How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:01 pm

In the meantime,

Image
In this April 3, 2014 file photo giant machines dig for brown coal at the open-cast mining Garzweiler in front of a smoking power plant near the city of Grevenbroich in western Germany. The U.N.’s expert panel on climate change is preparing a new report this weekend outlining the cuts in greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, required in coming decades to keep global warming in check. (Martin Meissner, AP / AP)


UN panel shows who's responsible for CO2 emissions

By KARL RITTER, Associated Press
Updated 10:25 am, Friday, April 11, 2014

BERLIN (AP) — The U.N.'s expert panel on climate change is preparing a new report this weekend outlining the cuts in greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, required in coming decades to keep global warming in check.

Since it's a scientific body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won't tell governments how to divide those emissions cuts — a crunch issue in negotiations on a new climate pact that's supposed to be adopted next year.

However, in leaked draft of the report obtained by The Associated Press, the IPCC shows with graphs and tables which countries are responsible for the greatest share of emissions, using a range of different accounting methods. These are some of the key facts on emissions:

___

CURRENT TOTAL EMISSIONS

At the time of the IPCC's previous climate assessment, in 2007, the U.S. was the world's top carbon polluter. It has since been overtaken by China, which now accounts for one-quarter of global emissions because of its rapidly expanding economy. The U.S. is No. 2 with 17 percent, followed by India (6.6 percent), Russia (5.1 percent) and Japan (3.7 percent).

___

HISTORICAL EMISSIONS

If you count back to when the Industrial Revolution started in the 18th century, the U.S. is the undisputed No. 1, accounting for nearly 28 percent of the world's cumulative emissions from energy and industry. China's share is 9.9 percent, Russia's 6.9 percent, Britain's 5.9 percent and Germany's 5.6 percent. Western countries rank high because they have been burning coal and oil for much longer than the rest of the world.

___

EMISSIONS PER CAPITA

Putting emissions in proportion to population size also puts Western countries — and oil and gas-rich Gulf states — at the top of the table. In per capita emissions, Australians, Canadians and Americans exceed 20 tons of carbon per year — more than twice as much as the Chinese. "Overall, per-capita emissions in the highly industrialized countries ... remain, on average, about five times higher than those of the lowest income countries," the draft report says.

___

CONSUMPTION EMISSIONS

The main way of counting emissions is by looking at where they are released. But some say you get a better picture of what's driving emissions by looking at consumption patterns. As the IPCC puts it: "A ton of steel produced in China but exported to the United States results in emissions in China when the fundamental demand for the steel originated in the U.S." Accounting for emissions based on where a product is consumed rather than where it's manufactured still puts China at the top, but with a narrower gap to the U.S. China accounts for 21.9 percent of global consumption emissions, while the U.S. accounts for 18.1 percent.

___

EMISSIONS BY SECTOR

Energy production is the biggest source of emissions, representing about one-third of the world total. Of the fossil fuels, coal generates the highest emissions, followed by oil and then natural gas. Agriculture, forestry and other land use accounts for 24 percent of total emissions. Other big sectors include transport (13 percent) and buildings (7 percent).

___

FUTURE EMISSIONS

The IPPC gives a range of trajectories for global emissions, but doesn't break them down by country. However, it notes that nearly all growth in emissions is expected to occur in developing countries, as their populations grow and they try to catch up economically with the industrialized world. Developing countries say that's why they shouldn't have to face as strict emissions targets in a new treaty as industrialized nations. The latter say at least the biggest developing nations, including China, India and Brazil, must also make significant cuts. Both sides will likely point to selected statistics and projections in the IPCC report.

From the IPCC Working Group II's Press Release:

The report, titled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, from Working Group II of the IPCC, details the impacts of climate change to date, the future risks from a changing climate, and the opportunities for effective action to reduce risks. A total of 309 coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and review editors, drawn from 70 countries, were selected to produce the report. They enlisted the help of 436 contributing authors, and a total of 1,729 expert and government reviewers.

