that all this hasn't amounted to a hill of non-GM beans?
You appear to have missed my point. "blaming the other guy" doesn't help matters any more than the rate that emission standards are being made tighter, and in fact is even less productive. It is also part of the problem.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The housing industry is not even a blip on the radar. Fertile land is used for agriculture. Did you know that the majority of trees in the world are cultivated?
The economist recently did a report on how we are going to be able to feed the world's growing population (or not). Here is a link to the main article: http://www.economist.com/node/18200618. And here is another one: http://www.economist.com/node/18200678. But there were many other articles on specific subjects.
The take-away lessons I got from reading all that, was that we have a very limited supply of non-used, fertile land, mostly concentrated in places like brazil where recent technological advances have made previously useless land viable. Water is the other bottleneck. And the expansion of meat-eating habits is also a problem, because it requires more land and more water per person than a vegetarian diet. So yes, your hamburger puts more pressure on the forests than the lumber industry.
Emission Control standards are a scam, don't be dopes. That one is propagated by Auto Manufacturers to force people to keep buying new cars with the governments assistance. They want you to be people that buy a new car every 2-3 years. The new sale also generates taxes for the gov, plus the sale of your old car generates tax to. Its wonder people never catch onto this....I mean really, how many used items are you forced to pay tax on again?
The whole idea of this is so very dumb. Look into the facts. The manufacturing process of new cars causes more Carbon Emissions than the old vehicles average putting out in the entire lifetime of the vehicle.
If you want to protest high carbon emissions, do something useful like not buying a new car ever 2 years. Ugh....stop believing everything that these company and the officials in charge (bought and paid for by these companies) spoon feed you.
And transportation is going to be electric, as batteries improve.
No need for batteries with trains. Most of the US freight train system is still diesel while it's electric in Europe.
Some countries have gone to a train system where different companies can run their trains on a common rail system - imagine UPS could run their own freight trains at 120 mp/h non-stop throughout the US. They could reach almost any distribution center within a day, no flights needed. Trucks would mainly do regional distribution, you would need no new feeder system and could get started with 2 or 3 main connections. You could have large solar plants in the Southwest, fueling most of the US bulk transportation system.
I wonder if all the carbon from volcanic activity was counted in this figure? I bet..
Sounds distinctly like a certain situational land scam to me.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
They ARE flexible.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The big problem is that many nations are trying to force USA to participate in a BS scheme. That scheme would actually WORSEN things, not improve them.
However, There is a SIMPLE way to solve this.
The USA should tax ALL GOODS as a percentage of a slowly rising value. That percentage is based on the Co2 emissions PER SQ KM OF LAND from which the finally item and the primary sub-component comes from. The tax is applied just prior to moving to retail (i.e. at point of entry to the USA or from leaving the manufacturer).
Note the ease in which the tax is done: first off it is on sq km of land. That is a fixed size (assuming not a war). It should also be measured as CO2 out of the nation - CO2 into the nation. This can be done simply by a satellite which would allow many nations to put up their own sat to check (i.e. veracity). All of this should take into account environment, ag vs manufacturing, economy and ppl better than just judging per capita. In addition, it is a simple approach.
You will note that this approach is about the only one that rewards a nation that DROPS their emissions (lower %), while punishing those that continue to add. In addition, it gives every nation a fixed amount of CO2 emission and then allows each nation to decide how to balance their own emissions. For nearly ALL of the developing world, they should have little to nothing to fix. OTH, developed nations and China as well as Brazil will have to make cuts.
This is a simple easy to do approach that can work.
The current approach favored by EU and Dems will actually cause nations to emulate China to grab our businesses since they are not part of the cap/tax. They will build loads of coal plants quickly to get 'cheap' electricity as well as throw in loads of roads (loads of emissions). OTH, this approach would have others tax nations exports AS WELL AS THAT NATION'S OWN, thereby limiting their economy unless they make changes. Finally, by raising the max SLOWLY, it gives nations time to adjust.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I don't know what everyone's so bent out of shape... God will never allow global warming to occur -- just like he won't let us run out of that sweet, sweet black nectar that is oil.
This could actually be very, very good for crops providing more abundance and that over-abundance of crop production could be donated to the needy rather than paying the farmers to burn them off every year.
I fail to see the problem with increasing CO2 levels; it will just increase foliage which in turn will sequester the carbon again, so what's the problem?
Wow, I think you need to provide a link to a credible site for this one. I am betting myself that the housing industry requires far more trees to be cut than the cattle industry. Most grazing pastures are at altitudes that typically on pines/spruces like to grow, plus, they (ranch managers) like the trees in the pastures to provide weather coverage for the animals.
The meat industry does not feed cattle by letting them graze. What kind of world do you think you live in? The cattle are fed feed crops that are farmed on acres of land that could otherwise be used for crops for humans, or forests, or whatever. I am not an anti-meat integralist, I am not even a vegetarian, but it is a fact that beef is practically the least efficient of all food sources, in terms of the number of humans that can subsist per acre. Pork is more efficient than beef, poultry is more efficient than pork, and vegetables are more efficient than poultry.
