Expert: We must act fast on warming

Sep 24, 2008 Full story: Kansas.com 28,112

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Read more
Luther the fiend

Newburgh, IN

#27957 Aug 28, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
I post this to inform you. Daily man-made CO2 releases into our atmosphere add up to 110 million tons and is increasing the global warming aka climate change. That is in energy equivalent 500,000 hiroshima's.
Wake up, folks.
The major contributors to global climate change (some areas get colder, some hotter, some wetter and some drier) are:
Carbon dioxide (essentially a man made contribution abetted by """ the loss of forest cover which was a carbon sink""")
Methane (essentially a man made contribution but also a derivative effect as warmer permafrost and methane hydrates in the sea are giving up methane)
Insolation ( changes in the sun's output - a natural cycle)
Reduction of albedo (loss of polar ice reduces reflection of heat back into space)
Water vapour (a derivative cause - warmer weather causes more water vapour in the air. Water vapour is a GHG)

Balancing this is the increasing cloud cover from more water vapour condensing into clouds and the clouds generated as jet contrails.
A: """Water vapor is the largest single gas and has up to 80% of all warming associated with it"""

CO2 is in second place providing the bulk of the rest of this warming.(Almost 20%)

"""Nature provides all but 0.28% of the Green house gases. Man gives us the rest""". In terms of CO2 production """man causes 6% of this""". Much of this 6% comes from items we would see producing CO2 anyway. Over half of the green house gases we produce is created by the use of our homes and offices.

Facts make your hollow arguments impossible to be taken seriously.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#27958 Aug 28, 2014
Luther the fiend wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the contribution that Co2 makes to insulating the atmosphere pales by an order of 10k compared to the effect that water vapor has. Pushing another unsubstantiated left wing lie there Patriot !
And your argument is thinner than water vapor. Most water is added to the atmosphere due to the increased temperature due to the additional CO2 in the atmosphere trapping heat. As the oceans warm, evaporation increases causing more water vapor in the atmosphere. However, this water vapor is soon wrung out of the air in the form of precipitation. One of the effects is an accumulation of snow in Antarctica as well as rain and storms elsewhere.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27959 Aug 28, 2014
Luther the fiend wrote:
<quoted text>
The major contributors to global climate change (some areas get colder, some hotter, some wetter and some drier) are:
Carbon dioxide (essentially a man made contribution abetted by """ the loss of forest cover which was a carbon sink""")
Methane (essentially a man made contribution but also a derivative effect as warmer permafrost and methane hydrates in the sea are giving up methane)
Insolation ( changes in the sun's output - a natural cycle)
Reduction of albedo (loss of polar ice reduces reflection of heat back into space)
Water vapour (a derivative cause - warmer weather causes more water vapour in the air. Water vapour is a GHG)
Balancing this is the increasing cloud cover from more water vapour condensing into clouds and the clouds generated as jet contrails.
A: """Water vapor is the largest single gas and has up to 80% of all warming associated with it"""
CO2 is in second place providing the bulk of the rest of this warming.(Almost 20%)
"""Nature provides all but 0.28% of the Green house gases. Man gives us the rest""". In terms of CO2 production """man causes 6% of this""". Much of this 6% comes from items we would see producing CO2 anyway. Over half of the green house gases we produce is created by the use of our homes and offices.
Facts make your hollow arguments impossible to be taken seriously.
You highly overrate yourself. None of the technical material disagrees with what I post. You should show why facts disagree with my alleged arguments. NOT.

You seem to see arguments where there is none because of your partizan politics. That is why where you express your opinion you fail and are thus dismissed. TRUE.

I also require that you reference your source(s) for those percentages. Even a moron would know you appear to have picked them out of the thin air because of your lack of respect for facts.

Put up or shut up, no-science poster.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27960 Aug 28, 2014
Luther the fiend wrote:
<quoted text>To another poster:

Actually the contribution that Co2 makes to insulating the atmosphere pales by an order of 10k compared to the effect that water vapor has. Pushing another unsubstantiated left wing lie there Patriot !
What the heck is "an order of 10k?"

