Slashdot Mirror
Earth's Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach Highest Point In 800,000 Years (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Washington Post: For the first time since humans have been monitoring, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have exceeded 410 parts per million averaged across an entire month (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), a threshold that pushes the planet ever closer to warming beyond levels that scientists and the international community have deemed "safe." The reading from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii finds that concentrations of the climate-warming gas averaged above 410 parts per million throughout April. The first time readings crossed 410 at all occurred on April 18, 2017, or just about a year ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations -- whose "greenhouse gas effect" traps heat and drives climate change -- were around 280 parts per million circa 1880, at the dawn of the industrial revolution. They're now 46 percent higher. According to Scripps Institute of Oceanography, this amount is the highest in at least the past 800,000 years. "We keep burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide keeps building up in the air," said Scripps scientist Ralph Keeling, who maintains the longest continuous record of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth. "It's essentially as simple as that."
These Chinese hoaxers are going too far.
There's an ongoing eruption event in the region. Could it have been pouring lots of CO2 into the air recently?
I'm sure the research scientists know what they're doing, but IIRC volcanic events are responsible for a lot of CO2. I'd like to see some data from samples collected elsewhere.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
http://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-down-europea
"Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. The increase in CO2 emissions, however, was not universal. While most major economies saw a rise, some others experienced declines, including the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline came from the United States, mainly because of higher deployment of renewables."
So what you're saying is, they were higher 800,000 years ago.
We are burning fuel, transforming materials, and using energy, all at a rate that has never before been done in the planet's history. Naturally there is a proportionate spike.
Obviously, the climate ran away and killed all life on Earth.
I assume you breath via some mechanical assistance since I suspect you're not intelligent enough to do it on your own.
This is bad news among good news. In general, CO2 output levels have been flat or going down in both the US and some other countries for a few years. 2018 is actually the first year in the last 4 where the total CO2 production of the US are going up, while they declined for the previous few years https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-natgas-eia-steo/update-1-u-s-carbon-emissions-seen-at-25-year-low-in-2017-idUSL1N1J311B. But we need to do a lot more. So what can you do to help?
There are three main aspects, personal, political and charitable:
In terms of personal lifestyle differences, the biggest options are to eat less meat and to use a personal car less. If you live somewhere where public transit is an option, you can massively cut down on your carbon footprint by simply using public transit. Not everyone has that option, since you may live somewhere where public transit isn't available or may have a job or family that necessitates getting a car, in which case, if you get a new car, make sure to buy an electric or hybrid. Also in terms of personal activity, one can keep the air conditioning or heating in one's house at not as extreme temperatures or one can better insulate one's house. If one is somewhere installing solar on one's home either for electricity or just for water heating then do it. All these personal changes are also things which overall cause one to save money so there's good reason to do it..
Political change is also important. Much of Europe is taking sensible approaches to these issues (although Germany's anti-nuclear kick isn't helping) but the US is very much not so. In general, the Democrats have a much better record on climate issues and other environmental issues than the current Republicans. This means voting for Democratic candidates and donating to them is important.
In terms of charity, this is a really good way of effecting direct change. Two good options for solar are donating to Everybody Solar https://www.everybodysolar.org/ which gets solar panels for non-profits like museums and homeless shelters, and the Solar Electric Light Fund https://www.self.org/ who helps get solar panels for locations in the developing world. SELF's work is especially important because it helps to cut off the potential of rising carbon dioxide in the developing world even as it helps increase their economies. For wind power, I recommend donating to The New England Wind Fund https://www.massenergy.org/the-wind-fund. Also, helping buy carbon offsets is important. The most efficient way of offsetting carbon in terms of tons offset per a dollar spent is Cool Earth https://www.coolearth.org/. Every little bit helps.
Global warming isn't going to kill all life on earth. The tardigrades aren't even going to notice, given they can live in deep sea hydro-thermal vents and deep space.
Global warming is likely to cause severe water and food stress for humans, some regions are likely to become too hot & humid for humans to survive going outside. https://www.ucsusa.org/our-wor...
800,000 years is as far back as it's possible to make any kind of plausible estimate. We don't know what the level was before then, although the pattern throughout the 800,000 years we do know about fluctuates between about 180 ppm (in ice ages) and 300 ppm. There is no strong indication that it was significantly higher before then.
That's a mean way to describe Republicans. You apologize now!
Table-ized A.I.
Usually the changes have been gradual such that life had time to adjust. Humans especially may be sucker-punched by relatively rapid change.
Table-ized A.I.
So you want your own chemistry set? I think that ship has sailed in the US. :-p
Ezekiel 23:20
Of course it used to be much more. It was double digits in percentage of the atmospheric mass. But it followed a declining curve after the "faint young Sun" ceased to be...you know, faint.
Ezekiel 23:20
I mean ... a volcano ... couldn't skew readings.
No, considering that we've exceeded volcanic contribution by more than an order of magnitude decades ago already. Volcanoes are almost a measurement error these days.
Ezekiel 23:20
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...
A bunch of graphs, data and projections say otherwise.
You really shouldn't feed the trolls. I noticed you logged in to comment, but the A/C fuckwit making the "socialist elite" comments prefers to remain anonymous.
There is no strong indication that it was significantly higher before then.
No strong indication?
Ezekiel 23:20
False dichotomy - there are people who outright think it doesn't exist, and people who think it is the impending apocalypse, then there are people who think it is serious, but are optimistic and think we are capable, and able, to find solutions, and have time to do it, as well as those who might believe climate change is real, but wonders about the nitty gritty, how those details are garnered, or conclusions are drawn - I.E ask questions in a reasonable manner, and many people who fall into choices other than those I mentioned.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
So obviously, what happened 800,000 years ago when the average CO2 levels were presumably higher than they are now?
800k is just the end of easy continuous direct CO2 observation from ice cores in their dataset.
You would have to go back a couple million years or more.
Ice ages happen on a timescale of tens of millions of years.
Actually we have had four glacial periods in the last million years.
They choose the date carefully. Trees are essentially CO2 starved and have adapted to the current low CO2 values compared to their early evolution. Also, even though temperatures may raise in northern latitudes the temperature rise at the equator is not the same, the net effect is broader zones of arable land. Expect the worst, lush forests from northern Greenland to the equator. But that’s really unlikely considering the entrants to the 50 year long solar minimum cycle.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Zero correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Like in this graph?
Ezekiel 23:20
Not humans especially, that's silly. Humans have a rather unique ability to adapt to environmental changes - obviously, since we cover nearly the entire surface of the Earth.
Maybe what you meant is modern society. We tend to get very upset when our houses blow away and our cities flood, even though we're in no real mortal danger. The "sucker-punch" will be largely economic.
Seriously. Stop overconsuming and stop preaching. We know. We all know. Very few of us are willing to make personal changes. Im talking to you, dumpy fucks. Your car hauls around an extra 100lbs of lard that you consume to support. You buy everything new because ew second hand is icky. This is your damned mess, not mine.
Perhaps true, but not necessarily via a pleasant journey. Why ignore the Boy Scout motto: "be prepared"?
Table-ized A.I.
Data from the past 34 million years (which we have due to trapped atmosphere in bubbles formed on ice sheets)
34 million years, that's funny when oldest ice core is 2.7 million years.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
And the CO2 was still low: " the ice revealed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels that did not exceed 300 parts per million, well below today’s levels"
Closer to 3 degrees according to latest insights.
You solved it Lynwood, well done. We can just turn the whole atmosphere into a giant outdoor office or classroom.