2100 is 89 years away. Believing that current trends will continue for that long is ridiculous. Believing that technology won't advance enough to completely invalidate the assumptions essential to the extrapolation is as funny as Malthus.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I have two sets of solar panels - one 10 year old set that's wired up conventionally to a single inverter, and another 8-month-old set that uses per-panel microinverters.
According to the very nice graphical display of power generation the microinverters provide via a built in web monitoring thingie, I average about four hours each day operating between 90% and peak generation.
Installation of the original set of panels was a major PITA because UL delisted the inverter after it was installed. Getting a massive piece of equipment down off the wall is easy, getting the replacement back up, not so much. But once that one startup issue was dealt with, the system has been 100% reliable and has required no repairs. As for the microinverters, it's early days yet, but they've been completely reliable so far.
As for washing the panels, yes, doing that more often increases output, but in my experience, not by that much. Around here the windows need to be washed twice a year so the panels get done as part of that. No big deal.
And as for all this "resetting after a power failure" - it appears your experience with grid-tie systems is seriously out of date. My 10 year old inverter handles power failures automatically. Aside from monitoring, I haven't had to touch the thing once the replacement inverter was installed. Ditto for the microinverters.
Finally, you appear to be conflating grid-tie and off-grid setups. I agree that a fully off-grid setup isn't easy. I have battery backup as part of my original system, but since the batteries are only used when there's a grid failure they haven't needed to be replaced. (And most grid-tie systems don't need them at all.) An off-grid setup that charges and discharges the batteries every day is going to require a lot more maintenance. And when solar is the only energy source the system has to be overbuilt in the fashion you describe (just not as much as you claim). And you probably care more about keeping the panels clean when they are your only power source.
But the vast majority of solar systems are grid-tied, not off-grid. So most of your issues simply don't apply.
Now, perhaps you'll say my experience is unusual. Yes, it's only anecdotal, but I know three people with similar solar setups in the area, and their systems have all worked flawlessly since they were installed.
You appear to have misssed my point as well. I have been saying that emission control standards are not fixing the problem, so the very reason that they are giving for having them is invalid.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Let's face it. Many talks and good intentions. Unless we ALL try hard to cut down and radically change our lifestyles, economic model, that is based on constant growth and expansion and thins more, more, more way of life there is no way to solve the problem. Well maybe if we put a great deal of money and research alternative fuels and all that... I am part of the problem too, I also like my cars, bikes, TVs and money, I am not the hippy, not that there is anything wrong with it.
Besides that, the major problem right now is the amount of people being produced, mainly in countries that cannot sustain them. Please stop generating more humans! There is no money, health, food or anytthing to sustain so many of us while keeping a good standard of life. Come on!
Every issue you mentioned has been exhaustively dealt with and comprehensively solved. You haven't done any research (or your research has been limited to disinformation from Fred Singer and the Reaganauts).
Together, solar and wind power could completely displace petroleum world-wide for less than the cost to date of the Bush "Wars to Keep Texas Oil Expensive".
You could completely carpet Death Valley with solar panels for less than two years cost of the "War on (Certain Kinds of) Terrorism", and you could use any of dozens of technologies to store excess daytime power for nighttime use.
But really methane (aka natural gas) is the cost-effective option. You can trivially convert existing cars to use methane, and methane-powered fridges, generators, clothes dryers, water heaters, and furnaces are available everywhere there's a Sears Roebuck outlet. Methane can be made from HUMAN SHIT in a CARBON-NEUTRAL process of low-pressure fermentation that scales directly to the human population.
However, conversion to low-tech methane power would completely destroy the modern political situation, which is based on hereditary access to oil.
Containment-based strategies like terrestrial nuclear power plants are not capable of failing gracefully in a natural disaster, are not economically viable without taxpayer sponsorship, and are not necessary.
"But rising by 3.9C is almost as bad."
You think that's bad -- just think about what would happen if it rose by 7.02F!
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Let's adjust the radon concentration in that AC's house to 0.04%. It's a small number, so he won't have any ill effects.
Support SETI@home
They are not $2 per Watt at Lowes or Home Depot! Lets not forget the cost of the inverters or their much shorter lifespan. They often have large electrolytic capacitors that deteriorate from age and high temperatures. Check the specs of electrolytics... they often are only rated for 1000 hours at elevated temperature.
Unless you can show that we are going through a period of substantially more volcanic activity than has been normal over the past 50,000 years, please shut up.
Yes, volcanoes put out CO2. But they've been doing that forever. How do you explain a sustained increase in CO2 levels, which based on ice core samples going back many thousands of years, is increasing at a much faster rate than the previous several thousand years, over the past century?