Psst you have no science or mathematics training. Where did you buy your confidence, in church?

WOW.. hahahahahaha
Luther the fiend

Newburgh, IN

#27961 Aug 28, 2014
This is priceless, kool aid drinkers posturing about science as the basis for denouncing my position when their science is conjecture based on the following quantifying words and phrases: May, Possibly, Could,, in all likelihood, a connection can be made, etc, etc, etc.

Also let's not forget the often touted peer reviews that come from experts in their given fields and 80% of the time their area of expertise isn't even remotely connected to climate study.
litesong

Everett, WA

#27962 Aug 28, 2014
Lathered-up frenzy wrote:
..... pales......compared to the effect that water vapor has.
Increasing amounts of man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs control the quantity of phase change infra-red energy absorbing water vapor.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27963 Aug 29, 2014
again another IPCC report of the same doom and gloom they have been predicting for the last 20 to 30 years ( which dear posters please remember not one single thing has come to pass ) just the same old worn out tired unproven ,biased, short termed studies and job scared people who have been crying the end of the world since they changed from global cooling to warming ( al Gore ). And now look what obama has proposed to help the climate he want to shame countries into cutting all ghg's ! however his best part of his new shaming project is that he want developed countries to pay third world countries for the effects of climate change on these countries ???!!! can we all say re distrubtion of a nations wealth !! iam sure that some war lord in africa or middle east will just love you and i funding his new army to oppress his country with or to pay for an attack on america , u. k. or ???!! what a friggin plan from a friggin moron !!!! for someone who cuddles warmers he sure spends a lot of time playing golf in the hot sun while breathing in all the ghg's he can !!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27964 Aug 29, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Our climate has accumulated
2,135,147,328
Hiroshima atomic bombs
of heat since 1998
ok just for argument sake we'll say your figures are correct however i ask how would this calculate for volcanic activity , natural wave action of the seas and solar heating ????????? i of course assume that the figures you speak of are all man made and not natural ocuring . how ever if all these factors are all combined then your figures are false ! and what would the figure be for only man made heating ?????
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27965 Aug 29, 2014
home in lincoln county wrote:
<quoted text> ok just for argument sake we'll say your figures are correct however i ask how would this calculate for volcanic activity , natural wave action of the seas and solar heating ????????? i of course assume that the figures you speak of are all man made and not natural ocuring . how ever if all these factors are all combined then your figures are false ! and what would the figure be for only man made heating ?????
A new study has found that the world’s existing fossil fuel power plants will spew more than 300 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over their four-decade life span.

That’s more than 20 percent of the earth’s carbon budget of 1,400 billion tons—the highest level of carbon dioxide that scientists believe can be emitted and not raise global temperature beyond the 2 degrees Celsius threshold agreed to at the 2009 United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen.

It may seem strange that nobody thought to count this before, but the study is the first worldwide tally of carbon emissions from power plants by accounting for future emissions, also known as “committed emissions.”

“Our study shows that despite international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, total remaining commitments in the global power sector have not declined in a single year since 1950 and are in fact growing rapidly—by an average of 4 percent per year from 2000 to 2012,” said Steven Davis, an earth sciences researcher at the University of California, Irvine, and the coauthor of the paper, published this week in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

In contrast, annual carbon emissions from existing power plants grew by 3 percent over the same period. In other words, the world is still building more fossil fuel power plants than it’s mothballing.

Here’s an example of this differential: While the power plants built in 2012 alone are projected to release 19 billion tons of carbon over their 40-year lifetime, the CO2 emissions that year from all the power plants already operating at that time was 14 billion tons.

“We’re taking on more debt than we’re paying, so the balance is growing—and that’s disturbing,” Davis said.

The results improve on current data used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has incorporated only estimates about the number of new power plants into their emissions scenario models, according to Davis.

Why hasn’t the analysis been done before?