But where will we get all the desks? I suppose we could just cut down all the trees as well...
With governments pushing for carbon taxes ...
What government is pushing for carbon taxes?
So you want your own chemistry set?
You don't even need a chemistry set. You can get a pretty good measurement of CO2 with an IR LED and a phototransistor.
recent peer-reviewed data points to 1.3 to 1.6 deg K for doubling of CO2,
The study you linked to gives a 95% confidence range of 1.1 to 4.45. That is in line with other estimates. See also this overview: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Volcanoes are almost a measurement error these days.
I think he is referring to Kilauea, which is only 20 miles from Mauna Loa, where these CO2 measurements were taken.
But Kilauea wasn't erupting much in April. The new vents are not in Kilauea's main caldera, but are another 20 miles east in Pahoa, and the prevailing winds blow from NE to SW, which is out to sea, not up the slopes of Mauna Loa, which towers more than 9000 feet above the summit of Kilauea.
Look at the longer trend, and you'll see no evidence of volcanic eruptions interfering with the data.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/...
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/...
Actually it is the opposite way around.
The correlation factor is greatly underestimated, that is why current trends are always at the upper edge of the spectrum the IPCC is publishing.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
most likely nothing, the reliable ice core measurements ran out.
I'd wish it were a joke but it is not.
That's the effect of denuclearization: more coal. If they're using more coal, they are doing it wrong. It's foolish to compete nuclear vs renewables until the last coal plant and mine is eliminated permanently.
At 400ppm 2 million years ago, the Arctic was more than 10C warmer than now. 400ppm means the loss of Arctic ice, and flooding. It also means CO2 outgassing from the tundra, and higher levels than 400ppm.
Been said a million times before: CO2 is not a pollutant. It's needed for plants to grow. The current CO2 levels are so low it's amazing plants survive at all. We'd be much better off if CO2 levels tripled from current levels.
All this sky is falling bullshit is about raising taxes and the socialist elite controlling the rest of us.
If you're not socialist elite and worried about CO2 levels, you're just one of their sheep.
Plants need water to grow, therefore plants cannot be overwatered.
The Little Ice Age was not global.
So you think at 1200 parts per million you'll have headaches and feel tired?
Yes. In particular it is why there is a lot of ongoing effort on air circulation in schools, with a target in most nations closer to 600 or below, as higher levels affect learning.
No, ice cores go back about a million years. Sedimentation (chemical rock formation in water) goes far back. There is a big discrepancy in resolution with rock vs ice cores. Ice cores show us small changes over short periods (years in some cases). Sedimentation shows larger trends over large time scales (thousands of years).
But you are right, in geologic time CO2 is at a low in the past 800ky. Also note, that historically CO2 follows Temps.... i.e. empirically, CO2 isn't a climate driver.
I have a degree in geology, but the climate is not my field. I do think people should be paying more attention to historical geology and atmospheric physics than to climate models. Current climatology is plagued with the mantra of modeling. These models cannot describe past climate changes, which means they are of little use for predicting the future. Why do they stick to them? Because they have nothing else.
Maybe someone should stop cutting down the Amazon rainforest?
It's just a suggestion; feel free to put profit above everything else.
Requiem for the American Dream
Most of the time
Make sure you average-in data from time periods when Earth was younger and at complete different stages than it has been for millions of years... you know, just to be accurate. ;)
Doubling the CO2 will add about 1.6 deg K to our temperature; will that be a disaster?
Dunno, what did Fox News tell you to think?
Funny, that isn't what the models do. You can go download a copy of the GISS model yourself and check.
He should apologise to the dinosaurs.
Did you ever stop long enough to think that just maybe the rise in CO2 levels were part of a natural feedback
We know that the extra CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. You can verify this for yourself by taking the published numbers for amounts of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) produced over the last century, and figuring out how much CO2 each produces, and then adding it all up. You'll get a number that's roughly twice the amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere over the same time.
If you think it's a "natural feedback", then explain where this CO2 is actually coming from, and what happened to all the fossil CO2 we've produced.
We better stop those damned volcanoes from erupting!
Human activity emits far, far more CO2 than volcanoes.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Ugh no. The rise in co2 is not due to the plants. Well, not living ones. It is known how much co2 is USED by plants, and given off. In general, plants use Much more co2, than they give off. If not, then they would not have energy storage ( carbon converted to sugars ). Forest fires, volcanoes, etc give off co2, but known quantity. The problem is burning of fossil fuels esp from coal plants. Coal plants are #1 source of our burning fossil fuels and creating Co2. And as long as nations continue to build these out, it will continue to grow faster.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
Rising temperature and higher CO2 form a mutual causal relationship. The path from CO2 to temperature is a lot quicker (few decades max), so you don't recognize it in the graphs.
I guess that in that case, I have to build that thing! Is this somehow about differential transmittance?
Ezekiel 23:20
Doubling the CO2 will add about 1.6 deg K to our temperature; will that be a disaster?
Basically, yes. This is because the change will be fast and because we've set up most of our entire global society (think the location of cities and of the most productive farming) to work well with temperatures (and sea level which is closely connected) as they currently are.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Plants are going crazy. Carbon has no business being in the ground. Though it would be nice if it whould happen a bit slower, i agree on that.
Usually the changes have been gradual such that life had time to adjust.
Not really, temperature reconstruction is a bit of black magic. The error bars are so huge that it's hard to determine a lot. See for example, the Greenland ice core series, there are multiple periods where the temperature fluctuated very rapidly. Here is another selection of various reconstructions to give you an idea of the difficulty of coming up with an accurate picture. Which temperature record is the most accurate? Here's another one that is older, but shows temperature changes coming on very quickly. (An interesting thing about that graph is that CO2 changes follow temperature changes).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Here's another one that is older, but shows temperature changes coming on very quickly [wikimedia.org].
The scale on that graph is too small to support your argument.
The scale on that graph is too small to support your argument.
A 12 degree jump in temperature isn't enough for you?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Depends. A 12 degree jump in how much time exactly ?
Also note, that historically CO2 follows Temps.... i.e. empirically, CO2 isn't a climate driver.
Except we know the current source of CO2 increases and it isn't temperatures. It's mostly due to human activities, burning fossil fuels, making cement, clearing land. There is no known temperature excursion in history that would account for an increase in CO2 to a level greater than it has been in at least 800,000 years and likely several millions of years.
Also note, that historically CO2 follows Temps.... i.e. empirically, CO2 isn't a climate driver.
It goes two ways. Rising temperature causes higher CO2, and higher CO2 increases the temperature. During recent ice ages, the temperature changed first (and then got reinforced by the increase in CO2). Right now, the changes start with higher CO2.
Well, the real arbiter isn't Curry, who seems to be at odds with most research, but the planet, and temperatures at the upper end of projections under RCP 8.5 (the emissions scenario we seem to be following), which tends to suggest the current models are broadly correct, unless we are about to be hit by significant negative feedbacks.
The plant can and has been way warmer than currently. Yes. But during none of these times human tried to survive on it, that's gonna be a new one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Gonna need more proof on this one. With governments pushing for carbon taxes how do we know this is legit?
Sorry I cant sign off on this bullshit.
More proof on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? It's something that has been measured for over 100 years and been measured continuously for over 50 years. It's currently being measured in dozens of places around the world and they're all pretty much in agreement. It's not that difficult to measure so if there were any shenanigans going on it would be quickly called out.
