More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[gnarlylove]

Global carbon emissions rise to new record in 2013: report | Reuters
(Reuters) - Global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will rise to a record 36 billion metric tons (39.683 billion tons) this year, a report by 49 researchers from 10 countries....

so @ 5%, man, that's a lot more CO2, some 19,500,000,000,000 tons of CO2 released each year.

there is simply not the much CO2 released into the atmosphere each year. Maybe you want to see how CO2 emissions actually breaks down annually. or maybe you want to address where the other 95% of CO2 comes from....

 

[polarbear]

Global carbon emissions rise to new record in 2013: report | Reuters
(Reuters) - Global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will rise to a record 36 billion metric tons (39.683 billion tons) this year, a report by 49 researchers from 10 countries....

so @ 5%, man, that's a lot more CO2, some 19,500,000,000,000 tons of CO2 released each year.

there is simply not the much CO2 released into the atmosphere each year. Maybe you want to see how CO2 emissions actually breaks down annually. or maybe you want to address where the other 95% of CO2 comes from....

Maybe you want to address how many digits there are in a billion.

1,000,000,000 (one billion)
In scientific notation, it is written as "1 × 10^9

So how did you get to (19,500,000,000,000 )19.5 trillion tons CO2 ?

I am aware enough to assess my own self
...but I use to be less calm and much more confused or irritable

Maybe it`s better if you quit to "assess your own self", face the fact that you are confused and that your IQ is only a fraction of what it`s supposed to be.

 

[gnarlylove]

that's not my #. it's westwall's apparent #.
and thanks for the elementary math lesson but i choose to exaggerate the zeros. both ways are correct but you found unnecessary fault. once again, you are the better man.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Most of the co2 in the atmosphere is natural but the natural cycles don't remove most of the extra co2 going into the atmosphere(Thinking around 40% go into the carbon sinks). So year over year the extra co2 builds up.

Let's just say that the plants and carbon sinks were good enough to balance the volcano's to keep the amount within the atmosphere fairly constant. Fairly constant since around 8,000 years ago at least.

This is why we want from 280 in the early 19th century to nearing 400ppm today. At least based on official data of course as I am sure you have different sources.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hmmm.......now what is the name of this thread????



MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING



The AGW k00ks come in here and for their part, start talking about CO2 levels!!! As Ive said many times, philosophy in a science thread is gay.


But I digress........


So.....woke up and as per usual went to DRUDGE to check out the days news.......and what do I find as a top headline???




Solar Provides 0.2% of Electric Supply--Up From 0.02% Before Obama


Solar Provides 0.2% of Electric Supply--Up From 0.02% Before Obama | CNS News





Ask me if I didnt burst out laughing???


Actually......I damn near busted my sides laughing so hard. These AGW climate mental cases talk incessantly about CO2, glaciers, ice melt, solar power, wind power yada......yada......yada.......every day for years and years now >>>>>>>>>>>>


To zero effect ( well, actually, to .2 effect. ).



Nobody in the real world is caring about climate change. It is kept alive by the green merchants picking the pockets of AGW meatheads like we have on this thread!!!



LOSE

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2284/2329
95% had PhDs
But the study is not really properly understood being mashed into simpleton formula.

The point is they predict a range between 3.4-3.6 C by 2100. that's climate change at precisely the level that melts polar ice caps and changes lush landscapes into desert. its an injustice to this study to purge it of it's meaning by X/Y.

Did you find 2284 in your link?

 

[gnarlylove]

it's described in the abstract in the link. 97-98%. that's the ratio of 2284/2329. it would make a lot more sense if you decided to read the full pdf version linked below the abstract along with 5+ relevant articles.

among scientific community where peer-review is supreme, scientists affirm threats from climate change. that's what eviro bio scientists do (in part) they research how climate changes affect species.

among the general public propaganda and misinformation are coming out of their ears due to billion dollar campaigns ran to combat the idea of consensus in climate change. this was a lie then and is a lie now. if we fail to admit this as a public, we are in affect waiting for business to start taking action and they are, with or without us.

 

[polarbear]

that's not my #. it's westwall's apparent #.
and thanks for the elementary math lesson but i choose to exaggerate the zeros. both ways are correct but you found unnecessary fault. once again, you are the better man.

