Greenhouse gas emissions hitting record highs

Jun 05, 2011 By ARTHUR MAX , Associated Press
Greenhouse gas emissions hitting record highs (AP)
In this June 1, 2011 photo released Saturday, June 4, 2011 by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), workers inspect equipments inside the cesium absorption tower, part of the radioactive water processing facilities at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Fukushima prefecture, northeastern Japan. The Japanese utility battling to bring its radiation-spewing nuclear reactor under control said Sunday, July 5, 2011 that 1,500 more tons of radioactive water are being moved into temporary storage in the processing facilities, the latest attempt to prevent a massive spill of contaminated water into the environment. (AP Photo/Tokyo Electric Power Co.) EDITORIAL USE ONLY

(AP) -- Despite 20 years of effort, greenhouse gas emissions are going up instead of down, hitting record highs as climate negotiators gather to debate a new global warming accord.

The new report by the International Energy Agency showing high emissions from fossil fuels is one of several pieces of bad news facing delegates from about 180 countries heading to Bonn, Germany, for two weeks of talks beginning Monday.

Another: The tsunami-triggered nuclear disaster in March apparently has sidelined Japan's aggressive policies to combat and prompted countries like Germany to hasten the decommissioning of which, regardless of other drawbacks, have nearly zero carbon emissions.

"Japan's energy future is in limbo," says analyst Endre Tvinnereim of the consultancy firm Point Carbon. The fallout from the catastrophe has "put climate policy further down the priority list," and the short-term effect in Japan - one of the world's most carbon-efficient countries - will be more burning of fossil fuels, he said.

And despite the expansion of renewable energy around the world, the Paris-based IEA's report said energy-related carbon emissions last year topped 30 gigatons, 5 percent more than the previous record in 2008. With energy investments locked into coal- and oil-fueled infrastructure, that situation will change little over the next decade, it said.

Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, says the energy trend should be "a wake-up call." The figures are "a serious setback" to hopes of limiting the rise in the Earth's average temperature to 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 F) above preindustrial levels, he said.

Any rise beyond that, scientists believe, could lead to catastrophic climate shifts affecting water supplies and global agriculture, setting off more frequent and fierce storms and causing a rise in sea levels that would endanger coastlines.

The June 6-17 discussions in Bonn are to prepare for the annual year-end decision-making U.N. conference, which this year is in Durban, South Africa. Even more than previous conferences, Durban could be the forum for a major showdown between wealthy countries and the developing world.

Poor countries say the wealthy West, whose industries overloaded the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases over the last 200 years, is not doing enough to cut future pollution.

A study released Sunday supports that view.

The report, based on an analysis by the Stockholm Environment Institute commissioned and released by Oxfam, evaluated national pledges to cut submitted after the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit. It found that developing countries account for 60 percent of the promised reductions.

The analysis is complicated because countries use different yardsticks and baseline years for measuring reductions.

But the study calculated that China, which has pledged to reduce emissions in relation to economic output by 40-45 percent, will cut its carbon output twice as much as the United States by 2020.

"It's time for governments from Europe and the U.S. to stand up to the fossil fuel lobbyists," said Tim Gore, a climate analyst for Oxfam, the international aid agency.

Another keynote battle in Bonn will be the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 accord whose provisions capping emissions by industrial countries expire in 2012.

Wealthy countries falling under the protocol's mandate are resisting demands to extend their commitments beyond 2012 and set new legally binding emissions targets unless powerful emerging economies like China, India and Brazil accept similar mandatory caps.

"The Kyoto Protocol uncertainty is casting even a bigger shadow over the negotiations than in years past, and is going to come to a head," said Jake Schmidt of the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

Negotiators also must prepare options for the Durban conference on how to raise $100 billion a year for the Green Climate Fund created last December to help countries cope with global warming. One source under discussion is a levy on international aviation and shipping, said Oxfam's Gore.

"South African negotiators are hoping a deal on sources for long-term finance will be Durban's legacy issue," he said.

Explore further: 3Qs: Game theory and global climate talks

4.1 /5 (12 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US inaction on climate troubles global talks

Aug 01, 2010

(AP) -- The failure of a climate bill in the U.S. Senate is likely to weigh heavily on international negotiations that begin Monday on a new agreement to control global warming.

Carbon emissions fall with global downturn: report

Sep 21, 2009

Greenhouse gas emissions have fallen thanks to the global downturn, handing the world a chance to move away from high-carbon growth, a report said Monday, citing an International Energy Agency study.

UN: Emission pledges fall short of climate target

Nov 23, 2010

(AP) -- Emissions cuts pledged by countries in a nonbinding climate accord last year fall short of what's needed to avoid the worst consequences of global warming, the U.N.'s environment agency said Tuesday.

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

Nov 07, 2006

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

UN climate chief warns on Kyoto Protocol deadline

Apr 04, 2011

Commitments by most developed countries to cut carbon emissions are likely to expire at the end of next year without a new round of legally binding pledges, the UN's climate chief warned Monday.

More nations may pledge carbon limits at UN talks

Dec 06, 2010

(AP) -- More countries are expected this week to pledge specific actions to limit carbon emissions over the next decade, in what would be "very good news" for arduous negotiations on a climate change agreement, ...

Recommended for you

3Qs: Game theory and global climate talks

Nov 21, 2014

Last week, China and the United States announced an ambitious climate agreement aimed at reducing carbon emissions in both countries, a pledge that marks the first time that China has agreed to stop its growing emissions. ...

From hurricanes to drought, LatAm's volatile climate

Nov 21, 2014

Sixteen years ago, Teodoro Acuna Zavala lost nearly everything when Hurricane Mitch ravaged his fields, pouring 10 days of torrential rains on Central America and killing more than 9,000 people.

Nicaragua: Studies say canal impact to be minimal

Nov 20, 2014

Officials said Thursday that studies have determined a $40 billion inter-oceanic canal across Nicaragua will have minimal impact on the environment and society, and construction is to begin next month.

User comments : 110

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1.3 / 5 (25) Jun 05, 2011
Greenhouse gas emissions . . .


There is no (NONE) convincing evidence that CO2 caused global warming!

That is a myth promoted by world leaders, Al Gore, the UN's IPCC, and their army of government-paid climatologists!