The report concludes that responding to climate change involves making choices about risks in a changing world. The nature of the risks of climate change is increasingly clear, though climate change will also continue to produce surprises. The report identifies vulnerable people, industries, and ecosystems around the world. It finds that risk from a changing climate comes from vulnerability (lack of preparedness) and exposure (people or assets in harm’s way) overlapping with hazards (triggering climate events or trends). Each of these three components can be a target for smart actions to decrease risk.

“We live in an era of man-made climate change,” said Vicente Barros, Co-Chair of Working Group II.

“In many cases, we are not prepared for the climate-related risks that we already face. Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the future.”

Adaptation to reduce the risks from a changing climate is now starting to occur, but with a stronger focus on reacting to past events than on preparing for a changing future, according to Chris Field, Co-Chair of Working Group II.

“Climate-change adaptation is not an exotic agenda that has never been tried. Governments, firms, and communities around the world are building experience with adaptation,” Field said. “This experience forms a starting point for bolder, more ambitious adaptations that will be important as climate and society continue to change.”

The report, titled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, from Working Group II of the IPCC
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:07 pm

DrEvil » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:21 pm wrote:
Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:39 am wrote:Rory....waving your hands and bad mouthing sources, etc., is sop for internet wacko agw alarmists, so it don't wash with me. Who cares who the messenger is if the data or information is valid and referenced. You don't have to be a Phd to compile a list of msm articles on wacko AGW claims and post them on the internet....they are linked to the publication so no one can claim they weren't real.

So Rory, back to the present discussion about the pause.....do you accept there has been about a 17 year pause in global warming according to UN IPCC approved Hadcrut4 data or no?


I'm not Rory, but I hope that's okay - Can you spell 'Ocean'? You know, that stuff that covers 2/3 of the planet? Water is a great heat sink. Just because the surface warming has slowed down doesn't mean the warming has stopped, it's just going somewhere else.

Am I missing something...what has the fact that the ocean is a great sink for heat...swimming in summer is always more pleasant than winter is not unknown...got to do with the fact that the pause is 17 years and continuing? And fyi, the first 700 meters depth of ocean is monitored and measured and it doesn't account for the missing heat.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:26 pm

A vastly better world is possible.
Image
(source)

And it might just happen if you decided to write your representatives one single letter. Imagine that.

We seriously need to change our direction before the worst nightmares from futuristic novels become realized. Why plan our future security upon a fuel we know will become exhausted? Invest in the future, invest in Life.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:24 pm

stillrobertpaulsen » Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:11 am wrote:
Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:31 pm wrote:
stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:55 am wrote:
Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:19 pm wrote:Everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room...there has been no increase in global temperatures in 17 years...


That elephant was addressed by yours truly back on page 47. I wasn't the only one to refute it either.

stillrobertpaulsen, anyone who takes the wacko SkS seriously deserves to be deceived...it's a AGW propaganda site.


I'm not interested in watching you move goalposts, BenD. If I were interested in playing that game, I could quote from a completely different source that's already been linked earlier in this thread which also refutes your cherry-picked argument that I'm sure you'll also object to. Bottom line: you said "Everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room" - I've proven that argument is false.

Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:19 pm wrote:Btw, if you want to to be taken serious, please use actual IPCC approved data in future.


Wait, you're telling me if I want to be "taken serious" that IPCC approved data is the standard to abide by? The same IPCC whose data has lead them to issue report after report, year after year, that Global Climate Change is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions primarily through human industrial activity? Are you engaging in a double standard, or finally coming around to accepting the scientific consensus as reality?

You have not proven anything false, to the contrary, you have just indulged in typical AGW alarmist hand waving and haven't even attempted to engage me in the science involved to address the reality or no of the graph I posted showing a 17 years pause in global warming using a UN IPCC accredited data set. Now until you can post a graph using UN IPCC accredited data showing no pause, I suggest you start getting used to the fact of the pause...everyone else, except of course the AGW wackos, are accepting it, including the IPCC.

Yes seriously, the same UN IPCC whose charter is to advise governments of the world of the dangers of man made global warming...if they were to even hint that the observed warming of the late 90s was possibly a result of natural climate processes....it would have no further purpose in existing...and the whole ponzi scheme would collapse with huge losses to those that are benefiting from it including the AGW climate related scientists themselves who get never ending funds to pump out papers to prove that all climate change, extreme weather events, ecological changes, etc., are in some way directly or indirectly caused by human derived CO2.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:10 pm

DrEvil » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:26 am wrote:
slimmouse » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:17 pm wrote:Dr Evil,

Here's where I'm coming from.

