Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
such as, name one.A weather event. But when the vast majority of weather events are in one direction, that creates a trend in climate.
No, as usual you are far from correct. The data I cited shows that the Earth is getting warmer as a trend, with the Earth just experiencing its hottest year on record as of September.. That has nothing to do with any single "severe weather event".no different than a severe weather event then correct?An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)
and again, name one. Name the hurricanes that go above an average, and oh, where is that average at? Who holds on to it to make the adjustment for the warmers? I see you didn't object to my explanation, so basically you have nothing. Just as I thought as always. Nada,Zip Zro I'm sooooooooWiNNiNg and LaUgHiNgFor instance, when the average wind speed of hurricanes and typhoons begins to climb or average precipitation rates rise or the number of days below freezing drops or the number of days above 100F increases. Those sort of trends.
No, as usual you are far from correct. The data I cited shows that the Earth is getting warmer as a trend, with the Earth just experiencing its hottest year on record as of September.. That has nothing to do with any single "severe weather event".no different than a severe weather event then correct?An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)
So from the preface of the document, it is funny that in 2005 the person writing it was basically saying the science isn't settled. Now what is in the document itself hopefully lines up with that premise.The document to which Political Junky linked (and much obliged for that, Sir) contained a reference to a document that I've found to be an impressively thorough, objective and informative piece of work, It is the result of a large study performed by a specially-formed committee of the National Research Council and released in 2006: "The Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years"
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/teachingclimate/surftemps2000yrs.pdf
This document is 160 pages and I can tell you from personal experience that it loads a great deal faster than WGI of AR5. I have only skimmed it as of yet, but if you can bring yourself to do the same, I think you'll be impressed no matter what your initial position on global warming might be.
Keep working on that story blunderhead. My smilies love this board!!!!You ain't got anything that shows evidence of warming. Nothing!!!!!!No, as usual you are far from correct. The data I cited shows that the Earth is getting warmer as a trend, with the Earth just experiencing its hottest year on record as of September.. That has nothing to do with any single "severe weather event".no different than a severe weather event then correct?An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)
I don't care about your lame number. It doesn't take away from what is happening here.Keep working on that story blunderhead. My smilies love this board!!!!You ain't got anything that shows evidence of warming. Nothing!!!!!!No, as usual you are far from correct. The data I cited shows that the Earth is getting warmer as a trend, with the Earth just experiencing its hottest year on record as of September.. That has nothing to do with any single "severe weather event".no different than a severe weather event then correct?An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)
More vacuous meaningless nonsense from the denier cult troll, as usual.
As I said before...
"An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months - October 2013 to September 2014 - was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)"
You don't care about any of the evidence or data because you're a brainwashed retard, or, alternatively and more probably, a paid troll hired to spread lies and misinformation.I don't care about your lame number. It doesn't take away from what is happening here.Keep working on that story blunderhead. My smilies love this board!!!!You ain't got anything that shows evidence of warming. Nothing!!!!!!No, as usual you are far from correct. The data I cited shows that the Earth is getting warmer as a trend, with the Earth just experiencing its hottest year on record as of September.. That has nothing to do with any single "severe weather event".no different than a severe weather event then correct?An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)
More vacuous meaningless nonsense from the denier cult troll, as usual.
As I said before...
"An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months - October 2013 to September 2014 - was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)"
LOLOLOL.......trying to float an "argument from ignorance" again, eh JustCrazy?Learn a little bit would you? BTW how much CO2 is provided by the 2% of the US?
and is that 5 billion tons up or down from previous years?BTW, how much methane do you suppose is generated from the under developed countries with no sewers and millions of people?You don't care about any of the evidence or data because you're a brainwashed retard, or, alternatively and more probably, a paid troll hired to spread lies and misinformation.I don't care about your lame number. It doesn't take away from what is happening here.Keep working on that story blunderhead. My smilies love this board!!!!You ain't got anything that shows evidence of warming. Nothing!!!!!!No, as usual you are far from correct. The data I cited shows that the Earth is getting warmer as a trend, with the Earth just experiencing its hottest year on record as of September.. That has nothing to do with any single "severe weather event".no different than a severe weather event then correct?
More vacuous meaningless nonsense from the denier cult troll, as usual.
As I said before...
"An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months - October 2013 to September 2014 - was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)"
What is happening in some parts of the USA that are getting an Arctic blast this week is just a shifting of energy, not a loss of energy or 'cooling', and "it doesn't take away" anything from the unusual warming happening on most of the rest of the planet right now.
LOLOLOL.......trying to float an "argument from ignorance" again, eh JustCrazy?Learn a little bit would you? BTW how much CO2 is provided by the 2% of the US?
EPA
The US is currently producing over 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year (and more than another billion tonnes of other greenhouse gases) out of the 36 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted by humans every year. This puts the U.S. second behind China in total CO2 emissions (nominally - since so much former American industry and CO2 emissions were outsourced to China while the goods wind up back here), with the U.S. emitting about 5.2 billion tonnes of CO2 to China's approx. 9.8 billion tonnes. However, the USA is still number one worldwide in PER CAPITA CO2 emissions (meaninglessly surpassed only by the extremely tiny nation of Qatar). "While the per capita average for the world as a whole is 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide, China is now producing 7.2 tonnes per person, to the EU's 6.8 tonnes. The US is still far ahead on 16.5 tonnes per person." - (source - BBC - 21 September 2014)
Moreover, looking at the historical accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere (and oceans) over the last 150 years or so, which is what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and its consequent climate changes, the USA is also number one, having contributed about 29% of the total 43% increase in CO2 levels to date.