As far as carbon taxes go you can pay now to help mitigate the effects of global warming and the climate change it causes or you can pay later for the massive amount of adaption that will have to take place for adjusting to the effects. It's possible the effects could get bad enough to cause the collapse of our global civilization. How much would that cost you?
Yes, it is a shame figures are based on sampling in just one location... hold on, they aren't.
A carbon tax on electricity is just about the best way known to push business and consumers to transition over to cleaner energy. Far from worthless.
Is that the same China that reached peak coal back in 2013? That China? Or the one in your imagination that you keep talking about?
Been said a million times before: CO2 is not a pollutant. It's needed for plants to grow. The current CO2 levels are so low it's amazing plants survive at all. We'd be much better off if CO2 levels tripled from current levels.
That's fine and dandy for you and your fellow plants, but we higher life forms are dependent on high oxygen and low carbon dioxide levels to survive.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
So where in the historical record is the spike in temperatures that is causing CO2 to rise to level not seen in over 800,000 years? If temperatures were hot enough to cause this exceptional rise in CO2 you'd think we would have noticed.
And more to the point how is it possible that human emissions which are more than twice the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 levels are not the cause of the increase?
How about a carbon tax then? Surely that will help those remaining countries who aren't already transitioning away from coal. Assuming there are still any holdouts left.
The 'real problem' is that as people get richer, they start to consume and pollute more like rich people do. We can't have those other people polluting as much as we do in the West. We need a way to keep the poor people poor so that they don't waste carbon like the rich people are allowed to do. /sarcasm
And the CO2 reading couldn't have anything to do with current events. I mean ... a volcano ... couldn't skew readings. Right? And climatologists have never used skewed findings to fit their hypothesis - so we should never question them.
Considering that CO2 levels are being measured from dozens of places around the world, most of them not close to a volcano and all of them pretty much in agreement when you adjust for latitude I don't think it's an issue. Measuring the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a relatively trivial process so if the measurements were being skewed the climate science deniers would be all over it.
Nice thing is America continues to drop our co2. Because we are shutting off coal plants and replacing with wind and nat gas. And as we s Move to EVs, our co2 should drop quickly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The west, except for Germany, south korea and Japan, continue to drop our co2. Kind of shoots that down.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yeah, the issue is on a android, no pre-edit. Just posting. And if you look at html, you will see end quote tag right after the wiki.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We lose porker esp since you lie to others. China is back to growing coal
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Perhaps that's why the models don't match the data, and run quite a bit hotter than actual data.
Actually climate models match the observations pretty well. Dr. Spencer needs to update his graph. Also, I'm curious how the model runs and the observations can all start from the same zero point in 1983. At the very least there should be a discrepancy between the HADCRUT and UAH starting points. So he shifted everything to start at the zero point in 1983 which is a pretty unscientific thing to do.
Climate model projections compared to observations
To bad we're not measuring CO2 in other places where volcanoes won't affect them. Oh wait... we are. You can find a list of them here.
From 2000 to 2010 they ran an experiment measuring the effect of CO2 on temperature forcing from the surface. They found that the increase in CO2 levels of 22 ppm during that time caused and increase in forcing of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade (+/- 0.07 per decade).
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
Other greenhouse gases such as methane have been increasing too. Then because of the warming caused by non-condensing greenhouse gases the level of water vapor has also increased (it increases about 7% per degree C of warming).
All of that together is responsible for the warming but CO2 is the biggest part of it.
Yes 1 molecule out of 2500 molecules of air
The ratio between CO2 and the rest of the atmosphere (mostly O2 and N2) is irrelevant. What matter is the absolute amount of CO2 between the Earth's surface and outer space.
Try going outside and looking at the sun directly. Now look through a sheet of paper. On the path from the sun to your eyes, what's the ratio of molecules between paper and air ?
In a new report, scientists report higher CO2 levels now than ever since they were first measured in 1880. They further report that these are the highest levels for at least the past 800,000 years. QED: 1880 was actually over 800,000 years ago. I learn something new every day!
This is the core of the debate on global warming I think. Nobody knows exactly how much it will cost in the future, as it is a probabilistic cost. The costs today are real costs.
It also doesn't help that countries are all blaming each other instead of working together. Telling someone they are the problem generally causes them to stonewall. Give people good incentive - concrete incentive - to change, not threats or belittling comments... that's a better approach.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
"Typical"* indoor ventilation is supposed to be designed to hold the indoor CO2 levels below 1,000 ppm, or, in more recent codes, designed to be no more than 700 ppm above the outdoor CO2 concentration.
But the CO2 measurement is just a surrogate for measurement of other indoor pollutants, and really only measures how much outdoor air you're providing compared to how much respiration is going on in the space.
*"Typical" in quotes, because most ventilation systems don't measure CO2 concentration, but are based on certain prescribed airflows, and also because some well-ventilated offices & classrooms will be well below 1,000 ppm and others will be well above.
34 million years, that's funny when oldest ice core is 2.7 million years.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know id there is a maximum depth of ice that we can have on earth?
Since Ice will melt under pressure (seriously, put an ice cube in a vice and turn the handle) it would seem to put a limit on how much ice could be stacked before it turns into liquid
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So you want your own chemistry set? I think that ship has sailed in the US. :-p
Safety culture is introducing legislation to ban all chemical reactions.
My big old chemistry set was about as much fun as I ever had. Had a little out building in the back yard too use it in to boot. Want to get more people interested in STEM? maybe we shouldn't act like anything stronger than a vinegar/baking soda is too dangerous.
Our present path is allowing people to have different laws of physics based on political affiliation.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Ice doesn't melt under pressure when temperature is below -25 C or so, but it will start to flow (think glaciers), which comes down to the same problem.
According to the article, there's a chance that some pockets of blue ice have older samples, but there's no easy method of finding them, because it all depends on the exact flow patterns.
That does nothing of the sort Windy. You aren't even remotely credible. Care to site a single source that says poor people produce more CO2 than Rich. Or even the same amount?
Because there are plenty that show I'm right. It's just common sense really.
More money more consumption.
Dropping from extremely high levels down to just very high levels isn't anything to be proud of. You are still way way higher than the average with a long long way to go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If the general population in the United States actually cared and felt this was an important issue - then the Senate, House and Oval office wouldn't be run by people who adamantly scream this is a liberal hoax.
They are busy appointing judges who will rule in favor of the corporate oligarchy doing exactly what we're seeing: disincentivizing renewable energy, disemboweling clean air/water laws, doling out tax breaks to polluters, attacking scientific processes and thought, defunding education to eliminate critical thinking skills... and they are winning. Only 1/2 of Americans believe global warming is real. http://news.gallup.com/poll/20...
And other BS/disproven ideas are on rise - like Immunizations cause autism and the growth of flat earthers... Till we value and fund education and critical thinking, we're lost.
Target levels are typically 700 ppm above the outdoor air CO2 levels. I'm looking at an old edition of ASHRAE 62.1, so they may have increased some of the requirements somewhat since then, but getting from 1100 ppm indoors (400 ppm outdoors + 700 ppm) to 600 ppm indoors would essentially more than triple the amount of outside air required. For most HVAC systems, that amount of outside air would significantly exceed 100% of the system design supply air. There's no way that would be practical in the heating or cooling seasons.
Because we're told time-and-again that it is the last 30 years that matter; thus if you're doing a report in 2013, you use the previous 30 years. From the publishing of that data the divergence has only continued. Most IPCC models use a 3.3 deg K sensitivity for CO2, but the actual data suggests about half that.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Despite continued reductions of coal use in buildings and industry, the growth in the power sector pushed up coal demand in China by 0.3%, after three years of declining demand. Despite this rebound, coal use in China remains below its 2013 peak.