What are the Global climate consequences of an increase from 0.000028 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere, by 50%. ?

I mean, could this truly be the real reason why we potentially sit on the cusp of civilisational apocalypse?

I want to know what youre intuitive senses tell you ?

Mine tell me that the C02 emmission explanation is all a load of horseshit.

Apparently, you appear to currently be sitting on the "dont know" post.


The atmosphere contains 0.039% carbon dioxide, not 0.000028% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth). In the last 50 years or so we have upped the concentration of co2 by about 25%.

Excuse me...if we work with the wiki figure of 0.039% of atmospheric CO2, then of that, I understand that approximately 99%* is from natural emissions and 1% from human emissions...so that would mean human CO2 emissions would be 0.00039% of total atmosphere.

So if human CO2 emissions are only 1% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, do you really think that humans are the cause of a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2?

* On edit...should have been 99%, not 90%.
Last edited by Ben D on Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:44 pm

Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:24 pm wrote:
stillrobertpaulsen » Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:11 am wrote:
Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:31 pm wrote:
stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:55 am wrote:
Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:19 pm wrote:Everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room...there has been no increase in global temperatures in 17 years...


That elephant was addressed by yours truly back on page 47. I wasn't the only one to refute it either.

stillrobertpaulsen, anyone who takes the wacko SkS seriously deserves to be deceived...it's a AGW propaganda site.


I'm not interested in watching you move goalposts, BenD. If I were interested in playing that game, I could quote from a completely different source that's already been linked earlier in this thread which also refutes your cherry-picked argument that I'm sure you'll also object to. Bottom line: you said "Everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room" - I've proven that argument is false.

Ben D » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:19 pm wrote:Btw, if you want to to be taken serious, please use actual IPCC approved data in future.


Wait, you're telling me if I want to be "taken serious" that IPCC approved data is the standard to abide by? The same IPCC whose data has lead them to issue report after report, year after year, that Global Climate Change is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions primarily through human industrial activity? Are you engaging in a double standard, or finally coming around to accepting the scientific consensus as reality?

You have not proven anything false, to the contrary, you have just indulged in typical AGW alarmist hand waving and haven't even attempted to engage me in the science involved to address the reality or no of the graph I posted showing a 17 years pause in global warming using a UN IPCC accredited data set. Now until you can post a graph using UN IPCC accredited data showing no pause, I suggest you start getting used to the fact of the pause...everyone else, except of course the AGW wackos, are accepting it, including the IPCC.

Yes seriously, the same UN IPCC whose charter is to advise governments of the world of the dangers of man made global warming...if they were to even hint that the observed warming of the late 90s was possibly a result of natural climate processes....it would have no further purpose in existing...and the whole ponzi scheme would collapse with huge losses to those that are benefiting from it including the AGW climate related scientists themselves who get never ending funds to pump out papers to prove that all climate change, extreme weather events, ecological changes, etc., are in some way directly or indirectly caused by human derived CO2.


BenD, I have nothing more to say to you. This is an abuse of debate; this deliberate engagement of moving goalposts, cherrypicking evidence, establishing double standards: what's the point?! There's no possibility of reciprocation! Now I know how Barney Frank felt. I am arguing with a dining room table. Goodbye!

User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:42 pm

stillrobertpaulsen » Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:44 am wrote:
Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:24 pm wrote:You have not proven anything false, to the contrary, you have just indulged in typical AGW alarmist hand waving and haven't even attempted to engage me in the science involved to address the reality or no of the graph I posted showing a 17 years pause in global warming using a UN IPCC accredited data set. Now until you can post a graph using UN IPCC accredited data showing no pause, I suggest you start getting used to the fact of the pause...everyone else, except of course the AGW wackos, are accepting it, including the IPCC.