No it isn`t. The 19,500,000,000,000 is your number, it`s what you came up with as 100% if 36 billion were 5%.
You did not "choose to exaggerate", you were too dumb to figure out that 100% would then be 720 billion, not 19.5 trillion.
That`s neither correct nor an "unnecessary fault" and once again it shows that even simple math is too hard for libtards like you

 

[gnarlylove]

any amount of research shows carbon dioxide levels have steadily risen alongside our massive fossil fuel industry. don't play dumb and then call me dumb. it takes a spineless creature to ignore his own premise of major falsehood (human activity is @ 5%). no one thinks our overall output of CO2 since the 1900s has not risen to far above the levels the earth naturally gives off. 5% is non-sense.

 

[polarbear]

2284/2329
95% had PhDs
But the study is not really properly understood being mashed into simpleton formula.

The point is they predict a range between 3.4-3.6 C by 2100. that's climate change at precisely the level that melts polar ice caps and changes lush landscapes into desert.

The point is that they predict 3.4 to 3.6 C by 2100 and nobody else with the IPCC predicts that.
IPCC AR5:

Predictions

• Further warming will continue if emissions of greenhouse gases continue.
• The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C

"Likely to exceed 1.5 C" is in no way a prediction that it`ll be as much as 3.6 C like your "experts" with an "excellent self assessed knowledge" are claiming.

that's climate change at precisely the level that melts polar ice caps and changes lush landscapes into desert.

This is a desert:

Greenland Arctic Desert and Northernmost Land in the World
In northern Greenland precipitation is so low, that many areas can be called Arctic deserts. In particular Peary Land has precipitation levels of only about 25 to 200 mm per year, all as snow, and was not covered by glaciers during the most recent ice age.

And here it`s more than just 3 degrees warmer:

The average temperature of a rain forest is about 77° Fahrenheit. In the winter the temperature is

Does that look like a desert ?

95% had PhDs

Yeah and they are typical ding bats like Dr.David Suzuki who tells schoolchildren they should donate their money to him so that Santa does not drown when the North Pole melts.

 

[gnarlylove]

polarbear, the point is we are all human beings and we all depend on nature. climate instability brings about greater risks and we see these risks manifested by more disasters that create unnecessary human suffering. human suffering is not the goal of the public good and runs directly counter to principles of human equality. but in the private life we often neglect what's good for the public to pursue self-interest, even i do--but its a matter of how far will your private gains cause you to forfeit the public good? its the idea of profits over people. now if the "economy" does better, it helps everyone, right? well, short term it does. but this such short term thinking betrays our capacity as human beings. don't use the fact your aren't caught in a tornado as evidence climate change is fake or that mankind has nothing to do with it.

indeed, it betrays our understanding that climate change brings definite risks that can potentially decimate the global economy via droughts, floods, acidification of oceans, which extinguishes coral life 100% (by ~450ppm) and obviously the marine life that depends on coral.

i don't know what the hell you are saying about the IPCC but their range is between 2.4C (lowest estimate) and 6.2C (highest) by the end of the century. so we can expect a happy medium of 3.x, and these 2300 envrio biologists give us this exact anticipation. just because you disagree with a PhD (Suzuki) on A COMPLETELY UNRELATED TOPIC does nothing to undermine the validity and expertise of other PhDs. that's really reaching to make a flippant argument.

if lying and fallacious arguments are essential to your beliefs, it does not bode well for your position's validity.

Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years. These estimates are conservative relative to the range of “likely” projected temperature change by the end of the century, according to the IPCC summary for policymakers (2.4°C–6.4°C; Bernstein et al. 2007). Most of our respondents provided answers within the range of IPCC projection boundaries, and the estimates of the climate experts are higher, but few approach the high end of the IPCC's “likely” range.

The IPCC states this in its fifth assessment:

Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

I encourage you to actually read the IPCC's fifth assessment. You might actually come to a better understanding of your own position if you stop attacking and attempt, like I am, to understand each other's position. For you, it would lead to lowered blood pressure, guaranteed...and that's healthy for us all--it reduces stress on overburdened medical system

 

[gnarlylove]

This might help you understand global risk. It comes from the World Economic Forum's latest report for the next decade. See if you can spot "climate change" and associated risks.

From Bloomberg Businessweek

 

[flacaltenn]

This might help you understand global risk. It comes from the World Economic Forum's latest report for the next decade. See if you can spot "climate change" and associated risks.

From Bloomberg Businessweek

Just wanted to make sure you noticed that "Man-Made Enviro Changes" is considerably further down the impact axis.. What does that distinction say? Eh?

Climate Change by itself -- is not the issue since it's been man's greatest enemy since greater apes were all hairy.. (See your AVI)

All this is well and good until the asteroid hits or we lose medical control of a bacterium strain, or the aliens arrive..