Finally - years after Climategate exposed that data had been hidden, ignored, manipulated to support this myth - the American Physical Society announced the establishment of a "New Topical Group on Climate"

www.aps.org/units...ndex.cfm

To seek "a better understanding of the mechanisms, magnitudes, and timescales by which anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic processes affect climate, including for example, greenhouse gases, solar variability, and unforced influences such as internal modes of variability."

The June 2011 APS announcement is here:

www.aps.org/publi...roup.cfm

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

mememine69
1.4 / 5 (24) Jun 05, 2011
Relieve yourself of this burden of a dying planet from CO2 and look for the flaws and cracks in the perception of scientific consensus. The consensus among scientists stinks like a rat:
-Why are the concerned scientists who warned us of catastrophic crisis not marching in the streets and demanding justice for the planet after all American IPCC research funding into climate change was pulled? Or why is this army of thousands of consensus scientists that I dare you dont know one single name of, at least acting like its an emergency? Especially when Obama never even mentioned the crisis in his state of the union speech.
-How do scientists always outnumber protestors?
Noumenal
4.1 / 5 (27) Jun 05, 2011
I don't understand the climate change deniers. They seem to think that us puny humans are not powerful enough to change the environment, especially one like the atmosphere.

They seem to have forgotten about CFCs? Aren't we all glad we did something about that problem, before it spiralled out of control?

The fact is, there has been a huge amount of CO2 in stasis. It stood outside the atmospheric system, stored underground. We took that material and added it back into the atmosphere. Now the claim is that this has no effect on the atmosphere(generally no reason is given). Sure, a consensus of scientists suggest that it does affect the system. Yet these people are going to say, nah, us humans can't affect the atmosphere must be something else. (they generally seem to blame the old sun god)

Egleton
3.5 / 5 (18) Jun 05, 2011
There are some on this site who are Avatars.
They are made by the massive coal industries. One spin doctor is employed per 100 Avatars.

Fortunately they can be recognised by the repetitive posts. Railing against them will achieve nothing. They are a form of abuse.
Sanescience
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2011
Of course CO2 is going up. Since there is no alternative energy source that some small interest group or another objects to, we stay with the default "worst" possible sources of energy.

Sadly, we had it within our grasp to take a majority chunk of these emissions out of the equation but again a small but vocal group of nuclear power abstinence prevented us from deploying the fast neutron reactor technologies that would have provided us with a vast source of electric power far cleaner and safer than these lame Rube Goldberg light water reactors we have now. And perversely it was in the name of "safety", which is the exact opposite of what was achieved as we became stuck with reactor designs that were not only unstable, but intentionally unstable because it is designed to produce plutonium, which of course there is now no market for, so it is now "waste" sitting in cooling ponds.

Read this:

http://www.pbs.or...ill.html
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 05, 2011
What record high?
Peteri
3.7 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2011
I don't understand the climate change deniers. They seem to think that us puny humans are not powerful enough to change the environment, especially one like the atmosphere.


I totally agree with you! By way of analogy - a single rain drop on its own has no noticeable effect on us, but billions of rain drops acting in concert can cause a powerful and devastating flood.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (18) Jun 05, 2011
I don't understand the climate change deniers.


I don't understand the claim that Earth's climate is immune to well-known cyclic changes in Earth's heat source - the Sun [1-4].

Please see the experimental data and observations in [1-4] and earlier studies cited there:

1. Fairbridge, R.W. and Shirley, J.H., Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar
inertial motion, Solar Physics 110, 191-220 (1987)

2. "Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate", Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

3. "Earth's heat source - the Sun", E & E 20, 131-144 (2009):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

4. Dr. Ivanka Charvátová confirms: Climate change is caused by changes in solar inertial motion (SIM):

www.klimaskeptik....rom-gfu/
rwinners
2.9 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2011
Bypassing the 'climate change' debate, there is no reason to expect humanity to stop burning carbon based material for power.
The US and Europe have set the standard of living for all of humanity. Do you think this will be denied to 2/3rds of the human population? OR... do you think 'they' will allow 'us' to deny them?
Wolf358
4.4 / 5 (15) Jun 05, 2011
I don't really care about acceptance or denial of "global warming"; either way, it's stupid to be dependent on fossil fuels, and it's stupid to dump waste materials (CO2) back into the ecosystem.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2011
Wolf358: I completely agree with your assessment that it is stupid to depend on fossil fuels and I would add that it is strategically moronic to depend on the middle east for our vehicles and other liquid fuel usage (I think this was implied in your post but I wanted to be explicit). Even if CO2 were not a factor, it is in our National interests to cut back on imports of fossil fuels.
whoyagonacal
4 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2011
I totally agree with you! By way of analogy - a single rain drop on its own has no noticeable effect on us ...


Yes -- but what if it's a REALLY REALLY BIG raindrop?
KillerKopy
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 05, 2011
If we caused all the global warming, how did we come out of the last ice age? How can anyone know we're not at a point in history where the temp is peeking and ready do decline? Remember we are somewhat along for the ride. yes, I am all for alt energy when possible and even remotely affordable. But everyone wants green energy then goes home and turns on a computer and lights everywhere plug in your phone tv on ect. Maybe people who are so worried about climate change should unplug and pedal to work first, instead of telling the rest of us what to do.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 05, 2011
Al Gore on a bicycle?
KillerKopy
1.7 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2011
Nice
Howhot
2.7 / 5 (15) Jun 05, 2011
To all the Avatars, and just plain ignorant. We will see whose grandchildren can survive the heat of an added 10 DEGREE C.

Enjoy 2025! Have a nice dry record breaking heat summer you all.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (16) Jun 05, 2011
"There is no (NONE) convincing evidence that CO2 caused global warming!" - OmaTard

From a man who argues that there is convincing evidence that the sun is made mostly from iron.

Ahahahahahahaha... Taarrrrrrrrrrrd.
aroc91
2 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2011
"There is no (NONE) convincing evidence that CO2 caused global warming!" - OmaTard

From a man who argues that there is convincing evidence that the sun is made mostly from iron.

Ahahahahahahaha... Taarrrrrrrrrrrd.


You seem to be quite an accomplished astrophysicist. I'm sure your published work is flawless.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (16) Jun 05, 2011
"If we caused all the global warming, how did we come out of the last ice age?" - Pure Ignorance

The earth's orbital and rotational characteristics change over periods of tens to several hundred thousand years, these changes are well known, cumulative and highly predictable.