Rich Vs poor us not the issue. The issue is what businesses and gov choose.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So I'm trying to understand why going from 400 to 410 is a "sucker punch".
You must not be trying very hard if you're confusing respiratory effects with climate change.
IN FACT, your OWN link proves you are flat-out wrong - look at the first graph, it confirms exact this. It shows the Curry model as covering ~1 to ~2.5 - much different than you claim (1.1 to 4.45). Furthermore, reading the summary at Curry's site, you'll see that Curry estimates ~1.8 deg K sensitivity if we allow for unknown heat entrapment in the ocean by a mechanism that we don't understand. Using actual Argo (buoy) data and models which we do know, the sensitivity is ~1.6 deg K.
Now, you want to know how "Real Climate" is lying to you? They claim the models use values around 1 to 2.5 (from their misleading graph and supporting text); yet the IPCC itself says:
The current generation of GCMs[5] covers a range of equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.1C to 4.4C (with a mean value of 3.2C; see Table 8.2 and Box 10.2)... The equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from the latest model version used by modelling groups have increased
Yes, the IPCC says the range of 2.1 to 4.4 deg K is too low and needs to be higher! Clearly "real climate" is simply shilling and effectively lying to cover the facts. I linked straight to the IPCC itself - it in no way says what "real climate" says. And the IPCC models simply do not correlate with actual real-world data.
So at the end of the day, what do you trust? Data or models?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Huh? The IPCC says the range of 2.1 to 4.4 deg K is too low, yet the data (as empirically calculated by Curry and others) shows the sensitivity to be less than half of that. And the actual models all run hot as confirmed with actual data (see the earlier link to Spencer et al). Current trends are well below what the IPCC models estimated.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So you trust the models, rather than the data? Show a dataset (one that is not "adjusted" every year, and still leaves the actual heat peak back in the 1930s) that correlates with the models. You won't find one, unless it is so massaged that the big peak back in the 1930s is gone. And note my signature quote - that's from Phil Jones, no AGW skeptic himself. If the dataset you're using doesn't show those two periods as basically the same - it's been massaged and tweaked to yield a pre-determined answer, rather than stand on its own in opposition to the desired models...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Usually the changes have been gradual such that life had time to adjust.
Well except for the fact that the 1.2C rise in the last ~150 years has just happened to coincide with the greatest global improvements in life expectancies and standards of living the world has ever seen.
When those metrics start declining I'll worry. I doubt that will be anytime soon, doomsayers notwithstanding.
Another of your favourite lies Windy, I'm not surprised. Heaps of those were cancelled, like you already know.
Chinses coal has been going down, (slowly) I just showed you facts to show a very slight increase, after 3 years of decreases, yet you lie and say it's at record highs and rising over 5%.
You are mixing up the numbers for TCR and ECS.
The numbers I mentioned (1.1 to 4.45) are Curry et al's ECS (table 1, top row), just like the 2.1 to 4.4 range from IPCC. Not that much different, except Curry's have a bit wider error bar at the bottom end of the range.
Show a dataset (one that is not "adjusted" every year, and still leaves the actual heat peak back in the 1930s)
The 1930's peak was local to the US. We're talking about global temperatures.
So obviously, what happened 800,000 years ago when the average CO2 levels were presumably higher than they are now?
Actually, that's just the end point of the dataset they used. So CO2 levels are higher than what their entire dataset tells them. No particular event, just ran out of data that they had at the ready. So I guess a more accurate headline might be, "CO2 levels higher than all 800,000 years of data that a group of scientist have access to." It's a bit wordy though.
Everything else is staying the same. (and the attribution of the temperature increase is more complex than this: there are greenhouse gases even less common than CO2 which have a much larger effect per molecule).
Going from 2.9K to 290K isn't mostly due to greenhouse gases, but delta changes on 290K are, and the human-level effects of even small changes in climate (on physics Kelvin scale) are big.
And finally, a sort of WAG guess based on 1 of 2500 molecules is rather ignorant and useless compared to the computations and experiments scientists have done over literally a century on this specific problem, using everything known about electromagnetism, chemistry and quantum mechanics.
Select region East asia
Select map China
Just look at Announced, pre-permit, permitted and construction.(even though a lot of them will be cancelled)
Notice that the total is way less than 700.(zoom all the way out to make it clearer)
Click on shelved, notice most of the map turned blue.
Click on retired, notice how there is a lot more green than red yellow as well.
Finally click on cancelled, and see how tiny the little red and yellow bits are that you keep getting your panties in a twist about.
No doubt whatsoever you will continue the lie that China is building 700 coal plants and not shutting down or replacing old ones.
Even less doubt you are too stupid to understand it's the amount of coal burned at the pants and not the total number of plants anyway that makes the CO2.
(If you want to, add in the brown and realise China has a fuck ton of coal plants, which is bad. But it's getting better. Like I already showed before coal peaked years ago in China) The point is not to claim China is clean, it's not, but to show Windy is a lying sack of shit, and he knows he is.
The 1930's peak was local to the US.
Even more accurate: the heatwaves in the 1930's were mostly limited to the month of July, and only really severe in a small portion of the US.
You can experiment with global maps here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
Pick a range of years and months, and make a map.
"Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2. "
Firstly, it's not clear the lead-lag relationship is clearly determinable from the observed paleoclimate indirect data.
Today, with instruments measuring all this directly we know for sure that CO2 and greenhouse gases lead temperature rise, as every element of known physics says they do.
And in prehistoric times, of course the CO2 did not come from fossil fuel sources, they were safely encased in rock. That means they came from reaction to the environment---carbon in chemical and biological sources closer to the surface than fossil fuels was emitted because of warming (which then, not now, came from astronomical changes). One may be oceans.
The logical conclusion is of course that there are natural sources of CO2 emission under higher temperatures which will soon whack the fuck out of us, adding to the enormous emissions from coal and petroleum.
By the way, half of the carbon we're emitting now is going into the oceans and not contributing to greenhouse gases. As the oceans get warmer, they will stop doing that as much, and even more of the burnt fuel will go into the atmosphere, so even if we stabilize emissions, the increase in CO2 will continue to accelerate. And all of that is additive on prior emissions and greenhouse forcing is related to the total amount.
So, if you think about it, the paleoclimate observations are really bad for our future.
When those metrics start declining I'll worry
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/1...
Well it's not just a matter of temperature. A more pressing matter about the measurements and the recent change is the temperature in relation to time. Typically a shift in global temperature average is on a scale of thousands of years. However, the most recent event of warming is occurring at a pace of only a few hundred years. In the slower process, living creatures have time to adapt to the change. It is feared that if the change is too rapid, living creatures will not be able to adapt fast enough via natural processes.
One data set hasn't completely smoothed it away, and still shows the spike during the 30s for the Northern and Southern hemispheres... That would be global, yes?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Forgive me if I go with common sense and facts backed up by evidence, rather than your gut feelings.
Let's just say you don't have the best track record...
Looks decreasing to me:
https://knoema.com/atlas/Germa...
https://knoema.com/atlas/Unite...
