Slashdot Mirror
World Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Outpace Worst-Case Scenario
Layzej writes "The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated. A chart accompanying the study shows the breakdown by country. The new figures mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. It is a 'monster' increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past. The question now among scientists is whether the future is the IPCC's worst case scenario or something more extreme."
This is great news and lets us know that with the last 10 years of NO temperature increase it is likely the CO2 idea is decoupling from any possible warming....great news.
Sure, in the geological record it lagged so much that warming occurred first then CO2 levels rose. Negative lag. Of course, since 1998 was the hottest year on record, I'm not sure we can say "the earth is warming up a little more each year", but over a scant time range starting with lip blown thermometers to now, if we take all the measurements as equally accurate, I'm sure some nonsense might be fabricated. oh look, it has.
Still won't shut up skeptics.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
You can't possibly point to yellow press like guardian and call someone else ignorant, can you? Are you really that clueless? Or are you just posting from a padded room? Do you really think you are an adult? Read over your post to dissuade yourself of that notion.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
You're using predictions from 1988, with temperature data from back in 2006.
Surely there's newer predictions and temperature data than that? We're almost up to 2012 now (25 years later).
You are dodgy and purposely trying to mislead.
Did you just cite one person's 23-year-old model as proof that current climate science and measurements are suspect?
Einstein's general theory of relativity is about 95 years old.
How often do "climate scientists" need to change their models? Think for a moment about why you would abandon a model and adopt a new one: because the data you are collecting keeps invalidating it and you've run out of different non-contradictory ways to interpret that. Contrast that with general relativity -- it made clear, testable predictions and every test strenghtened it. The difference is that general relativity is a scientific, falsifiable theory. The whole "global warming err we mean climate change" deal is much more political. There are party-line differences that you simply don't see with things like general relativity or electrical engineering.
You think maybe they should straighten that part out before they go around making dire "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!" type of predictions? I mean, it's just a thought. It would certainly shut up all those "deniers".
Yawn... The "sky is falling" groups are at it again - more C0_2 is released by the present active volcanoes in one week than is output by humans in a year at present rates of consumption. The earth warms or cools down based upon the amount of energy per square inch - so when the sun is more active, the earth warms, when the sun isn't active it cools. All of the present "sky is falling" crowd is looking for some way to profit from the amazing number of sheeple walking around. If they want to cut down on C0_2 emissions then they should advocate killing off about 6 billion people (since we're all breathing out huge amounts of the stuff) - that would take care of the problem...
>Expand the petroleum infrastructure: In the US (and Europe) car ownership per capita peaked in 2004. Absolute car numbers have been in decline since 2008 in the US. Not only can you move away from the car, its already happening.
Yes, you need to expand the petroleum infrastructure because you have to transport petroleum from new locations and process different types of it. The oil sands of Canada and the new Bakkan oil need to be transported, and processed. The refineries, which are too expensive and too regulated to build new ones (well, almost - they're building a new one near Bakkan, but the envirowackos are attempting to hold it up as long as they can, which is what I'm talkiing about) so you have to build a pipeline from Canada to near New Orleans, where refineries can be expanded to handle the new source.
And, we should expand refining AND drilling in THIS country as a security measure. What if we produced all our own oil? We could do it - we HAVE more oil than the Saudis, when you consider the shale, and were we to achieve energy independece, we could tell the middle east crybabies to go stuff it. I'd be for that.
>Plan for it. Zone so that town and city centers are dense enough to undo the need for most car journeys. This has been happening in (parts of ) Europe for decades now.
NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!! Plan your own life, leave mine alone. If I want to live 20 miles out of town, that is my business and you have no business making it more difficult or expensive. Crowding causes stress and breeds crime. We have enough of both already. Crowding is "living low", and this SHOULD be the land of plenty, and would be if we did taxes right, but that is a whole 'nother country of discussion.
And living in crowded cities in hi-rise apt's is living low. I'm a Ham radio operator with a tower in the yard with a 4-element 20 meter beam on top of it. You CAN'T do that in an apartment. Others build race cars in their garages or store boats on their property. If you just want to rattle around your apartment and amuse yourself with your computer, have at it, but not everyone wants to live like you.
>Do public investment for the trains. Train systems pay off over decades, which is far too long for private investment, but not a problem for public investment. Countries become rich over centuries of infrastructure buildup.
NO. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!! Haven't you been paying attention? We are BROKE! We have to stop the spending now. We have to do things that are CHEAPER, not find new ways for the gov't to go broke more quickly. We need to balance the budget. If its REALLY a good idea, it will attract enough ridership to be profitable. IF it doesn't, then we don't need it. And, people don't want to ride trains, or they'd be doing it.