Greenhouse gas emissions hitting record highs
June 5, 2011 By ARTHUR MAX , Associated Press
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 climate change and prompted countries like Germany to hasten the decommissioning of nuclear power stations 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 carbon emissions 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.
©2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
2 comments
-
Hypothetical desert earth
12 hours ago
-
More human population = greater mass?
May 25, 2012
-
Conversion from aircraft bearing to normal degrees
May 23, 2012
-
Interpretation/Analysis of the Lab results(HEPA filter)
May 22, 2012
-
Has anyone here attended the The Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology?
May 22, 2012
-
Earthquakes: Mag 6 N. Italy and Mag 5.6 W. Bulgaria
May 21, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Kyoto Protocol architect 'frustrated' by climate dialogue
UN climate talks are going nowhere, as politicians dither or bicker while the pace of warming dangerously speeds up, one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol told AFP.
May 23, 2012 |
3.7 / 5 (7) |
39
Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director
Alien life probably isn’t interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (13) |
37
Dragon arrives at space station in historic 1st (Update 2)
The privately bankrolled Dragon capsule made a historic arrival at the International Space Station on Friday, triumphantly captured by astronauts wielding a giant robot arm.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
5 / 5 (10) |
19
What's the big deal about private space launches?
(AP) -- The first private spaceship is headed to the International Space Station. Some questions and answers about the cargo mission by Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX:
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (6) |
32
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidia’s competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors’ tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say
(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor – while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives – may do more harm ...
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (21)
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
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (19)
-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?
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (24)
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)
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (15)
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.
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (10)
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
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (13)
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (13)
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.
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (14)
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/
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (6)
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?
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (15)
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (10)
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (14)
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (11)
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (7)
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (15)
Enjoy 2025! Have a nice dry record breaking heat summer you all.
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (16)
From a man who argues that there is convincing evidence that the sun is made mostly from iron.
Ahahahahahahaha... Taarrrrrrrrrrrd.
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
You seem to be quite an accomplished astrophysicist. I'm sure your published work is flawless.
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (16)
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...
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (10)
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 3.6 / 5 (14)
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 3.2 / 5 (11)
As you said Ven, it is "unusual in it's speed and direction."
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Got nuclear? Nah, that'd be too easy for our moronic human race. Let's run in fear and let the heat kill us.
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (13)
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.
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
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...
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
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...
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
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
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
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.
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (10)
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.
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
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).
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
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?
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (11)
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.
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
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.
Jun 06, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (9)
Gasoline and natural gas burn and explode too.
Pu is quite toxic.
Jun 07, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
"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*
Jun 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Jun 07, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (9)
CO2 is now over 7000ppm?
Jun 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
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.
Jun 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Jun 08, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (6)
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?
Jun 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Nuclear accidents are rather low compared to oil alone.
Jun 08, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Jun 08, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
The article claims 'record highs'. They lied?
Jun 09, 2011
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (4)
The problem is running nuclear plants for profit. They should be run for production, that way "safety" doesn't just become "overhead".
Jun 11, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (10)
And at that time, the land surface of the earth was lifeless.
Jun 11, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (11)
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.
Jun 11, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (11)
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.
Jun 11, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (10)
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.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
Then you had better get your backside in gear and reduce your emissions to make room.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
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.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
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.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Make something foolproof and someone will make a better idiot.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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).
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
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.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
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.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
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...
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
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...
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
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...
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
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.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
And yet ParkerTard continues to pump out his treasonous Conservative Randite/Libertarian poison.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
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
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
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.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
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.............
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (9)
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.
Jun 13, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
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
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
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.
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Sanescience actually had said:
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:
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.
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (4)
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
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.
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
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.
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (5)
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
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
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.
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
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.
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
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
Jun 14, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
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!
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
How can you call a molecule a pollutant if plants need it to live?
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (9)
Good luck to your kids my friend.
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (7)
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
I also know the science and I think it is supportive of immediate action! And I think my science is better than your science.
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
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.
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.
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
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.
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
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.
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
However, the coming ice will kill most people on the planet. Massive crop failures will happen. Billions will starve.
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
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..
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
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.
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
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.
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (6)
Jun 15, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (10)
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?
Jun 16, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (3)
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.
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.
Jun 16, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
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.
Jun 16, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
The second half of my post refers to the following article from Yale.
http://www.yalecl...ratures/
Jun 16, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
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.
Jun 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Jun 20, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
Jun 20, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (8)
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.
Jun 21, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
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.
Jun 21, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
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.
Jun 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Jun 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.
Jun 21, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
See: Today's report in Skeptical Swedish Scientists - "Sun, Sun, Sun."
http://skepticals...sun-sun/
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Jun 23, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
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.
Jun 23, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
Jun 23, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (6)
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
Jul 13, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)