“It’s a data-intensive process, and only recently has there been more access [to information],” Davis said, who used data from Platt’s, a company that collects information about the energy industry.

His research team also conducted an analysis of where new power plants are coming online. While the United States is retiring more power plants than it’s building, the European Union is bringing them online at the same rate that it’s taking them offline, according to Davis.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27966 Aug 29, 2014
[continued]

“But in China, India, Indonesia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, there’s been a lot of coal-fired power plants—it’s been as high as four times more commitments in any given year versus what they’re emitting right now,” he said.“That’s like charging $400 [on a credit card] in any given month and only paying $100.”

But since 2010, China has slowed construction of coal-fired power plants, while Southeast Asia has been building more to expand its industrial capacity, Davis noted.

He is working on estimating future emissions from the power plants that came online in 2013, noting that such a tally should be done annually to incorporate the latest data available.

In the meantime, his 2012 results have gotten the attention of IPCC scientists in Vienna, with whom he’ll be collaborating to develop a new carbon emissions scenario based on his findings. Davis has also been in contact with the U.S. State Department about the results.

In December, he’ll be presenting at the next U.N. climate talks, which are scheduled to take place in Lima, Peru.

“I’d say these commitments are growing so rapidly that they’re in line with that worst-case emissions scenario presented by the IPCC,” he said, referring to a world where carbon emissions continue to grow past the year 2100.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#27967 Aug 29, 2014
Welcome to the worst case.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27968 Aug 29, 2014
Luther the fiend wrote:
This is priceless, kool aid drinkers posturing about science as the basis for denouncing my position when their science is conjecture based on the following quantifying words and phrases: May, Possibly, Could,, in all likelihood, a connection can be made, etc, etc, etc.
Also let's not forget the often touted peer reviews that come from experts in their given fields and 80% of the time their area of expertise isn't even remotely connected to climate study.
Who is qualified to defend the English language?

Did you not learn that science has to quantfy?

Please provide evidence for your second paragraph. It looks like you made it up.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27969 Aug 29, 2014
quantify
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#27970 Aug 29, 2014
Expert:
IPCC lead author, Nobel Laureate and Fellow of the Royal Society Professor Mark Steyn just over five years ago wrote:
"For the last century, we've had ever-so-slight warming trends and ever-so-slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don't think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.
Things warmed up a bit in the decades before the late Thirties. Why? I dunno. The Versailles Treaty? The Charleston?
Then from 1940 to 1970 there was a slight cooling trend. In its wake, Lowell Ponte (who I believe is an expert climatologist and, therefore, should have been heeded) wrote his bestseller, The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?
From 1970 to 1998 there was a slight warming trend, and now there's a slight cooling trend again. And I'm not fussed about it either way."

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#27972 Aug 29, 2014
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Expert:
IPCC lead author, Nobel Laureate and Fellow of the Royal Society Professor Mark Steyn just over five years ago wrote:
"For the last century, we've had ever-so-slight warming trends and ever-so-slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don't think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.
Things warmed up a bit in the decades before the late Thirties. Why? I dunno. The Versailles Treaty? The Charleston?
Then from 1940 to 1970 there was a slight cooling trend. In its wake, Lowell Ponte (who I believe is an expert climatologist and, therefore, should have been heeded) wrote his bestseller, The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?
From 1970 to 1998 there was a slight warming trend, and now there's a slight cooling trend again. And I'm not fussed about it either way."
Expert? Didn't you get the sarcasm? Steyn is a political commentator, not a professor, not an IPCC lead author, nor Nobel Laureate and Fellow of the Royal Society.

http://www.steynonline.com/6540/settled-scien...

