Slashdot Mirror
Another Study Finds Earth's CO2 Emissions Have Flattened Over The Last Three Years (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Associated Press:
Worldwide emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide have flattened out in the past three years, a new study showed Monday, raising hopes that the world is nearing a turning point in the fight against climate change. However, the authors of the study cautioned it's unclear whether the slowdown in CO2 emissions, mainly caused by declining coal use in China, is a permanent trend or a temporary blip...
The study, published in the journal Earth System Science Data, says global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry is projected to grow by just 0.2 percent this year. That would mean emissions have leveled off at about 36 billion metric tons in the past three years even though the world economy has expanded, suggesting the historical bonds between economic gains and emissions growth may have been severed. "This could be the turning point we have hoped for," said David Ray, a professor of carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved with the study. "To tackle climate change those bonds must be broken and here we have the first signs that they are at least starting to loosen."
Last week a study suggested earth's plant life is absorbing a greater percentage of global CO2 emissions -- although reductions in China could also be significant. According to the article, almost 30% of the world's carbon emissions come from China.
The study, published in the journal Earth System Science Data, says global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry is projected to grow by just 0.2 percent this year. That would mean emissions have leveled off at about 36 billion metric tons in the past three years even though the world economy has expanded, suggesting the historical bonds between economic gains and emissions growth may have been severed. "This could be the turning point we have hoped for," said David Ray, a professor of carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved with the study. "To tackle climate change those bonds must be broken and here we have the first signs that they are at least starting to loosen."
Last week a study suggested earth's plant life is absorbing a greater percentage of global CO2 emissions -- although reductions in China could also be significant. According to the article, almost 30% of the world's carbon emissions come from China.
Tamino doesn't see evidence of a slowdown:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
> every nuclear power plant you build is one of a kind
That's a United States problem. France uses a template. Bad policy tends to stick around, just like any statistical disaster...which leads me to my problem with nuclear power. It's set up and run by humans.
Yes you can generate power very cheaply for a few decades, but it ruins the site for a couple hundred years. Long term, it doesn't work out either. Now, if there is an accident (over what time period, how many will there be?) you end up contaminating more than just the site (fukishima, chernobyl).
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
Last year broke the record with a growth rate over 3PPM / Year. Looking at this years monthly data, in 2016 we're on track to smash last year's record with somewhere around 3.5PPM / Year. Every year this decade has been at or above the average for previous decade. Rather than a levelling off, the data looks like continual growth.
Confused as to how any report can be claiming a "levelling off". Mauna Loa is seen as the de-facto standard for global CO2 levels as it's in the middle of the pacific and therefore isolated from localised effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory
Erhm.
Link to the report itself.
So, what, exactly is wrong with this? I mean, oil prices are subsidized by themselves by most oil producing countries.
Soi why would it be wrong to factor in the tax-breaks and susidies given to renewables, when the point of comparison in terms of fossil fuels is also heavily subsidized by producing nations and the environmental damage caused by oil/coal means that the true cost of using these fuels is in fact externalized because there's a delay between using fossil fuel's and seeing the effect of the usage in the climate and thus the global economy?
The inclusion of subsidies does not make the price comparisons invalid, it makes them more accurate. Unless you want to start to calculate the actual, unsubsidized cost of oil/coal as well.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
The models are indeed failing. Just because the earth is warming don't mean the models are right. If you were really understanding of science you'd not make such a stupid statement and if you were really that aware of GW concerns you'd know that models are being dismissed left and right.
Stop acting like "There is teh scince consensus!!!1111!!!" means that everything and everyone who agrees with AGW is automagically correct in all their presumptions.
Another Slashtard who gets their science from the Discovery Chanel modded up by people who think that watching Junkyard Wars makes them engineers.