It is these changes that cause the earth's glacial cycles. The exact time on onset or exit of each glacial cycle is however determined by environmental feedbacks that can for a geologically short time, delay or extend the period of onset and hasten the change of state.

Such a change of state occurred 12,000 years ago, and the next change of state would otherwise occur 10,000 to 20,000 years from now.

12,000 years ago, the global temperature peaked at the end of the last glacial cycle as the climate overshot it's equilibrium point. From that point on there has been a gradual but uneven decline in global average temperature - consistent with what is observed for previous interglacials.

cont...
Howhot
3 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2011
To OMAT and MEMEME, Obama has global warming a major part of his agenda as well as trying to move the US from it's dependence on foreign oil and towards green jobs. Even Mitt Romney recognizes that global warming is real, and is caused by burning fossil fuels. It's a complete DUUHHH as far as the science goes.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 05, 2011
The current abrupt warming caused by the emissions of CO2, is unusual in it's speed and direction.
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2011
Vendi, you have got that right. In a patch of the back yard, the long term forecast for June is 90 and dry until July, then it's 95 and then August 98. Degrees F. So far, we are matching the extreme worst case computer models very well. We had a cold front and it was 88. for the past two weeks we are in the 95 range. This in the mid USA where it would normally be 84-85 or so.

As you said Ven, it is "unusual in it's speed and direction."

xstos
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2011
Mass Transpo, Mass Power Plants, Mass Agriculture, Deforestation, Mass Consumption, Urbanization, Pollution = CO2.

Got nuclear? Nah, that'd be too easy for our moronic human race. Let's run in fear and let the heat kill us.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2011
Japan is one of the most advanced industrial and technical nations on earth. And now they have had 3 core melts and 2 or three containment building breaches.

To power the world via nuclear at U.S. levels of energy waste, approximately 200,000 new nuclear reactors will need to be constructed.

Only a fool would believe that the rest of the world will be able to manage their reactor collection half as well as the Japanese have.

And that means the world will experience just over core breach per day on average.

Good luck with that.

Sanescience
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2011
Vendicar_Decarian:

I don't know you but I am going to assume you are a decent person who is just misinformed.

You need to let go of what you think you know about nuclear power, because energy policy is one of *THE* most important issues facing mankind right now and spreading opinions without some thoughtful investigation is perhaps the greatest harm one can do to the human race at this point.

As America is close behind the number one polluter, lets start there. 20% of America's electricity is produced by 104 reactors at 65 power plant locations.

These reactors are light water reactors, designed in the beginning of atomic power research when plutonium was a desired product for weapons purposes. Water "moderates" the reaction such that neutrons are slowed down and are able to be captured to form plutonium. That is why they use water, despite water being a *TERRIBLE*, dangerous, and inherently unstable coolant to use.

Cont...

Sanescience
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2011
Part 2:
In addition to using water, these reactors also use uranium in an oxide form. Why? Because uranium as a metal behaves allot like sodium, so you don't want a bunch of water near it as a metal. *BUT* uranium oxide is a very poor conductor of heat, which is the opposite of what you want if your making a power plant, because you can't just turn the thing off and expect the heat to dissipate, the heat just stays in the fuel, and if not continuosly cooled will actually grow for a while as short lived secondary "activated" isotopes decay. So in an emergency when you need to shut down quickly, you just can't.

And now there is no market for plutonium, so no one is processing the fuel rods to recover the 98% of unused uranium from the plutonium, and instead the whole thing is put in a cooling pond as "waste", despite the fact there is 100 times more energy contained in the fuel than what was extracted.

Cont...
Sanescience
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2011
Smart people back in the Carter administration knew LWR were the wrong design for power, and they designed and *BUILT* a reactor based on fast neutrons, and cooled by sodium metal. It was 100x more efficient, does not produce fuel rods as "waste", and can even solve our current problems of what to do with the "waste" we have now by "burning" it to make power.

And importantly, it doesn't use water to cool it, and it doesn't use uranium oxide as a fuel. It uses uranium in metal form so heat can be remove from the system in a matter of hours. And it uses metallic sodium as a coolant which doesn't need to be pressurized, is chemically stable under the intense heat conditions, is also chemically inert with materials in a reactor core, and the uranium itself, and will circulate via convection even if all power to the reactor is lost and quietly turns itself "off".

I strongly urge you to read this:
http://www.pbs.or...ill.html
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2011
SaneScience: I am not going to argue with you about the need for nuclear power. I agree it is an important part of our energy mix. However, your bringing up liquid sodium as a "safer" alternative is a little frightening. Have you ever seen what happens if liquid sodium hits air or water? It explodes with amazing violence.

There are other approaches that avoid both water and alkali metals and are safer. However, don't disregard the idea that any approach to using radioactive sources for energy have inherent dangers. Using the words "stable" and "inert" when referring to sodium, uranium, and plutonium will do nothing to further the nuclear agenda. Instead, it should be pointed out that there are alternatives that reduce the danger - but nothing used to produce power is inherently safe. Claiming they are inherently safe - only to have it shown that is not correct does not support the effort for reliable power in the world.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.5 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2011
Japan is one of the most advanced industrial and technical nations on earth. And now they have had 3 core melts and 2 or three containment building breaches.

To power the world via nuclear at U.S. levels of energy waste, approximately 200,000 new nuclear reactors will need to be constructed.

Only a fool would believe that the rest of the world will be able to manage their reactor collection half as well as the Japanese have.

And that means the world will experience just over core breach per day on average.

Good luck with that.
Sanescience
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2011
"However, your bringing up liquid sodium as a "safer" alternative is a little frightening. Have you ever seen what happens if liquid sodium hits air or water? It explodes with amazing violence."

You are misinformed about sodium "exploding". It does however burn, and quite a few sodium fires have occurred in various test reactors that do not implement a smothering containment structure for it's sodium systems. But none of them "exploded".

No system is without tradeoffs. Certainly liquid sodium has a drawback regarding it's affinity for oxygen. However that very issue is also of benefit regarding making sure that there is no oxygen present in a reactor that will cause corrosion issues like those found occasionally in LWR designs.

But that aside, In almost every other category sodium is ideal, especially it's light weight which is important in guarding against damage from earthquakes. And is fairly friendly to the environment (sodium is one half of table salt).
Sanescience
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2011
Mr./Mrs. VD,

20% of America's current electricity is produced by 104 reactors at 65 power plant locations. So by rough calculation 520 reactors would supply all of our electricity.

