There is a torrent of CO2 produced by rotting vegetation but what is driving up the levels (mostly) is burning fossil fuels. That's not the same thing at all as saying fossil fuels produce 99% of the CO2.
Wrong.
Burning fossil fuels is producing roughly 200% of the rise in CO2.
That's to say about 50% of what we're releasing from fossil carbon is being removed by the carbon cycle.
How is there overwhelming evidence? How do we know what we're doing is actually causing any of this to happen? If it's a natural occurrence over millions of years we could be right in the middle of the cycle where it starts spinning out of control making it appear that we're making it worse.
Because "natural occurences" have causes. We know pretty well what can cause the temperature to go up. When we look at what's happening now we find that all of the current warming can be explained by the increase in GHG concentrations.
And we know where those GHG's are coming from, it's mostly CO2, and all of the CO2 increase is coming from fossil fuel burning..
The biggest creators of greenhouse gasses are not the recently industrializing nations, they're the nations that have been industrialized for decades and whose populations use massive amounts of energy to maintain their luxurious lifestyles. In case you haven't guessed, that's the US, western Europe, and Japan.
Biggest historical creators.
Not necessarily biggest current creators.
Current estimates are:
China 23% USA 18% EU 14% India 6% Russia 6% Japan 4%
(Of course if you rearrange this list in CO2 output per capita the US shoots to the top)
From the comments on the Dilbert strip you linked to:
Myself, I like the argument that knowing and working with your neighbors is a good approach to security; thieves last Friday swiped my own hunting rifle. Big arms cache's will always be a strategic target for any organized pilfering, whether IRS or militia or garden-variety thug.
A friend of mine is a firm survivalist, but he hasn't stockpiled any food, only weapons and ammunition. I asked him how that's supposed to work, and he said it's ok, whatever food he needs he'll just take from his liberal neighbors. What are they going to do, call the cops? Although I personally don't work that way, I have to admit, he has a point.
Your "friend" is a psychopath. My advice would be to stay well away from him (if he exists anywhere outside of your head).
If only the greens and survivalists learned to stop ridiculing each other, they might find they had some things in common.
The greens I know may be naive, but at least they're not planning to kill their neighbours.
Actually the reality is that nuclear power is economic over the entire lifetime of a plant, nearly as cheap as coal, and works just fine without particulate emissions.
Only if you ignore all the stuff that the government pays for, like insurance.
And the coal plant is only economic if you ignore the stuff that isn't payed for like dealing with the results of raising atmospheric CO2 to 400ppm.
It's not up to the EU to cut off Google, Ebay, et al. It's up to Google, Ebay, et al. to cut themselves off from Europe.
What do you mean by "it's not up to"?
It is certainly within the powers of the EU to prevent Google, Ebay et al from doing business in the EU.
Why do geeks always obsess about "it's where the datacenters are"? Balls. It's about where the money is. If "Google, Ebay et al" want to cut themselves off from approximately 25% of the worlds money...
I stopped watching Doctor Who after all of season 5 blew huge balls
What? Patrick Troughton was great, and I loved the Yeti in the web-filled London Underground tunnels. (And Lethbridge-Stewart showing up for the first time).
Slashdot Mirror
There is a torrent of CO2 produced by rotting vegetation but what is driving up the levels (mostly) is burning fossil fuels. That's not the same thing at all as saying fossil fuels produce 99% of the CO2.
Wrong.
Burning fossil fuels is producing roughly 200% of the rise in CO2.
That's to say about 50% of what we're releasing from fossil carbon is being removed by the carbon cycle.
How is there overwhelming evidence? How do we know what we're doing is actually causing any of this to happen? If it's a natural occurrence over millions of years we could be right in the middle of the cycle where it starts spinning out of control making it appear that we're making it worse.
Because "natural occurences" have causes. We know pretty well what can cause the temperature to go up. When we look at what's happening now we find that all of the current warming can be explained by the increase in GHG concentrations.
And we know where those GHG's are coming from, it's mostly CO2, and all of the CO2 increase is coming from fossil fuel burning..
The biggest creators of greenhouse gasses are not the recently industrializing nations, they're the nations that have been industrialized for decades and whose populations use massive amounts of energy to maintain their luxurious lifestyles. In case you haven't guessed, that's the US, western Europe, and Japan.
Biggest historical creators.
Not necessarily biggest current creators.