Yes seriously, the same UN IPCC whose charter is to advise governments of the world of the dangers of man made global warming...if they were to even hint that the observed warming of the late 90s was possibly a result of natural climate processes....it would have no further purpose in existing...and the whole ponzi scheme would collapse with huge losses to those that are benefiting from it including the AGW climate related scientists themselves who get never ending funds to pump out papers to prove that all climate change, extreme weather events, ecological changes, etc., are in some way directly or indirectly caused by human derived CO2.

BenD, I have nothing more to say to you. This is an abuse of debate; this deliberate engagement of moving goalposts, cherrypicking evidence, establishing double standards: what's the point?! There's no possibility of reciprocation! Now I know how Barney Frank felt. I am arguing with a dining room table. Goodbye!

The point is that there is no cherry picking, no goal post changing, no double standards...just plain old reality....the historic record shows the 17 year plus pause in global warming...if you can't accept reality as it is then fine, live in a make believe world.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby justdrew » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:58 pm

ben, do you believe that a globally measured and averaged measure of air temp is a direct measure of the energy balance of the entire planetary system?
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:41 pm

Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:07 pm wrote:Am I missing something...what has the fact that the ocean is a great sink for heat...swimming in summer is always more pleasant than winter is not unknown...got to do with the fact that the pause is 17 years and continuing? And fyi, the first 700 meters depth of ocean is monitored and measured and it doesn't account for the missing heat.


Yes, you're definitely missing something. I'm not going to bother posting any links for you, I have already done so plenty of times, and you have ignored or arrogantly dismissed every single one. You're a troll, and you should have been banned from this forum a long time ago.

As of now you're on my block list (the only one to ever end up there), because your lies, cherry picking and distortions are worthless. You're not arguing in good faith, and you never will, so kindly fuck off.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:29 pm

justdrew » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:58 am wrote:ben, do you believe that a globally measured and averaged measure of air temp is a direct measure of the energy balance of the entire planetary system?

More or less yes, assuming the measurement was perfect, it would reflect the state of the relative energy balance...temperature go down..a relative net loss of energy,....temperature goes up..a relative net gain of energy,...temperature steady...the energy is in relative balance.

The average global temperature has gained 0.7C over the last century....meaning there has been a relative net gain of planetary energy...during this 17 year pause into the 21st century the global temperature has been relatively steady so there has relative balance of incoming from the sun energy and outgoing reflected and radiated energy.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:40 pm

DrEvil » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:41 pm wrote:
Ben D » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:07 pm wrote:Am I missing something...what has the fact that the ocean is a great sink for heat...swimming in summer is always more pleasant than winter is not unknown...got to do with the fact that the pause is 17 years and continuing? And fyi, the first 700 meters depth of ocean is monitored and measured and it doesn't account for the missing heat.


Yes, you're definitely missing something. I'm not going to bother posting any links for you, I have already done so plenty of times, and you have ignored or arrogantly dismissed every single one. You're a troll, and you should have been banned from this forum a long time ago.

As of now you're on my block list (the only one to ever end up there), because your lies, cherry picking and distortions are worthless. You're not arguing in good faith, and you never will, so kindly fuck off.

Fine, when you are ready to approach the subject of climate science seriously, I will be happy to engage you...perhaps when the present 17 years and counting pause gives way to either a decreasing temperature trend or an increasing one...could be yonks away though... :lol2:
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:12 am

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5113
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby slimmouse » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:57 am

@ Dr Evil.

If what you are saying is true, then the people who wrote the article that I have taken my percentages from need a boot in the ass.

Because for as long as Ive knowm mathematics , expressing 400 ppm as a percentage has never been 0.04%

@ I am who I am.

Thanks flor the link to the German Solar stuff. You are of course right. Thats what we should be doing, but the Gangster Capitalists will give you noting as vital as energy for free as long as there is an opportunity to tax every last one of us by making us pay for it. Not that they wouldnt find a way to make us pay, even if it was free, but even that would be infinitely preferable to raping the earth.

Instead we pay all ways up, be that physically, financially, environmentally, and any other ways possible.

And things definitely need to change. You got that right too.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:08 am

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5113
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:01 pm

Ben is just mad that his Biblical end-time prophecies are being trumped by scientific end-time prophecies (He thinks the US is the beast from revelations..). Explains a lot.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests