World Can't Hit Carbon Goals

When leaders from the Group of Eight nations agreed last week to cut carbon emissions in half by 2050, all the commentary debated their failure to set shorter-term goals.

[Franklin P]

By 2050, most of the fossil fuels will have been tapped out. That ought to take care of the emissions problem.

[Dave]

All you have to do is buy Carbon Foot Prints from Al Gore.

By the way I sell Carbon Foot Prints.
20% off the regular price.

Fossil Fuel we have enough for the next 100,000 years just in the USA.
All we have to do is dig; drill for it.

[CO2 cycle]

I'm breathing in air, extracting some of the Oxygen, using it for metabolism, and combining it with Carbon to produce Carbon Dioxide which I am blowing right out the window at that big TREE out that there. The tree is inhaling my Carbon Dioxide, using it in its photosynthesis process that sustains its life and produces Oxygen which I happily breath in.
The tree and I get along very well.

Here's a good article for those who went to public schools:
http://www.lenntech.com/carbon-cycle.htm

For many years there has been an equilibrium between the producers of Carbon Dioxide and the consumers of Carbon Dioxide. If there's too much Carbon Dioxide now, plant more trees and stuff a rag in Global Warming alarmists' mouths.

[Fun Facts]

According to ice core data, temperature changes preceed CO2 changes. Since the temperatures are due to drop in the coming ice age, CO2 won't be a problem for long.

[Linda Mae]

With so much being written all over the globe questioning the accuracy of the science used to propose man's use of CO2 causing global warming, I wonder why the author did not mention them in his article? All one has to do is google "global warming is man made hoax" to find weeks of links to read. Read Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's floor speech on the House of Representatives for supportive info. I am continually amazed that 31,000 scientists can be ignored by the media but Gore is continued to be believed. I tell people to save the planet by holding their breath for 5 minutes out of every hour. Every little bit helps! The media should be ashamed for not providing balanced coverage about this issue.

[Franklin P]

Linda Mae wrote:

With so much being written all over the globe questioning the accuracy of the science used to propose man's use of CO2 causing global warming, I wonder why the author did not mention them in his article? All one has to do is google "global warming is man made hoax" to find weeks of links to read. Read Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's floor speech on the House of Representatives for supportive info. I am continually amazed that 31,000 scientists can be ignored by the media but Gore is continued to be believed. I tell people to save the planet by holding their breath for 5 minutes out of every hour. Every little bit helps! The media should be ashamed for not providing balanced coverage about this issue.

Global warming is a fact, not a hoax. The vast majority of the environmental and natural scientists recognize it, and the evidence is irrefutable. There will always be the minority of naysayers in the face of science, like the people who refused to believe Mt. St. Helens would erupt and died there as a result.

What may not be proven yet is whether the warming is cyclical or man-made, but we do know it is exacerbated by the greenhouse effect gases, which are naturally and man made. Maybe we can't stop it, but we can reduce our contribution.

Your wanting to stick your head in the sand and continue to be fooled by big oil interests and the conservative anti-environmental pragmatists with their profit maximizing interests won't change the facts. We could evacuate Mt. St. Helens, but there's no running from global conditions, whatever they become.

So you go hold your breath all you want, if you think it'll help.

[mememine69]

Franklin P wrote:

<quoted text>
Global warming is a fact, not a hoax. The vast majority of the environmental and natural scientists recognize it, and the evidence is irrefutable. There will always be the minority of naysayers in the face of science, like the people who refused to believe Mt. St. Helens would erupt and died there as a result.
What may not be proven yet is whether the warming is cyclical or man-made, but we do know it is exacerbated by the greenhouse effect gases, which are naturally and man made. Maybe we can't stop it, but we can reduce our contribution.
Your wanting to stick your head in the sand and continue to be fooled by big oil interests and the conservative anti-environmental pragmatists with their profit maximizing interests won't change the facts. We could evacuate Mt. St. Helens, but there's no running from global conditions, whatever they become.
So you go hold your breath all you want, if you think it'll help.

Proving once again that global warming is political. You can take your moral high road of how dare anyone question the science but it still remains that there is wide spread debate on the issue. This aging theory has been making predictions for 25 years. Yes, a quarter of a century of predicting the end of the world. What kind of a fool would wait another 25 years. Agenda driven people would. Global warming is to liberals what WMD's are to neocons.
Let's work together to preserve our environment, instead of trying to save it with fear from a non existent crisis.
Global warming and the theory is dead. The proof is obvious since La Nina is now said to be stronger than all of global warming itself.
It's good news. There is not climate crisis.
Oil is bad for peace so lets work to help progress evolve our future.

[Fun Facts]

Franklin P wrote:

<quoted text>
Global warming is a fact, not a hoax. The vast majority of the environmental and natural scientists recognize it, and the evidence is irrefutable. There will always be the minority of naysayers in the face of science, like the people who refused to believe Mt. St. Helens would erupt and died there as a result.
What may not be proven yet is whether the warming is cyclical or man-made, but we do know it is exacerbated by the greenhouse effect gases, which are naturally and man made. Maybe we can't stop it, but we can reduce our contribution.
Your wanting to stick your head in the sand and continue to be fooled by big oil interests and the conservative anti-environmental pragmatists with their profit maximizing interests won't change the facts. We could evacuate Mt. St. Helens, but there's no running from global conditions, whatever they become.
So you go hold your breath all you want, if you think it'll help.

What evidence has you seen that has convinced you that our earth is warming in a significantly different way than it has in the past and that mankind has caused the warming?

[Pat]

Scientific proof or not, common sense should tell you that taking so much oil out of the earth (plus a lot of coal), and dumping it into the atmosphere over a short 150 or so years is going to cause change. It took the earth millions of years to create that oil and coal and we are reversing that process in a very very short time period.
Global warming is not the real problem though, over population is and since no species has ever limited its own population, I see a bleak future ahead when nature finally puts us in check through famine, disease and conflict.

[Jeff H]

Franklin P wrote:

<quoted text>
Global warming is a fact, not a hoax.

Bzzzzzt. WRONG!]

AGW is absolutely NOT fact.

[Franklin P]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
What evidence has you seen that has convinced you that our earth is warming in a significantly different way than it has in the past and that mankind has caused the warming?

You mean, other than the shrinking ice caps, increased atmospheric methane and CO2, the historic trend of increasing air and oceanic temperatures, increased incidence of extreme weather, the disappearing glaciers? Oh, I don't know.

By the way, I did acknowledge that the debate is still open on how much man has contributed to the greenhouse effect, but you can't deny we aren't helping to decrease it.

[Katnip]

We have known for years about the warning of global warming and even if that wasn't going to happen, we knew that we were still polluting the planet. That certainly can't be good for any species to survive. Why is it that NOW we are scrambling around trying to fix the problem. We have watched gas continue to rise in price for years and we have watched health problems rise from pollution. We knew we needed to reduce our dependency on oil and find alternatives . We didn't rush to do much. And they say that animals are stupid???????

[Katnip]

Forget global warming! For anyone who thinks that it isn't real, then at least look at the pollution we have created. There are more cases of asthma and health problems due to air quality. Our oceans and water sources are polluted as well. Isn't that enough to step up to the plate and change our life styles so future generations and species can enjoy life?

[Fun Facts]

Franklin P wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean, other than the shrinking ice caps, increased atmospheric methane and CO2, the historic trend of increasing air and oceanic temperatures, increased incidence of extreme weather, the disappearing glaciers? Oh, I don't know.
By the way, I did acknowledge that the debate is still open on how much man has contributed to the greenhouse effect, but you can't deny we aren't helping to decrease it.

Here's some satellite images of the arctic.
The first site will show you satellite images of the arctic for any week from 1979 to 2007.

http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0046_nh_...

The second site will show you the arctic as of yesterday. It will also show you a 30 animation of the daily slides.

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/

Put both pics on your screen and see how today's ice compares to any year from 1979.

[Fun Facts]

There is no increase in extreme weather. There may be a greater awarness of extreme weather but no increase.
Google: the two decades following 1300 CE (AD)
The centuries following 2200 BCE (BC)
The 1940 decade, before the PDO switched mid decade very few pacific typhoons, after, 23 in the first year.
Marie Antionette lost her head becaused temps were so high that grains withered in the field.
Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein about 50 years later when there was the year without a summer.
Here's a fun chart.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppar...

[Franklin P]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's some satellite images of the arctic.
The first site will show you satellite images of the arctic for any week from 1979 to 2007.
http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0046_nh_...
The second site will show you the arctic as of yesterday. It will also show you a 30 animation of the daily slides.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/
Put both pics on your screen and see how today's ice compares to any year from 1979.

Now look at the NASA's comparison of images from 1979 to 2005. They include an animation with this description: "The minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice in 2005 occurred on September 21, 2005, when the sea ice extent dropped to 2.05 million sq. miles, the lowest extent yet recorded in the satellite record."
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/...

[mr Giblets]

it is NOT correct to say "Carbon emissions". Only coal fired steam engines emit carbon, "SOOT" as we call it. They mean CO2 so why don't they say so? Because carbon is black and dirty, and can be used to make "footprints" for misleading advertising.

[Fun Facts]

Franklin P wrote:

<quoted text>
Now look at the NASA's comparison of images from 1979 to 2005. They include an animation with this description: "The minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice in 2005 occurred on September 21, 2005, when the sea ice extent dropped to 2.05 million sq. miles, the lowest extent yet recorded in the satellite record."
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/...

The images are all from the same satellite. If you would like to see how July 2005 compares to today, you can do that with the two web site I gave you.

[mr Giblets]

Franklin P wrote:

<quoted text>
Now look at the NASA's comparison of images from 1979 to 2005. They include an animation with this description: "The minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice in 2005 occurred on September 21, 2005, when the sea ice extent dropped to 2.05 million sq. miles, the lowest extent yet recorded in the satellite record."
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/...

so, how long have there been weather satellites?