No, I'm not mixing them up, RealClimate claims the Curry states ~1 to ~2.5, so in that case they must be referencing TCR - which is thus what I talked about. If you want to talk about ECS, the IPCC (as I linked above) believes it is much higher than than 2.1 to 4.4 per their own words. Yet no data supports such a conclusion...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
What happens when we went from 400 to 410? The GP - way back, about 5 posts ago - said it was a "sucker punch". So what did the increase from 400 to 410 sucker punch humanity, if in fact we usually live at levels quite a ways above that?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Which data set specifically ? I opened all the graphs on that page, but didn't see anything where 30's would be higher than modern times.
The global surface temp anomaly peaked at 0.21C in 1944, and peaked at 0.99C in 2016.
I agree with you WindBourne, China's businesses and government are both better than America's ;)
If I'm following you right and that's why America is far dirtier... not because they are richer and consume/waste more...
RealClimate claims the Curry states ~1 to ~2.5, so in that case they must be referencing TCR
Yes, they clearly explain that in the article. It's even written under the diagram.
Yet no data supports such a conclusion...
See Curry et al, table 1, top row. Range of 1.1 to 4.45 for ECS.
Most data models smooth the peak in 1930s; I wasn't claiming it was higher than today, just that it happened in the 30s, then we had significant cooling until the mid 70s, then heat again. A lot of models and data smooth out - eliminate that peak in the 1930s. Look at the hemispherical data from GISS, you'll see a peak - worldwide - up to ~1941, then a drop until ~1975.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So I'm trying to understand
You win Lynwood, your joke is much funnier than mine.
The cooling period between 1940-1970 was most likely due to increased pollution from sulphur and nitrous oxides. Then we started using low-sulphur fuels, installing catalytic converters on cars, and scrubbers on power plants to clean all that up. All those regulations helped clean the air, but also allowed more sunlight to hit the planet.
Volcanoes are almost a measurement error these days.
I think he is referring to Kilauea, which is only 20 miles from Mauna Loa, where these CO2 measurements were taken.
But Kilauea wasn't erupting much in April. The new vents are not in Kilauea's main caldera, but are another 20 miles east in Pahoa, and the prevailing winds blow from NE to SW, which is out to sea, not up the slopes of Mauna Loa, which towers more than 9000 feet above the summit of Kilauea.
Kilauea has been erupting since 1983, just not constant gorgeous fountains. I grew up on O`ahu and still remember warnings about acid rain and vog.
I'm not sure that's true. Our data resolution becomes worse the farther back you go. We're more likely to miss large, temporary shifts. It stands to reason that might also lead to trouble detecting how sharp a shift is the farther back you go.
Just because Mr. Science Man says we have never seen this type of shift in the record, does not mean he is saying the record shows there has never been such a shift.
All current trends are at the upper edge of the corridor the IPCC is publishing, since decades.
No idea what you want to claim here. The IPCC is downplaying the warming problem since decades.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Even if they cant choose to use solar or gas to heat water or cook. (they usually can)
They still get to decide how much electricity to use. Rich people levels or be a little less wasteful.
I would like to point out that the geologists says that CO2 followed temperature in the past, it didn't lead temperature changes, but followed.
Obviously we are in uncharted territory, where we have CO2 LEADING temperature in our models.... Which, as the gemologist concludes, means our models are not necessarily wrong, but are also not provably right.
Which begs the question... If what we are projecting is based on unproven models, how much confidence can we actually have about what the projections say? I wish I knew the answer to that... What's obvious to me though is that ANYBODY who thinks they know for sure, is making claims w/o the proof necessary.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Apart from the fact America is not global, I don't see the connection to climate change.
I suppose it is possible that some people are so worried about it they become heroin addicts.
So you trust the models, rather than the data? Show a dataset (one that is not "adjusted" every year, and still leaves the actual heat peak back in the 1930s) that correlates with the models. You won't find one, unless it is so massaged that the big peak back in the 1930s is gone. And note my signature quote - that's from Phil Jones, no AGW skeptic himself. If the dataset you're using doesn't show those two periods as basically the same - it's been massaged and tweaked to yield a pre-determined answer, rather than stand on its own in opposition to the desired models...
I trust the data. I know people who are climate scientists, and understand the data. I know the USA isn't the whole world.
Let's check some more...
https://knoema.com/atlas/China...
And as China got richer the CO2 goes up...
Notice also that America, richer and higher than Germany, which is higher and richer than China, also higher and richer than India.
It's like there is some obvious pattern that Windy just refuses to see.
https://knoema.com/atlas/India...
India also goes up as it gets richer...still much lower though, because it's still much poorer
It's almost as if developing countries increase their CO2 levels up towards rich country levels, as their economies develop and the people become richer.
Can't have those poor people being like you though can we. It's bad for the environment.
They might smooth it maybe because it was local and temporary, not an annual average. If it was hotter in the 1930s, why is Arctic melting such an issue now, but wasn't in the 30s, or is Gore secretly using a space laser to melt it, working with Musk, I presume?
The quote was "Usually the changes have been gradual such that life had time to adjust. Humans especially may be sucker-punched by relatively rapid change"
The sucker punch will be the change in global climate (the word "may" indicates were talking about a future event), caused by rapid increase from 280 to 410 ppm, and showing no signs of slowing down.
What happens when we went from 400 to 410?
Who cares ? You brought that up.
Norway. Richer and lower. Australia. Poorer and higher.
I don't see the connection to climate change.
Right. Neither did the increase in life expectancy. So, it's kinda puzzling why you were waiting for the numbers to turn around.
You are right. I was misrembering relative as absolute.
No model is provably right. However the behavior has a solid scientific explanation based on feedback loops and is not controversial. https://skepticalscience.com/c...
Chris Mesterharm
Data shows it was global and nearly a decade in duration.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just about every protein unique (or largely confined) to the human species is presently at its highest level in the last 800,000 years; and probably another 10 million industrial compounds, of which maybe 100,000 were intentional, and the other 99% being random and undesired by products around the margins of the defined process (even the smallest amounts discarded instead of destroyed would lead to record-setting environmental levels over a billion-year historical time scale).
What makes CO2 special is that we worked a little harder to crack this nut.
Current cumulative industrial emissions of CO2 is presently on the order of 33,000 million metric tonnes (Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1850–2030). That's 33 petagrams in base metric units, once you collect all the distributed zeros together.
How many chemicals exist on planet earth in excess of 30 Pg?
The entire earth's biosphere clocks in at 1–4 Eg. We can start by eliminating any biological chemical that accounts for less than 1% of the entire biosphere.
Goodbye, glucose, at 3–8 g per human body. ATP? Nope. Glycogen? Closer, but still no cigar. Cellulose stands a chance, if we're generous about counting molecular D-glucose units, rather than actual molecules. Perhaps one lipid, the most common chain length of all fats?
And what if earth had blessed us with ten (or one hundred) Middle East oil fields, where gasoline practically gushes out in finished form? The newly acidic oceans would be halfway sterile of yummy megafauna, but fertilizer for use in terrestrial agriculture would have been practically free.
Not better, not worse; just different.
But cross your fingers God keeps his promise about not sending a second flood, because Noah 2.0's ocean pantry would be exceedingly slim pickings. Yes, a merciful God wipes the slate clean before you waltz off the boat, procreate vigorously, and then discover mass geological reserves of buried hydrocarbons to rival the entirety of God's respiring endowment.
How much is too much? 3 Pg? 30 Pg? 300 Pg? 3 Eg? 30 Eg? Do stop me when your anthropogenic spidey sense reaches its in-built marble ark threat-detection threshold.
No model is provably right.