Certainty I'm not promoting building more LWR design power plants, but does the rest of the world need 199,480 reactors to match?

Where did you get that number?
Vendicar_Decarian
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2011
Japan is one of the most advanced industrial and technical nations on earth. And now they have had 3 core melts and 2 or three containment building breaches.

To power the world via nuclear at U.S. levels of energy waste, approximately 200,000 new nuclear reactors will need to be constructed.

Only a fool would believe that the rest of the world will be able to manage their reactor collection half as well as the Japanese have.

And that means the world will experience just over core breach per day on average.

Good luck with that.
thermodynamics
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2011
InsaneScience: Have you ever worked with sodium metal? From Wikipedia: "Sodium reacts exothermically with water: small pea-sized pieces will bounce across the surface of the water until they are consumed by it, whereas large pieces will explode." Have you ever tossed Na on water and watched what happens? It melts and forms hydrogen gas which then explodes. Imagine what happens when it is already liquid? I have worked with sodium metal and it is extremely dangerous.

The explosion hazard is only one component. When it burns it forms sodium oxide which attacks mucous membranes by turning to sodium hydroxide (a severe alkali that will burn the skin and eyes). It is the equivalent to being covered in drain cleaner.

How you can think that molten sodium metal is safe is beyond me. Please explain why a caustic, explosive, and flammable liquid metal is safe.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2011
Safe is a relative term.
Gasoline and natural gas burn and explode too.
Pu is quite toxic.
Sanescience
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2011
thermodynamics:
"InsaneScience: Have you ever worked with sodium metal? From Wikipedia:"...

Ah yes, name calling. Arguing with immature people is second to feeding trolls. I think the proper response to ad hominem attacks is: "You loose." *shrug*

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
How you can think that molten sodium metal is safe is beyond me. Please explain why a caustic, explosive, and flammable liquid metal is safe.
Sodium Fluoride salts are actually a lot safer and less caustic.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2011
"The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today."
CO2 is now over 7000ppm?
Sanescience
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
Sodium Fluoride salts are actually a lot safer and less caustic.


MSFR definitely has some pros and cons. I have always been a bit squeamish about directly dissolving the fuel and waste directly into the "coolant", as coolant leaks are at the top of reactor incidences. Finding materials for the pipping and pumps that can withstand both the near tripling of the weight and direct exposure to hard (neutron) radiation is also of concern.

Far smarter professors and industrialists with experience in these matters were gathered together in a 242 member panel by the DOE and produced the Technology Roadmap report in 2002 which gives the edge to the IFR over other designs including MSFR.
Sanescience
4 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2011
Um, ryggesogn2, if 7000 ppm is about 18 times *higher than today*, then CO2 is now "about" 7000/18, or about 388.88 ppm
xstos
4.7 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2011
hey Vendicar, you've got a screw loose. the Japanese reactors are General Eletrics and they were due to be shut down and poorly regulated. their safety records were attrocious. given all that incompetence, they got hit by a 9.0 quake and a tsunami and miraculously survived as much as they did. What other technology do you know of that can withstand that punishment and shit regulation and still not explode in a giant nuke fireball.

The only problem in this equation is human stupidity and i'm still not convinced that cannot be managed adequately for the world to go 100% nuke.

How many propane and oil plants/oil rigs have taken a royal dump all over our environment compared to nuclear disasters?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2011
How many propane and oil plants/oil rigs have taken a royal dump all over our environment compared to nuclear disasters?
Probably close to 1000:1 oil/coal/gas:nuke.
Nuclear accidents are rather low compared to oil alone.
xstos
not rated yet Jun 08, 2011
granted the nuclear ones have the potential to be much more severe and far-reaching, but I think the safety record speaks for itself. proper regulation and rigorous analyses are essential in making nukes fool proof. human error, judgement, and laxity are the enemy of the nuclear industry. just because planes crash, does this mean we should ground the entire fleet?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2011
Um, ryggesogn2, if 7000 ppm is about 18 times *higher than today*, then CO2 is now "about" 7000/18, or about 388.88 ppm

The article claims 'record highs'. They lied?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
granted the nuclear ones have the potential to be much more severe and far-reaching,
The combustion of coal in power plants around the world releases more radiation in 7 days than chernobyl did. Difference is, we're not sandbagging coal plants.
but I think the safety record speaks for itself. proper regulation and rigorous analyses are essential in making nukes fool proof.
Name an American nuclear incident that resulted in a core meltdown and radiation leakage.

The problem is running nuclear plants for profit. They should be run for production, that way "safety" doesn't just become "overhead".
Vendicar_Decarian
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2011
"The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period" - Rygg

And at that time, the land surface of the earth was lifeless.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.9 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2011
"The combustion of coal in power plants around the world releases more radiation in 7 days than chernobyl did." - Skeptic

All the more reason to limit the combustion of Coal as well as the daily core melts that would be realized with 200,000 nuclear reactors worldwide.

"Name an American nuclear incident that resulted in a core meltdown and radiation leakage." - Skeptic

You could have asked the same question of Japanese Power reactors a month ago. Now they have 3 ongoing core melts on their hands.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.9 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2011
"human error, judgement, and laxity are the enemy of the nuclear industry." - xstos

Human error, errors in judgement and laxity are not things that you can simply wish away. In fact, these things permeate human culture.

Do you think that the people of Somolia or the Sudan or Hati will be able to manage the several hundred nuclear reactors as well as Japan?

Remember... You need to build 200,000 reactors to power the world with nuclear.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2011
"the Japanese reactors are General Eletrics and they were due to be shut down and poorly regulated." - xstos

Statements that nicely illustrate the fantasy land that you live in.

"proper regulation and rigorous analyses are essential in making nukes fool proof." - xtos

Yet fools continue to be ingenious in the ways in which they produce and promote failure.

"How many propane and oil plants/oil rigs have taken a royal dump all over our environment compared to nuclear disasters?" - xtos

You foolishly think it is an either/or situation.

You are trapped by your myopic vision of that false choice.

ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
And with the rise of developing nations, emmisions will continue to increase at an accelerating rate..

ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2011

Remember... You need to build 200,000 reactors to power the world with nuclear.