And his ignorant blather on the science of global warming is as worthless as yours.
JMWinPR

Anasco, Puerto Rico

#27975 Sep 2, 2014
[QUOTE who=
"For the last century, we've had ever-so-slight warming trends and ever-so-slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don't think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.
Things warmed up a bit in the decades before the late Thirties. Why? I dunno. The Versailles Treaty? The Charleston?
Then from 1940 to 1970 there was a slight cooling trend. In its wake, Lowell Ponte (who I believe is an expert climatologist and, therefore, should have been heeded) wrote his bestseller, The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?
From 1970 to 1998 there was a slight warming trend, and now there's a slight cooling trend again. And I'm not fussed about it either way."[/QUOTE]
Sir: You must remember that AGW/Warming/Cooling/Stagnant is a new type of science. It is based upon consensus amongst similarly inclined individuals, They manipulate/smooth data to make the odd shaped pegs to fit into other odd shaped holes. They gladly peruse each others work over a few totes. Then they apply for funding from a government entity who has a vested interest in their results. In all of these discussions I look for the first to launch an ad hominem attack followed with ridicule, and finally name calling. With few exceptions they are one and all, agenda driven trolls.
Juliana

Munich, Germany

#27976 Sep 3, 2014
We are launching an Indiegogo campaign in order to bring GREEN energy to a Peruvian village called Marisol. We are counting on you to contribute and spread the word about this crowd funding initiative! http://igg.me/at/power-to-the-people/x/835319...
litesong

Everett, WA

#27977 Sep 3, 2014
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"] I want to be creamated.[/QUOTE]

"lyin' brian" already creamated its education, by not getting science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-ploooma. Its errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73+ million TIMES, 2.5+ trillion TIMES, & 3.5+ trillion TIMES were the fire.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27978 Sep 7, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
[continued]
“But in China, India, Indonesia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, there’s been a lot of coal-fired power plants—it’s been as high as four times more commitments in any given year versus what they’re emitting right now,” he said.“That’s like charging $400 [on a credit card] in any given month and only paying $100.”
But since 2010, China has slowed construction of coal-fired power plants, while Southeast Asia has been building more to expand its industrial capacity, Davis noted.
He is working on estimating future emissions from the power plants that came online in 2013, noting that such a tally should be done annually to incorporate the latest data available.
In the meantime, his 2012 results have gotten the attention of IPCC scientists in Vienna, with whom he’ll be collaborating to develop a new carbon emissions scenario based on his findings. Davis has also been in contact with the U.S. State Department about the results.
In December, he’ll be presenting at the next U.N. climate talks, which are scheduled to take place in Lima, Peru.
“I’d say these commitments are growing so rapidly that they’re in line with that worst-case emissions scenario presented by the IPCC,” he said, referring to a world where carbon emissions continue to grow past the year 2100.
Everything you post addresses man made ghg's only , yet make no mention of natural ocuring ghg's which i have no doubt are many times more than manmade . so we can all assume that the u.n. ipcc and any other org. you would like to name has NO PLAN on how to stop these events but to only to spend untold dollars world wide to fix a problem that is NOT REALLY CAUSED BY MAN !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27979 Sep 7, 2014
3 volcanos erupting ,snow fall in the high country last night , record cool temps from the gulf to canada ! And yea we all know all cause by ghg's ,climate .globull and man !!! NEVER ! NEVER ! could it be natural but always man made yet where is the long termed proof ?? no one can offer any ! just more bogus biased ipcc bull shipp and crap short termed computer programed reports from job scared lying people and org's.
It would be interesting to see just how long the globull,climate scare would continue if taxpayer funds were cut off and had to rely on private funding and donations only ????

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Would solar panels make financial sense for you... 10 hr Solarman 1
News Who pays for solar power? Utilities, energy fir... 10 hr Solarman 1
News Port Jervis wants residents to clear sidewalks,... Mar 26 Upset landlord 2
News Green Energy Subsidies Double Under Obama Mar 26 SpaceBlues 10
News Solar power is cheaper than ever - but utilitie... Mar 25 Solarman 1
News Obama orders 40% cut in government's greenhouse... Mar 23 okimar 44
News Misco Products Installs Solar Panels (Apr '10) Mar 23 Jenn 2
More from around the web