You might want to rephrase that. There ARE provable models, where we understand the math and conditions well enough to predict the future with in a known level of error. We have a lot of experimentally proven models which we can rely on for things like lift/drag for an aircraft wings using fluid dynamics, precipitation run off volumes from urban developments, short term weather forecasting, aircraft fuel consumption and more.
Perhaps you mean "No climate model that has a provable amount of error used for climate change studies"? I'll agree with that.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
This seems to mainly apply to the Vostok cores. When core samples from multiple sites are combined, the CO2 is shown to rise well before the warming. A short video by the University of Queensland attempts to clarify the evidence and a logical fallacy surrounding it (skip to 2:39 if you're impatient).
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
This seems to mainly apply to the Vostok cores. When core samples from multiple sites are combined, the CO2 is shown to rise well before the warming. A short video by the University of Queensland attempts to clarify the evidence and a logical fallacy surrounding it (skip to 2:39 if you're impatient).
Sorry for the confusion, religionofpeas - I responded to the wrong post. I still think you're pretty cool though.
Carbon taxation will be passed onto consumers, period. Poor people, whom are already struggling, will find it even harder to survive.
Citation?
What has been the sucker punch?
The sentence "Humans especially may be sucker-punched by relatively rapid change" does not refer to something that has already happened.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Yes, I know that life expectancy has gone up. The puzzling bit is why you are bringing it up in a discussion about CO2.
Here you go - same as I linked above. Look at the "Annual mean temperature change for hemispheres". You'll see it shows up in both hemispheres. Much like the Little Ice Age, and the Medieval Warm Period - worldwide phenomenon.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
That's a GISTEMP graph by month for 1880 to prsent, not a hemispheric breakdown. If you download the CSV, though, it quite clearly shows the 1930s were cooler than present, e.g. July +1 to +1.3 over annual average baseline then, +1.7 to 2.0 now.
CLICK ON THE LINKS BELOW THE GRAPH! The one labeled "Annual mean temperature change for hemispheres" and you'll see exactly what happened. EXACTLY. Then read back up above what I stated (which is NOTHING like you are talking about, today being hotter or cooler than back then). Please!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Climate models are generally successful in that observations are within the range of uncertainty.
Climate model projections compared to observations
Just pointing out that CO2 has not been a significant detriment to the welfare of the human species up until today, May 7.
Call me when it is.
I don't know what the average around the world would be but it's probably a little lower than 410. The further south you go the lower the level of CO2. At the South Pole levels are about 3-4 ppm lower than Mauna Loa so not a huge difference. Even though those other places they're taking the readings from may be a bit different than Mauna Loa they're all changing at about the same rate.
I understand why they used a 30 year time frame. But shifting all of model projections so they all start at the same point is misleading. What if a projection actually showed a temperature below what the UAH showed in 1983? The graph may show how they've changed relative to each other since 1983 but it hides how close to each other the findings might be.
Even if the climate sensitivity is as low as you hope it is the world is still warming, just a little slower.
Oops, for some reason, the PNG version displayed readably to me in Firefox. The axes are labeled, it's just not clearly visible. Is the SVG version better at least?
Ezekiel 23:20
Only to those idiots living below 300 feet in elevation, I'm pretty sure.
What, you didn't foresee the inability to combat climate change and choose the location of your house based on elevation above sea level?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I guess I'm OK with that definition of provable. My instinct is to reserve provable for math, and your original statement didn't give a lot of context...
That's not what I meant, but it's a reasonable point. Should we throw out all science that doesn't fit your definition of provable? For such a strong reaction, one would need to give a much more precise definition of provable. Do we need to do "controlled" experiments? How often do they need to be repeated? Is evolution provable? Is astrophysics provable? How about science that deals with the human brain? I'm guessing good, useful, and honest science can be done without reaching your standard of provable by combining a range of evidence. I would say that this includes current research into climate.
Chris Mesterharm
When ice covered most of North America and starving was a fact of life. :)
In order to play the science game, we need the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis to start off with. To wit,
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean a hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that a hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
While playing with models while dressing in white lab coats may look "sciencey", it doesn't become scientific until it starts following the scientific method - and that means having a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Now, there are those that would suggest that we can avoid the need for the scientific method, and simply use Bayesian analysis to reach the truth, but any statistical method that avoids the cornerstone of falsifiability opens up the world to making astrology scientific, simply based on probability distributions. There's a great opportunity for interesting discovery with Bayesian methods, but a lot more risk of false positives. In fact, given enough creativity, the false positive can be actively mined for.
My mistake. I see it now. It shows NH temperatures diverging from SH in the 1930s, so still disagrees with you. SH temperatures look flat. Still lower than today. But I will concede that the NH rise was sustained. But then a rise, given industrialisation, tends to support the CC models.
Angry Teen? I'll have you know I'm a member of the Socialist Elite actually.
There may be one, or two, countries in the world where carbon taxes are used to 'mitigate the effects of climate change.' My guess is that almost all of them just see it as slop for the trough.
I thought it was more the going from 280 to 410 in like 130 years. But then again, you have a point; 400 to 410 in one year is 10 times that rate.
Wait, what? The BLUE line? You don't see -0.32 deg C for 1935, and +0.18 deg C for 1940? You don't see that big hump from 1939 to 1942?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Sure, but they were prepared sexist misogynist patriarchal pigs :-)
Table-ized A.I.
bs, its been 400 since y2k, .4 py inc
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
http://www.e-publications.org/...">Here is a better paper explaining the difficulty of temperature reconstructions and their general inaccuracy, in case you found my arguments unauthoritative.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Good. Lets go with common sense and facts.
Here we see your favorite of emissions per capita
Your nation jumps from 1.97 in 1990 to 7.45 in 2016. IOW, you increased 400%. EU-28 is was at 9 in 1990 and went down to 6.75 in 2016. EU-28 decreased ~ 25%.
America was ~20 in 1990, and went down to 15.5 in 2016. IOW, America decreased 25%.
Last year, CHina went up again, while EU stayed flat and America dropped.
When you speak of rich nations, I think that you have to include not just AMerica, but EU-28, Canada, Austrlia, and to be fair, CHina. BUT, CHina continues to grow their co2 emissions and now exceeds EU's per capita. In the next 5 years, there is a great chance that AMerica and CHina will have about the same per capita, which is NOT a good thing. We will probably cross at around 12.
CHina's growth continues due to building of new coal plants. In spite of your BS posting, here we speak about last year where CHina increased coal use by 5% (and that is from Chinese gov): But China’s National Development and Reform Commission released detailed data this week showing that the country’s electricity consumption jumped 6.6 percent last year. Wind and solar energy grew quickly, but not nearly enough to meet the extra demand. Electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels, almost entirely coal, rose 5.2 percent in China last year.
Wait until CHina REALLY starts moving towards EVs. That is going to drive their CO2 way up.
As to the future, CHina IS doing 700 new coal plants, with more 350 in CHina alone. The rest are around the globe, but still pushed, financed, and built by CHina.
COmmon sense and these facts PROVE that CHina is on the WRONG COURSE. China is increasing CO2 in their own nation as well as others.
In addition, most of the west continues on the RIGHT course. America and most of the west has stopped building new coal plants. Germany, continues to stay with Asia and build out new ones, but will probably be forced to drop those.
Common sense and facts says STOP BUILDING NEW COAL PLANTS. In addition, it says to quit defending it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
CHina's growth continues due to building of new coal plants. In spite of your BS posting, here we speak about last year where CHina increased coal use by 5% (and that is from Chinese gov): But China’s National Development and Reform Commission released detailed data this week showing that the country’s electricity consumption jumped 6.6 percent last year. Wind and solar energy grew quickly, but not nearly enough to meet the extra demand. Electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels, almost entirely coal, rose 5.2 percent in China last year.