Current estimates are:
China 23%
USA 18%
EU 14%
India 6%
Russia 6%
Japan 4%
(Of course if you rearrange this list in CO2 output per capita the US shoots to the top)
Remember, Analytics begins with anal.
Yes, but most movies use anal near the end, not the beginning.
This was the first movie I tried with DBox (those tilting/vibrating seats)
What, you didn't see Earthquake?
But of course! France is well known for their love of dumb blockbuster action films with lots of car chases and explosions and little else
Luc Besson. Europacorp.
Check it out: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000108/
Anyone care to link to a real article with a little more breadth?
Depth? Thomas Friedman?
By "they" do you mean the voices in your head?
no, he's repeating a crazy misunderstanding of a Nasa report that has been debunked by Wattsupwiththat!
From the comments on the Dilbert strip you linked to:
Myself, I like the argument that knowing and working with your neighbors is a good approach to security; thieves last Friday swiped my own hunting rifle. Big arms cache's will always be a strategic target for any organized pilfering, whether IRS or militia or garden-variety thug.
Natural gas is cheap enough that there's no reason to replace it with a solar system.
CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O
Not "no reason", just "no economic reason if we don't take externalities into account".
A friend of mine is a firm survivalist, but he hasn't stockpiled any food, only weapons and ammunition. I asked him how that's supposed to work, and he said it's ok, whatever food he needs he'll just take from his liberal neighbors. What are they going to do, call the cops? Although I personally don't work that way, I have to admit, he has a point.
Your "friend" is a psychopath. My advice would be to stay well away from him (if he exists anywhere outside of your head).
If only the greens and survivalists learned to stop ridiculing each other, they might find they had some things in common.
The greens I know may be naive, but at least they're not planning to kill their neighbours.
In Germany, peak production of electricity by solar has hit 50% at times.
As far as I can tell the record was total renewables of over 50%, not solar, which seems to have been around 40%
And it was on a Sunday (hence lower demand).
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/12/sunday-solar-sunday-germany-solar-power-record-in-depth/
Still pretty good though.
Vietnam was a political firestorm, bring in the nukes and suddenly the problem is solved. However, that wasn't allowed for various reasons.
You might like to think about what the "problem" was.
In order to save the country we destroyed it?
Actually the reality is that nuclear power is economic over the entire lifetime of a plant, nearly as cheap as coal, and works just fine without particulate emissions.
Only if you ignore all the stuff that the government pays for, like insurance.
And the coal plant is only economic if you ignore the stuff that isn't payed for like dealing with the results of raising atmospheric CO2 to 400ppm.
You've got that backwards.
It's not up to the EU to cut off Google, Ebay, et al. It's up to Google, Ebay, et al. to cut themselves off from Europe.
What do you mean by "it's not up to"?
It is certainly within the powers of the EU to prevent Google, Ebay et al from doing business in the EU.
Why do geeks always obsess about "it's where the datacenters are"? Balls. It's about where the money is. If "Google, Ebay et al" want to cut themselves off from approximately 25% of the worlds money...
In other news, today the containment dome for the Flamanville EPR is being installed.
San Onofre - nukes done wrong, every plant (hell, every reactor) is different.
France - nukes done right - build a shitload of identical plants.
Hah. I watched it when it was first broadcast.
Did you tape it by any chance? I'm missing a few episodes.
No, but I did some drawings in crayon on wrapping paper.
Hah. I watched it when it was first broadcast.
And everyone knows that all this started when Obama set up the NSA and the FISA court.
Amazingly confused.
Your first paragraph directlt contradicts your second.
Newton stood on the shoulders of giants because he didn't have to pay some mob of rent-seekers for the priviledge.
I stopped watching Doctor Who after all of season 5 blew huge balls
What? Patrick Troughton was great, and I loved the Yeti in the web-filled London Underground tunnels. (And Lethbridge-Stewart showing up for the first time).
Or are you talking about someother season 5?
Go and change the drive in an early 2007 MacBook. I can do it. You can do it. My brother, Frank, couldn't.
Still bitter about Catherine, Jerry?
So, where is this mythical country without a retarded school system?
And what useless crap does it teach its poor kiddies ?
You think we should classify Croatia as a dwarf country? :-)
So you've decided to redefine the word "invasion" in such a way that the US involvement in Vietnam was an invasion.
Interesting.