Oh, and are you claiming that the activities of man (burning huge, huge amounts of oil, coal, natural gas, and burning off massive areas of forest every year) would somehow NOT increase carbon in the atmophere? What mechanism to do you propose is acting as a 'sink' for all that carbon?
To all that participated in the Destroy the Earth to Prove that you Can't Day, good work!
Let's see, the early IPCC reports warned us of 50 million climate refugees from flooded coastlines but 2010. I set up a couple of cots in my basement to help out but no one's come knocking at my door yet
First of all, assuming those 50 million to be spread evenly, this gives you a 0.7% chance of getting one refugee. But keep that cot in your basement, there's a 50% chance that one refugee will come to you in the next 140 years.
If you had actually read that paper you mention, instead of spreading oil industry propaganda, you would know that the author estimated that there were 25 million people who had to leave their homes because of climate problems in the mid-1990s and the trends indicated that this amount should double by 2010.
I don't know if the number of refugees actually doubled in that period. but the actions of the state government of Arizona seem to indicate that the problem is increasing. In 1995 no one would lose their business licence in Arizona for hiring a refugee. You do trust the Arizona governor, don't you? After all, you have always voted for her party, right?
Yesterday the weather scientist on tv said it would rain today. I cancelled my trip and now I'm stuck home on a sunny day. Luckily we got other scientists who can tell us for sure what weather we'll have 10 or even 100 years from now.
Another seti guy predicted that burning oil wells in Kuwait would produce effects similar to nuclear winter, boy was he right. And those who listen to IPCC should definitely check out those himalayan glaciers because, according to IPCC, they'll be gone in 25 years.
BTW mr seti guy CO2 level was pretty much the same before we, homo sapiens, moved in here.
Luckily we got other scientists who can tell us for sure what weather we'll have 10 or even 100 years from now.
Posting anonymously and too stupid to understand the difference between weather and climate. Do I really need to respond to the rest? You already know you're wrong about all that stuff, except for the glacier prediction, which was an error in a summary and not part of the scientific portion of the report. I haven't heard about this burning well prediction, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a consensus of climate scientists like global warming is. And the CO2 level was 40% lower before we got here. So learn something, and post non-anonymously next time.
Support SETI@home
And ive been eating a lot of garlic, sorry, gas will reduce near spring time
You know how this happens? When you have megacorps buying "carbon credit". They pay extra for polluting that they should be paying fines for. So, just because they pay the carbon credit money, that money doesn't equal out to fixing what they're over dumping into the atmosphere.
Sorry if my phrasing isn't to specs, but what I'm getting at is, those with the money to buy the carbon credits, in order to over dump/produce, are the ones that seem to me to be responsible for this shit...
Stone
More moonbat nonsense...
We were still recovering from a global recession. Major energy consumers are still at pre-2008 levels. Employment rates are still low, less people commuting. The adoption of alternate energy by both industry and consumer has continued to increase.
I guess this is where we blame China?
Your title is grossly misleading - they're not "carbon emissions" - they're carbon dioxide emissions. There's a huge difference. Other than in suspended micro-partiulate form (soot) carbon in elementary form is not a "greenhouse" agent. Carbon dioxide is. So for all practical purposes carbon only affects the global atmosphere when it's oxidised (e.g. by burning coal).
Mr setiguy I guess the fact that you must argue by calling people stupid speaks for the strength of your knowledge and confidence in your arguments. nick "setiguy" is also anonymous, and I will continue to post as ac especially that i dont want dicks like you to know my name. And you got a lot of learning to do especially in terms of historical data of co2 levels, because it was NOT 40% lower.
Hmmmm. You mean historical data like this? CO2 was 280 ppm 1000 years ago and is about 390 ppm now, I guess it's only 30% lower. If you go back 8000 years, it's 260 ppm, it's 35% lower. So you're right, I misspoke. I should have said "Humanity has increased CO2 levels by 40%" rather than "CO2 levels were 40% lower".
Support SETI@home
it's nice to discuss things in civil manner now is it?
So essentially we're back to square one where i wrote "Numbers may rise or drop by milions of percent or gazilion of gigatons, but the fact remains: greenhouse gases are still __less than 0.04%__ of earth's atmosphere.". If the article mentions differences but does not give an overview of how much of the stuff exactly is there, then it has a smell of propaganda to me.
I wont loose any sleep over this, we survived catastrophic global cooling, we'll survive global warming. Somehow I find Crichton more convincing then Gore.
And the kuwait mention was in reference to Sagan.
Somehow I find Crichton more convincing then Gore.
Somehow, I find climatologists more convincing than either bad science fiction writers or failed politicians. When you're getting your science advice from a SciFi writer who doesn't understand chaos theory or climatology or a holier than thou politician who at least has talked to some people who do understand it, you're getting your information in the wrong place. That less than 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere is why the snow melts in the summer in Chicago and why it rarely falls in Miami. Take it away and you've got permanent ice age. Increase it by 40% and you've got something else. It's illogical to assume otherwise.
Support SETI@home