Wait until CHina REALLY starts moving towards EVs. That is going to drive their CO2 way up. As to the future, CHina IS doing 700 new coal plants, with more 350 in CHina alone. The rest are around the globe, but still pushed, financed, and built by CHina.
Shows what a constant liar you are, either as porky or as red tide.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Here is the headlines from 1 KNOWLEDGEABLE company.
Chinese companies to build 700 coal plants in and outside China
Overall, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, said Urgewald, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world's coal-fired power capacity by 43 per cent.
43%, with CHina accounting for close to 1/2 of all new power plants being built. Oh, and America is building NONE OF THEM, though to be fair, Europe is also build a number of these in other nations.
This says it all.
The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord. Electricity generated from fossil fuels such as coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists agree is causing the earth's temperatures to rise.
It is time for you to tell your bosses to quit destroying this planet. America built coal plants when we did NOT know. Now that we know, we are NOT building them,but instead shutting them down.
Be a man, grow a pair and start being against coal and that fact that your nation is primarly responsible for the destruction of mankind.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The only carbon tax I'm aware of currently is the Province of British Columbia, Canada. It's working pretty well for them.
Hey look, you're using outdated data from the same source I already mentioned...How can you claim that they are more knowledgeable when they are just using old data from the same site I showed you?
What's the bet you still stick to your lies though and claim 700?
What's the bet you refuse to understand replacing an old coal plant with a newer one is still better than just using the old one?
What's the bet you still claim China coal is on a runaway tear when everyone credible says it peaked in 2013?
Why don't you 'be a man' and admit Chinese coal isn't the runaway problem you claim, and that America is a far bigger polluter per person, and therefore much more responsible for the 'destruction of mankind'.
1. I don't have Chinese bosses. 2. If I did tell them that they would laugh at me, as Chinese bosses they would be smarter than you and know who the real polluters are. 3. Even if you were right (you're not), and I worked for them (I don't), It's fucking CHINA you idiot, they have an Emperor For Life, he wouldn't listen to me...
Check the dates Windy...
Just in this thread alone you mentioned it twice.
Only after I called out your lie did you change your tune to be closer to the truth, (still wrong).
Maybe my 'Chinese bosses' will give me an extra bowl of rice for forcing you closer to the truth.
If you actually admit the truth, I get a pony.
Of course it's not directly $1 equals x increase in CO2. There will be some variation based on what the people are willing to sacrifice. Don't get worked up between the difference between 60k 70k and 80k for already developed countries. Check the countries like China at 10k India at 2k, any other developing countries you want to choose.
Or are you really claiming Norway and Australia are developing countries?
It's not a secret every one already knows this.
It's the whole reason people are worried about poor countries developing and polluting like rich countries. If they didn't develop, there wouldn't be a problem. For rich countries anyway. But how to explain to the poor countries that they can't do exactly what you do? That is the problem.
True, I didn't say it was fair. It's not, it's highly regressive. So places that implement one usually offset it with other payment/taxes to account for this.
Of course it will be passed on to consumers. That is the entire point! Consumers won't want to pay more than they have to and will switch to cleaner options, use less electricity, demand changes from businesses and governments.
Now polluting is free, so why not build the dirtiest coal plant you can. If consumers had to pay for that CO2, no one would want coal powered electricity, and businesses wouldn't build them any more, problem solved.
China did not increase coal use by 5% in 2017. Stop with the lie.
Even though coal use for electricity was up(nowhere near 5%), it was up less than other things. And coal's percentage went down. China is getting cleaner. Nat gas for example was up over 10%
China’s National Statistics Bureau said in January that the country’s total energy consumption in 2017 was up around 2.9% compared to a year ago, but coal’s share in total energy mix was down by 1.7%.
You are taking electricity's fossil fuel increase of 5.2 total , pretending it's all coal. And ignoring all the other coal uses that have fallen.
Around 15% of the increase in China’s electricity demand was due to higher demand for cooling, driven by a particularly hot summer. (This topic will be the focus of a forthcoming IEA report on how the projected growth in air conditioning usage around the world will affect global electricity demand). Despite continued reductions of coal use in buildings and industry, the growth in the power sector pushed up coal demand in China by 0.3%, after three years of declining demand. Despite this rebound, coal use in China remains below its 2013 peak.
So it's not a 5% increase for coal, it's only 0.3%. Why do you continue to post your lies?
It's not all doom and gloom like you think.
https://greenerideal.com/news/...
The report said that while China was outstripping every nation in sight, investment in renewable projects in the UK, Germany and the US tailed off. The US saw renewable investment withdraw by 6 percent to $40.5 billion, and with the Trump administration adding a new solar panel tariff, jobs lost to the sector in 2018 will amount to 23,000. On the flip side, China was responsible for 45 percent of the $279.8 billion spent on all renewables, and more than half of all new global solar capacity.
AN INCREDIBLE wave of solar energy peaking in China has helped to put renewable energy ahead of fossil fuels use for the first time. A total 98 gigawatts of solar energy technology – with 53 gigawatts installed in China – outstripped combined coal, gas and nuclear energies.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/2...
China maintained its position as a wind energy powerhouse, installing 19.7 GW, while the European Union added 15.6 GW of capacity, its best ever year. The U.S. installed a little over 7 GW of capacity.
> Yeah, at the moment
> Until adfitional coal plants is stooped
Which wiki did you copy this from again? You very helpfully failed to include your source.
The difference in PPP median income between, say, the UK and Australia is small, but CO2 per capita is a factor of two, so there are more factors involved than just income. India to UK, you have a point.
Somebody did, but then they looked at the isotope ratios and discovered yet another way to demonstrate that burning fossil fuels is the cause of increased CO2.
I see the SH blue line flat line from 1920 to 1939, and the NH red line increase. Your contention was that warming in the 1930s was global, but your own source shows it was not. A sudden blip in the SH line in 1940 is irrelevant, as it is too short term to be climate, as opposed to a short-lived PDO. You're an intelligent enough person to be able to reasonably understand climate change, and there are a lot of good resources out there, and I could help identify some if it helps.
Totally agree Australia and the US are far more polluting than EU countries of similar income, and should do much more. Developing countries are still smaller than all of them.
Good. Lets go with common sense and facts.
Good, lets.
Here we see your favorite of emissions per capita Your nation jumps from 1.97 in 1990 to 7.45 in 2016. IOW, you increased 400%.
AS IT GOT RICHER !!
As developing countries develop, they develop into rich countries. And the pollution goes up to rich country levels. It's not rocket science Windy.
EU-28 is was at 9 in 1990 and went down to 6.75 in 2016. EU-28 decreased ~ 25%. America was ~20 in 1990, and went down to 15.5 in 2016. IOW, America decreased 25%.
You are right, the EU is much better than America.
Last year, CHina went up again, while EU stayed flat and America dropped.
And yet America is still twice China. They must have been quite bad if they have been decreasing for years, China has been increasing for years, yet they are still more than double China's level.
When you speak of rich nations, I think that you have to include not just AMerica, but EU-28, Canada, Austrlia, and to be fair, CHina. BUT, CHina continues to grow their co2 emissions and now exceeds EU's per capita. In the next 5 years, there is a great chance that AMerica and CHina will have about the same per capita, which is NOT a good thing. We will probably cross at around 12.
