Reply With Quote
CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere and humans account for 4% of that. I'm underwhelmed.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.
The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.
"The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries — China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases.
It is a "monster" increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.
Extra pollution in China and the U.S. account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said.
"It's a big jump," said Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab. "From an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over."
Boden said that in 2010 people were traveling, and manufacturing was back up worldwide, spurring the use of fossil fuels, the chief contributor of man-made climate change.
India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010.
"The good news is that these economies are growing rapidly so everyone ought to be for that, right?" Reilly said Thursday. "Broader economic improvements in poor countries has been bringing living improvements to people. Doing it with increasing reliance on coal is imperiling the world."
In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.
Even though global warming skeptics have attacked the climate change panel as being too alarmist, scientists have generally found their predictions too conservative, Reilly said. He said his university worked on emissions scenarios, their likelihood, and what would happen. The IPCC's worst case scenario was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated are likely scenarios.
Chris Field of Stanford University, head of one of the IPCC's working groups, said the panel's emissions scenarios are intended to be more accurate in the long term and are less so in earlier years. He said the question now among scientists is whether the future is the panel's worst case scenario "or something more extreme."
"Really dismaying," Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon University, said of the new figures. "We are building up a horrible legacy for our children and grandchildren."
But Reilly and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver found something good in recent emissions figures. The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8 percent below 1990 levels. The U.S. did not ratify the agreement.
In 1990, developed countries produced about 60 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, now it's probably less than 50 percent, Reilly said.
"We really need to get the developing world because if we don't, the problem is going to be running away from us," Weaver said. "And the problem is pretty close from running away from us."
http://news.yahoo.com/biggest-jump-e...183955211.html
------------------------------------------------------------
(edit) At his rate, the amount of emissions will double in 12 years, and in the next 20 years we will have emitted more CO2 than have in hour entire history to date.
Whatever effect you think this has on our climate will therefore double.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-04-2011 at 08:54 AM.
CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere and humans account for 4% of that. I'm underwhelmed.
Well , a youtube video, then it's settled.
Why didn't the PhD's studying the atmosphere just realize this decades ago?
Mmm. I like to listen to at least one spurious demonstration posted by a politcal hack before breakfast.
Please provide data or analysis showing that humans are responsible for 4% of the current CO2 concentration.
If such low concentrations are always harmless, then please drink a water solution composed of 99.99961% water and .039% plutonium.
Google is your friend.
Spare me with that bull .
Wow, DarrinS of twenty minutes ago, that is some interesting logic. Let's see if it is valid and not spurious.
CO2 (X) is .039% (small percentage) of the atmosphere (Y), therefore the CO2 (X) in the atmosphere (Y) is harmless.
X is a small percentage of Y, therefore the amount of X in Y is harmless.
Plutonium (X) is .039% (small percentage) of this glass of water (Y), therefore the amount of plutonium (X) in the glass of water (Y) is harmless.
Gee, DarrinS of ten minutes ago, I agree.
DarrinS of twenty minutes ago is trying to bull us. I'm sure you agree with me that DarrinS of twenty minutes ago is an idiot if he really believes that, or a liar if he doesn't.
Darrin of ten minutes ago, what do you think? Idiot or liar?
And yet
And yet
Another graph that amounts to data interpretation from a guy with an obvious bias. You are just as free to drink the coolaid.
Another decade of data and observation of our test tube will get us a better picture, no doubt.
I hope your assertion that all this is harmless is correct. Placing our civilization on that spot in the roulette wheel is a bit more reckless than I care for, though.
I would prefer we take some moderate steps in limiting our emissions and mitigating the risk, because that is the conservative approach. Liberally taking risks based on unclear science doesn't seem like a wise choice.
His bull ? You made the claim; go prove your own assertion, face.
LOL!!! I don't know why, but this just got me. Freakin hilarious.
You could even take it further and say that Plutonium (X) in water (Y) dilutes even further in body (Z). Completely harmless according to DarrinS-sub1, but RG, DarrinS-sub2, and I disagree with him.
Lol
Please explain the source of the second graph and how it was plotted as the values do not correspnd to the same data points.And yet
Here is NASA's
Here is the explanation of their methodology.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/
The source of both graphs is Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. They do not correspond to the same data points because the aren't. The second graph is the last ten years. And you call other people dumb?F
Global warming reversed last night. It got much colder overnight.
I've been waiting for that one, especially after this summer's noticeable dearth of weather anecdotes.
You gave unlinked charts, head. The only stupidity was that.
Now that i know the source I feel that more explanation is in order. Which study is that chart from? The reason is clear as for example http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/B...Variations.pdf this study only analyzes urban surfaces and not the aggregate. Note how the GIS chart clearly labels land/ocean.
You gave us some random chart, head. What do the temperature points actually reflect?
The charts told me a lot. Told me the maker had an agenda.
I was unaware of a 1:1 relationship between co2 and the "effects" on our climate. Does it really stand to reason that 2x output = 2x results?
Serious question tbh.
Don't hold your breath. Throwing stuff on the wall, ducking/deflecting all questions and running away is all very typical.
And holy Darrin, do you even know what relative to average means? It looks like on your chart there are 8-10 data points for each year for 80 to 100 total. Of those only two are less than zero that means that over 95% of the data points represent hotter than average. If its always hotter than average, what does it means temperatures are doing?
You are a disgusting piece of sophist .
Inability to read and understand his own source material is also typically DarrinS. Thus the high ratio of self-ownage.
Just noticed that.. LOL!
A blog told him it was gold!
Its just a complete lack of accountability or responsibility. I realize that this is the internet so who gives a but whether or not we can do anything about their behavior I think it speaks very strongly of character.
Darrin and WC are unscrupulous heads.
Pointing and laughing works pretty well with them. They get upset when exposed as being not as intelligent as each thinks he is.
Really? What TREND do you see in the last ten years of data?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