Total world energy (not just electricity) consumption is about 135 000 TWh / year. Average nuclear reactor produces cca 5 TWh / year. That makes it around 27000 reactors to cover all our energy needs.
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2011
Or another way: wiki states that current cca 430 reactors produce cca 6 % of world energy. Extrapolating that to 100 % gives about 7000 reactors to cover all our energy needs.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
"And with the rise of developing nations, emmisions will continue to increase at an accelerating rate.." - Shotman

Then you had better get your backside in gear and reduce your emissions to make room.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
"Or another way: wiki states that current cca 430 reactors produce cca 6 % of world energy." - Shotman

Your assumption then is that the second and third world nations will not increase their energy consumption, and that the world's population will not increase.

And people wonder why I use the term "TARD" so often.

When you take those two factors that you conveniently ignore, into consideration, your 7,000 number transforms to 200,000 if everyone at the peak population of 15 billion uses energy at U.S. levels of waste.

Growth in energy consumption per-capita in China alone will double your reactor count.

The correct number of reactors required to power the world via nuclear is 200,000.

Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2011
"That makes it around 27000 reactors to cover all our energy needs." - Shotman

Current population 7 trillion. Peak 15 billion, so that makes it 54,000 reactors. Second and third world nations use less than 1/4 of the energy the U.S. consumes, so bumping their consumption to U.S. levels brings you up to 200,000 reactors.

kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
"proper regulation and rigorous analyses are essential in making nukes fool proof." - xtos

Make something foolproof and someone will make a better idiot.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2011
"Far smarter professors and industrialists with experience in these matters were gathered together in a 242 member panel by the DOE and produced the Technology Roadmap report in 2002 which gives the edge to the IFR over other designs including MSFR."

I would like to see the report. Do you have a source?

Vendicar - Every energy technology has its advantages and drawbacks, but nuclear has the most advantages and least drawbacks per TWh produced from all.
So what do you propose as an alternative for our energy needs? Violent population reduction?
Of course if you assume that there will be 15 billion people living with western standards and consumption using current technology then the numbers are irrationaly high. But lets get real, such situation is far into the future, if ever. Third world will probably stay more or less third world until the oil peak, and probably long after that (since they wont have cheap oil to boost them like we had).
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2011
China is the world largest producer of CO2 (mostly from coal burning) thanks to ecoloons who made doing business in the western democracies more expensive.

And yet this propaganda piece tries to blame the countries that stupidly tried to drop CO2 production which ended up creating jobs and more real pollution in China.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2011
The correct number of reactors required to power the world via nuclear is 200,000.


Energy consumption will rise, but not surely not ten times, get real. The correct number is order of magnitude less. There will never be 15 billion of people living at US consumption levels.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2011
"And yet this propaganda piece..." - ParkerTard

Since the mid 1970's, Libertarian ideology has held that the U.S. would be best served by a global unregulated free market system.

Libertarians argued long and hard that under such a system the U.S. would profit disproportionately as new markets opened up to U.S. manufacturers in the developing world.

When the issue of competition from those third world markets was raised, the Libertarians insisted that no one could compete against American manufacturing might.

When the issue of offshoring to these third world markets was raised, the Libertarians insisted that only low skill manufacturing would be offshored, and that a new knowledge based economy would arise in America that would provide plentiful jobs for everyone.

cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011

When it was stated that the second and third world like India and Malasia would offer competition in the knowledge based industries, the Libertarians responded that Americans were the smartest people on earth and that to even suggest such a thing was tantamount to treason.

The people of India and Malaysia couldn't possibly excel in software engineering, electronics engineering, process engineering, etc.

When it was stated that free trade and open markets would create a race to the bottom in environmental standards, workplace standards, and wages, the Libertarians insisted - as they always do - that the exact converse was true. Environmental standards would rise in the developing nations and that they proclaimed would allow the U.S. to adopt even stricter environmental controls to preserve nature and public health.

cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2011

So now here we are, 35 years later, and to a large degree the Libertarians have gotten what they wanted.

The American Manufacturing sector lays in ruin.
The Knowledge based economy never arrived, Americans proved
to be dumber than their third world counterparts, and what aspect of this economy did appear has largely been offshored to the developing nations in Asia.

Libertarians have largely gotten their open border policy and to the dismay of Republicans, millions of Mexicans have flooded into the U.S.

Workplace standards are in decline as U.S. manufacturers ship jobs overseas and put pressure on American workers to take wage and workplace employment concessions.

And now Libertarian ParkerTard has the gall to claim that environmental standards are now too high compared to the developing world and that those standards - not the Libertarian Ideology of free trade - is what is responsible for America's decline.

cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2011
In other words, ParkerTard has just admitted that it is a race to the bottom in terms of environmental standards as well.

Now this Libertarian Ideology has been great for multinational corporations which are making massive profits after offshoring their workforce and lowering their costs.

Apple who employs around 13,000 people in the U.S. has profited immensely from the wage slave workforce at FoxCon - where conditions seem to regularly produce suicides.

Can the results of the pro-corporaate, anti-public, Libertarian Liedeology pushed by propaganda groups like CATO, Heratige Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Koch Brothers, etc.. have been more of a colossal failure for America?

Could the Libertarian Ideology promoted by these Libertarian propaganda groups have been more of a disaster for America?

I don't see how that could be possible.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2011
ParkerTard and his Libertarian Brethren are traitors to their own nation and are the primary force that has been behind the destruction of the American state.

And yet ParkerTard continues to pump out his treasonous Conservative Randite/Libertarian poison.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2011
ParkerTard and his Libertarian Brethren are traitors to their own nation and are the primary force that has been behind the destruction of the American state.

And yet ParkerTard continues to pump out his treasonous Conservative Randite/Libertarian poison.

They will not be satisfied until America is a third world nation.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2011
China now uses more than 3x the coal that the USA uses. And US coal usage has stayed static (and is slightly less than te amount used in 2000).

On the other hand, China's use of coal has doubled in the last 7 years.

That is the responsibility of the environmentalists who have driven jobs out of the USA and Europe where the energy mix was significantly cleaner.

DIRTY FILTHY STINKING COAL!!! Fuel of choice for the environmentalists.

http://www.bp.com...2011.pdf

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2011
Article: "But the study calculated that China, which has pledged to reduce emissions in relation to economic output by 40-45 percent, will cut its carbon output twice as much as the United States by 2020."