You must be just about the only person in the world who thinks Chinese are as rich as all those other countries you mention. Usually that means you are wrong...I thought you wanted common sense and facts?
China's CO2 increases have levelled off, it's very unlikely they will reach 12. Show some facts and common sense to suggest this will be the case.
Lets play along though, and assume they both reach 12. Why is it suddenly a problem for China to be identical to US levels? If it's good for the US to be at 12, why not China too? Oh I forgot, you are an entitled dirtbag. America is just assumed to be allowed to pollute so much more.
Snip all you bullshit lies already addressed elsewhere
COmmon sense and these facts PROVE that CHina is on the WRONG COURSE. China is increasing CO2 in their own nation as well as others.
Of course they are. Malnourished people (developing countries) will eat more food (use more CO2) when they can afford it. Obese people (Americans, Australians, etc) and overweight (some EU countries) should be the last people to complain that some one else is eating too much food. Lose more weight fatty.
In addition, most of the west continues on the RIGHT course. America and most of the west has stopped building new coal plants. Germany, continues to stay with Asia and build out new ones, but will probably be forced to drop those.
So pick a level for CO2 you are happy for people to use. It's just about guaranteed that China will get there before America will.
Common sense and facts says STOP BUILDING NEW COAL PLANTS. In addition, it says to quit defending it.
It's a good thing China's coal use peaked in 2013 then isn't it.
Common sense would notice where the actual problem was, rich peoples lifestyles, instead of focusing on coal all the time.
A safer(not looking at the Sun) analogy is fog. It's only ~42ppm, yet I can't see very far through it. 420ppm of CO2 is effectively a dense fog for IR.
This AC's claim is false.
Plant leaves have pockets in their surfaces called stomata, within which the actual gas exchanges take place. The concentration of stomata (count per sq.mm of surface) varies with atmospheric CO2 concentration - which has been verified in greenhouses.
In the fossil record, you get fossil plants. You need good preservation - which is uncommon, but not unknown. From stomata counts on different genera of plants, you can estimate the level of CO2 concentration in which those plants grew.
Yes, the error-bars are looser than for an IR or GCMS measurement of CO2 concentration on a mountain today. But we can know what the atmospheric CO2 concentration was at enough points in the past to construct curves of CO2 concentration against time.
All of which has been well reported in the geological press for literally decades (it was new to the text books when I read it in 1980). So the AC is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
my bad. I misread "the first time it crossed 410 at all...". Thanks for the correction!
Since when is less than 12 months old, old, while you continue to push 6-12 y.o. data?
Andrew Topf | Oct. 8, 2017, 4:35 PM |
Quit lying.
U have ALWAYS been a liar. And I suspect that it the case for everything that you do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Only those living below 1700 feet.
https://geology.com/records/biggest-tsunami.shtml
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Hey guy, it is. The evidence is largely statistical, but it's there. It's also not enough to really bother well-off Westerners, except with refugees. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and temperatures continue to go up.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thank god they got rid of those SUV 800,000 years ago
Take fog, multiply by 0.08, then 10.0 and you're left with.. Fog. CO2 does drop about 3% every 300 meters. After a kilometer, it would be 90% what it was at the ground. Mostly unchanged. I'm sure it's effectively opaque. I know if I was to look through several milometers of fog, I'd see nothing but fog.
Nice twist Windy. But the dates I was talking about were your posting dates...
You posted your lies of 700 at least twice in this very thread before being called out on it. And only after did you try to pretend you said outside China all along (another lie).
Go back and look, I'll wait.
Even your twist move is still a lie !!
Your data is October 2017. Mine was Jan 2018 from the site your site used for their data. https://endcoal.org/tracker/ Also just to show how even more wrong you numbers are, 180 of those plants are either announced or pre-permit.
Announced: Proposed plants that have been described in corporate or government plans but have not yet taken concrete steps such as applying for permits or acquiring land.
Pre-permit development: Plants that are seeking environmental approvals and pursuing other developmental steps such as securing land and water rights.
So 180 of those plants aren't even approved, and you know from previous facts that China is making it much much harder to get approval...most (all?) of them won't be approved and you know it.
As always Windy is full of shit.
PS: Still waiting for you to show any actual lie I said anywhere in any thread...
once again, you are lying. I have said that China is building 700 coal plants. 350 of them are in china and 300 outside. That is what your nation is doing. You can continue to lie, but all my posts have said that all along. OTOH, YOU have posted lie after lie after lie. Even while posting Crimson Tsunami (or red tide) or under this moniker of porky.
Quit lying. You are a piece of trash that is responsible for this growing nightmare.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You can't even keep your lies straight... Where did the other 50 go !!
You're forgetting just how this will work. So, you're right, power rates will go up...but that's not the only thing.
Fuel costs will also go up. This results in every single good and service going up in price from transport costs alone. Stores that already have raised prices on all goods because their power rates have gone up now also increase their prices even more because shipping costs have increased. And that's not counting goods crossing the ocean via cargo ship.
The price of manufacturing goods goes up, because of power rates and the cost of getting raw materials. Store prices will go up even more because the goods they buy to sell to use are being sold to them at an higher price than before.
It's more than just one thing...carbon taxation will lead to people who can't absorb the extra cost starving, and everyone else being knocked down a rung on the economic ladder...except for the politicians, big business, and the extremely wealthy.
First off, I'd like to thank Google for helping me find Windy's lies and put the pattern together.
Here is the most recent two times you claimed 700 with no mention of outside China. Only a couple of days ago. Just before I told you to pull your head out of your ass.
But your lies go back further...
Here in April you mention
China's 700 new plants
In the same post you already highlighted
When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year
You already knew it was false.
But wait back in February...
You claimed this
China's adding 750+ GW of new coal plants over the next 11 years. And that is just CHINA.
With no evidence shown at all.
China is adding another 650 GW of just coal plants while shutting down a fraction of that
You did walk that claim back, a little further in the thread. Still with no evidence shown.
10 days before that...
You were at it again
China is building out 700 GW of new coal plants, while the entire west has less than 700 GW
Still no evidence shown. (a pattern forming?)
Back in December...
You responded to being told that hundreds were already, and are being cancelled. And that person gave a link.
that was from may which is 7 months ago. Their are still over 700 plants being built as of Nov 2017 which is 1 month ago. And note that these are being BUILT, not just planned.
Now you don't even include planned, you specifically exclude them. Still no evidence from you.
Before that in November...
You said
IOW, it was only for part of the nation, not for all. There is a reason why China will build so many. Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
And this is JUST China's building of new plants, of which 4/5 of these will be in CHINA.
This must be your biggest lie of all.
You did provide a link this time...but it didn't support your lie. Maybe that's why you stopped providing them?
So we can see you have been lying about this for a long time...
As time goes on, your lies get a little bit closer to the truth every time people point them out.
Come on Windy, just admit the truth.
:)
It's my daughters birthday soon and I really need that pony.
If you're talking about planetary events like meteor impacts, that doesn't seem super relevant.
The EU and Australia have them too. And perhaps more.
Australia had one but it got repealed when the ALP won the next election. It was only in force for a couple of years. I've heard of cap-and-trade being used in the EU but not a straight up carbon tax.
Cap and trade is a carbon tax - certainly the costs of the trading are passed on to consumers.
Haha! The John Cook "Denial 101" series?
That is your "evidence"?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Geez, you resurrect my old post just to throw in an ad hominem?
My "evidence" is the argument the presenter made, along with her data.