 

[gnarlylove]

so you think we should prepare for total annihilation from a giant platinum or ice space conglomerate?
now climate change is beginning to sound less silly in juxtaposition! lol

its a matter of allowing mankind to spew more co2 or not. you don't want dirty liberal hands on your laws to restrict pollution. but you don't want economic downturns either? addressing climate change in the short term may be costly but over the long term it will save money (likely preventing serious economic downturn) as well as certain species for extinction.

i guess these things are not worth short term money. i don't buy your logic and you won't either in 3 decades.

 

[flacaltenn]

so you think we should prepare for total annihilation from a giant platinum or ice space conglomerate?
now climate change is beginning to sound less silly in juxtaposition! lol

its a matter of allowing mankind to spew more co2 or not. you don't want dirty liberal hands on your laws to restrict pollution. but you don't want economic downturns either? addressing climate change in the short term may be costly but over the long term it will save money as well as certain species for extinction.

i guess these things are not worth short term money. i don't buy your logic and you won't either in 3 decades.

Again -- CO2 is not pollution.. And we can address your imaginary CO2 crisis TODAY by building 100 NEW nuclear plants and shifting transportation to Hydrogen.. But that's NOT the official plan is it? And paying Vanuatu for imagined damages to its' environment out of YOUR paycheck is not gonna change that chart you posted.

Did you get the distinction between just plain old "Climate Change" and "Man-Made Eco disasters?" There's a LOT of higher impact threats ABOVE anything "Man-Made" isn't there?

 

[gnarlylove]

the man made enviro part refers to BP oil spills and the like. you act like you can separate man out from his/her environment. these two are inextricably linked and when we create more disasters we will experience expedite climate change. the more climate change we experience, the more economic impact. with more economic downturns, the more likely we will pursue riskier methods of resource extraction whether through cutting costs of essential procedures or electing to go into harder to manage situations (like deep ocean drilling) and this creates greater environmental impacts.

humans cannot be separated from the climate.

 

[HenryBHough]

humans cannot be separated from the climate.

Actually humans CAN be separated from the climate.

But most likely BY the climate.

That's why trying to screw around with it either for "better" or for "worse" is an exercise in mental masturbation though with no happy result.

 

[gnarlylove]

co2 is and is not pollution. for humans, its natural to expel. for plants, it natural to absorb (then give off upon decay). at normal levels like 280ppm, it hardly drives the climate. at 400ppm like we are reaching today, it has changed the earth. i'm not saying man is 100% responsible, but if you continue to neglect OUR PART, we neglect the whole. undoubtedly this leads to greater profits among fossil fuels as well as greater risks, more propaganda and on it goes till climate change is a runaway frieght train that is going to severly impact global economies whether we do anything or not. there is a time when it's too late, just like there would be a time when its too late to realize an asteroid is about to collide with earth. we won't be able to reverse it and tyring to "reverse" climate change is highly risky. addressing excess co2 from humanity is essential to not hurrying major economic and environmental problems.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it's described in the abstract in the link. 97-98%. that's the ratio of 2284/2329. it would make a lot more sense if you decided to read the full pdf version linked below the abstract along with 5+ relevant articles.

among scientific community where peer-review is supreme, scientists affirm threats from climate change. that's what eviro bio scientists do (in part) they research how climate changes affect species.

among the general public propaganda and misinformation are coming out of their ears due to billion dollar campaigns ran to combat the idea of consensus in climate change. this was a lie then and is a lie now. if we fail to admit this as a public, we are in affect waiting for business to start taking action and they are, with or without us.

it's described in the abstract in the link. 97-98%. that's the ratio of 2284/2329.

2284 is not in the link you provided.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

co2 is and is not pollution. for humans, its natural to expel. for plants, it natural to absorb (then give off upon decay). at normal levels like 280ppm, it hardly drives the climate. at 400ppm like we are reaching today, it has changed the earth. i'm not saying man is 100% responsible, but if you continue to neglect OUR PART, we neglect the whole. undoubtedly this leads to greater profits among fossil fuels as well as greater risks, more propaganda and on it goes till climate change is a runaway frieght train that is going to severly impact global economies whether we do anything or not. there is a time when it's too late, just like there would be a time when its too late to realize an asteroid is about to collide with earth. we won't be able to reverse it and tyring to "reverse" climate change is highly risky. addressing excess co2 from humanity is essential to not hurrying major economic and environmental problems.

at normal levels like 280ppm,

Why is 280ppm normal?