Nonsense. By 2020 China will be using 2.5x as much coal as it is now. And it already uses over 3x as much as the USA.

China has been the leader in GHG production for 5 years.

It is clear in retrospect that the whole point of the Kyoto accord was to increase GHG emissions by encouraging China to use vast quantities of coal.

The usual foul mouthed anti_CO2 crowd are either suckers or in the pay of China.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
"China now uses more than 3x the coal that the USA uses." - ParkerTard

And yet Chinese coal use per-person remains lower than that in the U.S.

"On the other hand, China's use of coal has doubled in the last 7 years." - ParkerTard

That was the Libertarian Vision.

"DIRTY FILTHY STINKING COAL!!! " - ParkerTard

The Coal is the chief purchaser of Pro-Coal propaganda from Libertarian Propaganda groups like the CATO Institute, the Heratige Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute etc.

Tell us ParkerTard. What does Von Mises and other free market Libertarian Economists say about Government distorting the marketplace to reduce the production and consumption of highly polluting fuels like coal?

We await your mindless Libertarian blather with laughter.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahah.............

Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2011
"China has been the leader in GHG production for 5 years." - ParkerTard

And in another thread you claimed that CO2 was not a pollutant, and that it was harmless "plant food".

China has a population of 1.4 billion people. Roughly 4 times that of the U.S. And China only admits roughly the same amount of CO2 as the U.S.

If China adopts U.S. levels of waste in it's energy consumption then they could emit 4 times their current levels of CO2 and still not be as morally culpable as Americans.

Why not as culpable? Because China actually produces goods, while the U.S. produces virtually nothing but ignorance and whining and mass death.

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2011
Co2 is not a pollutant. However, carbon soot IS a pollutant and does warm up the earth because it lowers the earths albedo. Which I've mentioned.

A lower albedo means the sun warms the earth more. Way more than claims for CO2.

And Coal produces more carbon soot. And environmentalists have made that all possible by leaving China and India alone.

"A new NASA climate study has found that large amounts of black carbon (soot) particles and other pollutants are causing changes in precipitation and temperatures over China and may be at least partially responsible for the tendency toward increased floods and droughts in those regions over the last several decades."

http://glory.gsfc...bon.html
Sanescience
3 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2011
Please stop feeding the trolls. Bitterness and defeat are bottomless pits you will never be able to fill.
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2011
says the energy trend should be "a wake-up call." The figures are "a serious setback" to hopes of limiting the rise in the Earth's average temperature to 2 degrees Celsius


hopes of limiting the rise? Has he seen the graphs of the past 10 years? Also, if you eliminate the poorly sited weather stations from the record, the well-sited stations in North America show no warming trend in the past century, according to a recent peer reviewed study.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2011
thermodynamics said:
Please explain why a caustic, explosive, and flammable liquid metal is safe.


Sanescience actually had said:
...chemically stable under the intense heat conditions, is also chemically inert with materials in a reactor core...


Thermodynamics, what part of "with materials in the reactor core" do you not understand? Some things (let's take "sodium" as a random example) that are "a caustic, explosive, and flammable liquid metal" in SOME circumstances, are wonderfully cooperative, sane, reasonable, and capable of carrying on an entertaining debate in other circumstanc- wait... sorry... are sufficiently safe in other circumstances because they're only allowed exposure to those things with which they DON'T caustically, explosively, or pyrotechnically react.

By the way:
report by the International Energy Agency...

If you look them up, you'll see this is more of a self-serving attention grab for their cause than an actual news article.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2011
hopes of limiting the rise? Has he seen the graphs of the past 10 years? Also, if you eliminate the poorly sited weather stations from the record, the well-sited stations in North America show no warming trend in the past century, according to a recent peer reviewed study.
Eh, even Watt's study showed statistically significant warming.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2011
Eh, even Watt's study showed statistically significant warming


Only when the poorly sited data collection points are included in the data set. Land use, land use and land use. It's still too short of a data set for climate. 100 years is nothing, 1000 years and you have one data point.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2011
So G7, I guess your plan is to wait 1000 years?
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2011
Co2 is not a pollutant. However, carbon soot IS a pollutant and does warm up the earth because it lowers the earths albedo.

CO2 certainly is a pollutant and a greenhouse gas as you know. What part of GREENHOUSE GAS do you not understand?

Ok say CO2 soot is causing global warming, doesn't that still mean we would want to quit burning fossil fuels, the cause of your soot. AGW is the only theory that explains what is going on with our climate, the global warming that is occurring. We know the source of the warming, and all we have to do is stop, dumping the Giga-tons of CO2 into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that the world does every day.

We need a total re-think on how we produce energy, and how we use oil and coal.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2011
On the other hand, Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatorys Solar Synoptic Network, said in a news briefing today (June 14):

The solar cycle may be going into a hiatus.

This is highly unusual and unexpected.

But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.

If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum well see for a few decades

That would affect everything from space exploration to Earths climate.

www.space.com/119...cle.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2011
So G7, I guess your plan is to wait 1000 years?


If you can't prove that anything is needed right now, then nothing is needed right now. NO matter how much you FEEL like it would be helpfull.

I know the science, and it's not supportive of immidiate action. The rate of change is predicted to be so slow that there is plenty of time to react. We don't need to be proactive about it. The other thing is that there's actually a LOT of benefits to providing cheap energy to people. Those benefits may outweigh the environmental costs of carbon fuel by a lot. People in third world countries, who are starving, can't afford your agenda. They need cheap energy so they can get up to speed and start helping to save the planet too. We are already donig all we can (within reason). We need money to help them get to the point where they can help too. China is on the way to that point. So is Brazil. Mexico and India will be next. It's not an American problem. We already have good laws.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2011
CO2 certainly is a pollutant and a greenhouse gas as you know. What part of GREENHOUSE GAS do you not understand?


what part of one-sided-equation do you not understand? There are benefits too. It's not the end of the world, even if the worst case predictions are true, which they haven't been so far.

AGW is the only theory that explains what is going on with our climate, the global warming that is occurring


Actually, the AGW theory doesn't agree with observations over the past 10 years. It could be a fluke, or it could mean that AGW is wrong. We don't know yet.

Even Jim Hansen has taken a step back. You and your extremist friends are on a sinking ship. All the alarmist predictions have been downgraded in response to real world observations in the past decade. The model horror stories and especially the "inconvenient truth" exagerations have been busted already. Even Gore took all his money out of carbon trading years ago. Help the real efforts, give up the fake
Howhot
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2011
You know Omart, the Sun does go through cycles and I'm sure that there are periods in the Sun's evolution where the Watts/Meter of solar input will hit some extreme. At this time, I think you are wrong. You are missing the obvious CAUSE <--> EFFECT. It's a greenhouse effect that is causing global warming. And if I understand the solar input, the sun should be at a minimum right now for it's output, so the only reason for actual measured global warming is CO2.
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2011
Even Gore took all his money out of carbon trading years ago.


You know I would bet that was to remove any conflict of interest. I would trust Al Gore over anybody you would pull out of a hat. And are you really sure that the horror story that is "Inconvenient Truth" isn't true? I think it was SPOT ON!

The only people that seem to not want to acknowledge the truth are people whose lively hood is based on the very thing that will sink this planet into a heat bath. Fossil Fuels!

The Fossil fuel people had better realize that it is not their RIGHT to put earth on a suicide mission to heat death!
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 15, 2011
CO2 is not a pollutant. There is a minimal level of CO2 necessary for plant life. 150ppm is the absolute minimum. Even at 220ppm plants are not growing at optimum rates.

How can you call a molecule a pollutant if plants need it to live?

Howhot
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2011
CO2 is not a pollutant.
Duhh... It's a greenhouse gas Mr. Not. Yeah plants love it, but take 200 Gigatons of sequestered Carbon and burn it and then you have a greenhouse gas glob. A glob of gas that will linger for 10000 years, and soak up as much energy as the Sun will provide.

Good luck to your kids my friend.
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2011
The Fossil fuel people had better realize that IT IS NOT THEIR RIGHT to put Earth on a suicide mission to heat death!
Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2011
I know the science, and it's not supportive of immidiate action.

I also know the science and I think it is supportive of immediate action! And I think my science is better than your science.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2011
You know I would bet that was to remove any conflict of interest. I would trust Al Gore over anybody you would pull out of a hat


lol, then you already lost that bet. You can google it. I would hardly say that he's trying to avoid a conflict of interests. He's invested in green technology companies up to his ears. Windmills and such. He made a killing on carbon credits, as the people at the top of a ponzie scheme always do.

I also know the science and I think it is supportive of immediate action! And I think my science is better than your science


lmao. I don't have any science of my own. I just borrow it from NASA and NOAA, but it's their science, not mine. The missing hotspot is a good example of how the science doesn't fit AGW fingerprints. Decelerating sea level rise is another. Unprecedentedly low tropical storm activity for the past 10 years is another still. That's all from NASA and NOAA. I've linked to the studies before.
GSwift7
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2011
It still could be AGW, just probably not from co2. I would suggest they look at global land use, water cycle disruption, and aerosols. All the signs are starting to point away from co2.

Actually, what I just suggested is what they are doing already. Jim Hansen made a statement about a month ago saying much the same thing in regard to aerosols, so that's where he's headed I would guess.

Nobody is saying that co2 isn't a player, it's just starting to look like it's a supporting role, rather than the star of the show.
Shelgeyr
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2011
Howhot - two things:

1) The whole "greenhouse gas" issue, by which I mean the assumption that certain gasses can and/or do trap radiant heat a) at all, or b) to the extent that they demonstrably affect the global climate, is in dispute. It isn't "settled science" as so many like to claim. BUT...

2) Even IF the whole "greenhouse gas" paradigm is accurate, water vapor is by far a greater greenhouse gas (in terms of both theoretical effects and volume) than is CO2. And water vapor isn't a pollutant either.

Calling something a "greenhouse gas" over and over and over doesn't make it a pollutant.

GSwift7: You said "Nobody is saying that co2 isn't a player...", you know what? I'll go that far.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2011
I think the planet can handle a very small increase in Co2.

However, the coming ice will kill most people on the planet. Massive crop failures will happen. Billions will starve.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2011
And water vapor isn't a pollutant either.


yes it is, especially when it condenses and freezes. Sometimes my road gets so polluted with condensed, frozen water vapor that I can't even tell where the road is. Then it tends to unfreeze and spread all over the gosh darn place, choking river valleys with condensed liquid water vapor. Inhalation of condensed liquid water vapor can be fatal in minutes. All diseases are directly associated with the presence of H2O. All extreme weather events are directly associated with water vapor. And don't even talk to me about getting hit in the head by a grapefruit sized chunk of condensed frozen water vapor!! Just sayin' ;) We would be in trouble if co2 did THAT stuff. I guess it does on mars though..
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2011
GSwift7: You said "Nobody is saying that co2 isn't a player...", you know what? I'll go that far


To be fair, I don't think the magnitude is very big, maybe even so small as to be undetectable on century time scales, but it certainly plays some part in the chemistry and energy budget. It does have a significant absorption spectrum. That absorbtion sprctrum is very near saturation already though, so I'm not sure how increasing co2 beyond current levels means anything. The bulk of human co2's effects were attained years ago, when levels went from very low to moderate. The diminishing return on increases beyond the 350 ppm mark will make further increases a moot point.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2011
It does have a significant absorption spectrum. That absorbtion sprctrum is very near saturation already though
Saturation would only provide a limiting effect if concentration and quantity wasn't increasing. I'm sure you get it, but many others don't.

Saturation can only be in terms of either the total energy, or the total number of molecules being fixed. Since we're talking a 3d volume, and we have to account for re-radiation, additional CO2 simply retards the re-radiation into space, since more energy is comming in, slowing the loss of energy to space increases the temperature.
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2011
The retardation effect diminishes logarithmically as concentration increases from zero. I've cited a CRU study that says so in plain English before. The net effect of co2 has already passed the elbow of the curve and has been slowly plateauing for a couple decades now. The sensitivity for doubling is a confusing thing for some people because the sensitivity for doubling changes depending on your starting concentration. The sensitivity to a given increase is almost zero once you reach around 600 ppm. If co2 wasn't a well-mixed gas then that wouldn't be the case, but it supposedly is well-mixed.
Howhot
3 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2011
Interesting G7, you talk a lot about sensitivity. According to NOAA, (these are observations not theory), May 2011 was the 6 warmest May ever recorded. Want to know the warmest? 2010. The next warmest, 2008. The point is that these "anomalies" are clustering not in the 1800's but right now.

Sane people would say there is a very definite correlation between man made greenhouse gases (CO2) and global average temperature rise.

Since you an the other AGW deniers are here posting BS shit about global warming, one has to really question your motivation to be here. What oil company do you work for?

GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2011
Sane people would say there is a very definite correlation between man made greenhouse gases (CO2) and global average temperature rise


Yes, it's warmer than it has been. One cause is almost certainly co2. All the serious experts agree that it isn't the only cause.

Since you an the other AGW deniers are here posting BS shit about global warming, one has to really question your motivation to be here. What oil company do you work for?


Do you even read my comments? That description of me and my comments is not accurate. I'm far from a denier. I'm still waiting for you to back up your statements farther back in this thread with any sort of evidence at all. you are the one posting nonsense, not me. I can provide pro-agw sources to back what I'm saying. Here's a pro-agw paper published in Science that talks about it in detail:

http://www.agci.o...vity.pdf

Paragraph 2 if you're lazy and don't read the whole thing.

GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2011
If you don't like peer-reviewed articles from Science, then here's a more recent one from pro-agw Princeton U:

http://www.prince...07bs.pdf

See paragraphs 3&4. Also note that recent warm years are actually too low in temp according to co2 warming projections (they fall outside the 95% confidence range). See the description of the 2nd 3rd and 4th graphs. It doesn't prove anything, but it is notable.

I'm still waiting for you to cite anything showing that I am posting nonsense.
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2011
Ugh, the site messed up my post and deleted part.

The second half of my post refers to the following article from Yale.

http://www.yalecl...ratures/

See paragraphs 3&4. Also note that recent warm years are actually too low in temp according to co2 warming projections (they fall outside the 95% confidence range). See the description of the 2nd 3rd and 4th graphs. It doesn't prove anything, but it is notable
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2011
Or, you can even look on wiki (which is very pro-agw):

http://en.wikiped..._forcing

See the section labled "Example calculations", 2nd paragraph. The equation explains it mathematically, and the top graph to the right of the text shows the difference in forcing between 300 and 600 ppm. You'll notice it's only a small difference because most of the total possible forcing is already achieved by the time you reach 300 ppm.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2011
The retardation effect diminishes logarithmically as concentration increases from zero.
Sorry for the late response but that paper speaks in terms of potential absorption with a fixed energy budget. As we both know, the energy budget of the Sun Earth interaction is rather far from fixed. I'm not certain that paper can be used for an apples to apples comparison, but I'll take it under advisement.
Howhot
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2011
The issue of forcing is interesting G7, but it is weak. Forcing to the lay, is how much sun shine hits the earth in W/m^2. And so is dependent on Solar weather. Bottom line though is we know pretty much know the forces from fossils of biomass. Your a spin master G7. Slippery as they get.
Howhot
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2011
The problem as I see it G7 is that you (and the most of the opponents of AGW theory) are the real world consequences of of modern man's global industrialization.

Ocean Acidification, global temperature increases, shifting climates, lost glaciers, species extinctions. Everything is pointing to a AGW as an extinction event.

Industrialization has not been nice to Mother Nature.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2011
Sorry for the late response but that paper speaks in terms of potential absorption with a fixed energy budget. As we both know, the energy budget of the Sun Earth interaction is rather far from fixed.


Actually, if you are talking about reabsorption, they are including that re-emitted IR in the logarithmic relationship. The incoming radiation from the sun is assumed to be relatively stable. Once a molecule of co2 is maxed out, it will not absorb any more, not matter how much IR you add from re-emission from other co2. The anti-warming people say that the effect is even smaller than the log relationship above. The pro-warming models use the log relationship above. That's the catch 22 for me. Using that log relationship, you have to assume exponential forcings from feedbacks in order to reach doomsday scenarios from co2. Recent data doesn't seem to support exponential feedbacks, such as accelerating sea level.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 21, 2011
The problem as I see it G7 is that you (and the most of the opponents of AGW theory) are the real world consequences of of modern man's global industrialization.

Ocean Acidification, global temperature increases, shifting climates, lost glaciers, species extinctions. Everything is pointing to a AGW as an extinction event.

Industrialization has not been nice to Mother Nature


The problems of not industrializing are greater. Starvation, wars, global disease pandemics, lack of the ability to create preserves and conserve our natural resources, etc. Poor places do not conserve resources. Wars in Africa are making species exting.

If you think that modern life is intrinsicly bad, then try going someplace where the only fuel source for people is wood, and they eat anything they can kill. Try to find a turtle there. Most of the world is like that. They need modernization, energy and food so they can protect what's around them.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2011
How about places where the fuel source is animal dung?
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2011
What about them, and how does that relate to greenhouse gases and global warming policy?

There's a net increase in GHG's from animals, since the plants take co2 from the air, the animals eat them and release methane, which is a more potent ghg. The animals in poor places where they burn dung probably aren't the best land use there either. Those people would be better off with irrigation and crops in stead of livestock and dung. Insects in rainforests are a huge ghg source of methane also.
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 21, 2011
The whole AGW story is crumbling faster than any cookie!

See: Today's report in Skeptical Swedish Scientists - "Sun, Sun, Sun."

http://skepticals...sun-sun/

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2011
The whole AGW story is crumbling faster than any cookie!


Short term deviations from AGW theory do not invalidate the theory any more than short term agreement with the theory validates it. I will continue my belief that we need decades of observation, and more appropriately, centuries to either prove or disprove anything.
Howhot
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2011
The problem I have with the Anti Global Warming people is that they are wrong by observation. I've yet to hear one valid argument that can explain all of the weather extremes as well as AGW. Not one. Al Gore to me was absolutely correct to bring the issue into the political discourse simply because if all of the other theories are wrong (which they are), then mankind will be in big trouble in the new future. Gore is just saying what needs to be said and hopefully there will be some urgency in moving to renewables.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2011
Frankly the entire global climate scandal sprouted from manipulating and ignoring high-quality, space-age data on the origin of Earths heat source the Sun in the 1970s, e.g.,

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

The AGW story has been generously watered and fertilized with public tax funds for almost four decades.

But the AGW story is anyway crumbling now.

Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Excalibur
3 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2011
Interesting to see that the "saturation" myth is still being touted.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.