Historical emissions
Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.
1. US: 339,174 MillionTonnes or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%
See all countries
Of course, it's also possible to look at historical emissions per person, which turns things around yet again. In this view, the UK shoots close to the top of the rankings, while China drops towards the bottom.
1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes
2. UK: 1,127 tonnes
3. US: 1,126 tonnes
4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes
5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes
6. Germany: 987 tonnes
7. Estonia: 877 tonnes
8. Canada: 780 tonnes
9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes
10. Russia: 666 tonnes
See all countries
Consumption footprints
Imported and exported goods add another layer of complexity to the equation. Many commentators argue that focusing on where emissions are produced is unfair, because much of the carbon output of countries such as China are generated as a result of producing goods that are ultimately consumed in richer nations. If emissions are measured in terms of consumption rather than production (that is, each country's exports are excluded from its footprint, and its imports added) the tables turn yet again.
This leads to arguably the best measure of current responsibility for climate change: the total carbon footprint of the average person in each nation. Figures are provided for a selection of countries below based on 2008 data published in a recent science paper.
Belgium 21.9
United States of America 20.2
Ireland 16.2
Finland 15.1
Australia 13.8
United Kingdom 11.5
China 4.3
Brazil 2.1
India 1.3
Nigeria 0.5
Malawi 0.2
See more countries
The numbers would have shifted quite a bit in the direction of developing countries since 2008 but not enough to remove the very obvious trend that total carbon footprints are much higher in the developed world.
Actually everyone who isn't severely retarded like you are can easily see the significance. You can't because your head is just too far up your ass.and is that 5 billion tons up or down from previous years?BTW, how much methane do you suppose is generated from the under developed countries with no sewers and millions of people?You don't care about any of the evidence or data because you're a brainwashed retard, or, alternatively and more probably, a paid troll hired to spread lies and misinformation.I don't care about your lame number. It doesn't take away from what is happening here.Keep working on that story blunderhead. My smilies love this board!!!!You ain't got anything that shows evidence of warming. Nothing!!!!!!No, as usual you are far from correct. The data I cited shows that the Earth is getting warmer as a trend, with the Earth just experiencing its hottest year on record as of September.. That has nothing to do with any single "severe weather event".
More vacuous meaningless nonsense from the denier cult troll, as usual.
As I said before...
"An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months - October 2013 to September 2014 - was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)"
What is happening in some parts of the USA that are getting an Arctic blast this week is just a shifting of energy, not a loss of energy or 'cooling', and "it doesn't take away" anything from the unusual warming happening on most of the rest of the planet right now.
LOLOLOL.......trying to float an "argument from ignorance" again, eh JustCrazy?Learn a little bit would you? BTW how much CO2 is provided by the 2% of the US?
EPA
The US is currently producing over 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year (and more than another billion tonnes of other greenhouse gases) out of the 36 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted by humans every year. This puts the U.S. second behind China in total CO2 emissions (nominally - since so much former American industry and CO2 emissions were outsourced to China while the goods wind up back here), with the U.S. emitting about 5.2 billion tonnes of CO2 to China's approx. 9.8 billion tonnes. However, the USA is still number one worldwide in PER CAPITA CO2 emissions (meaninglessly surpassed only by the extremely tiny nation of Qatar). "While the per capita average for the world as a whole is 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide, China is now producing 7.2 tonnes per person, to the EU's 6.8 tonnes. The US is still far ahead on 16.5 tonnes per person." - (source - BBC - 21 September 2014)
Moreover, looking at the historical accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere (and oceans) over the last 150 years or so, which is what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and its consequent climate changes, the USA is also number one, having contributed about 29% of the total 43% increase in CO2 levels to date.
Historical emissions
Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.
1. US: 339,174 MillionTonnes or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%
See all countries
Of course, it's also possible to look at historical emissions per person, which turns things around yet again. In this view, the UK shoots close to the top of the rankings, while China drops towards the bottom.
1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes
2. UK: 1,127 tonnes
3. US: 1,126 tonnes
4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes
5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes
6. Germany: 987 tonnes
7. Estonia: 877 tonnes
8. Canada: 780 tonnes
9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes
10. Russia: 666 tonnes
See all countries
Consumption footprints
Imported and exported goods add another layer of complexity to the equation. Many commentators argue that focusing on where emissions are produced is unfair, because much of the carbon output of countries such as China are generated as a result of producing goods that are ultimately consumed in richer nations. If emissions are measured in terms of consumption rather than production (that is, each country's exports are excluded from its footprint, and its imports added) the tables turn yet again.
This leads to arguably the best measure of current responsibility for climate change: the total carbon footprint of the average person in each nation. Figures are provided for a selection of countries below based on 2008 data published in a recent science paper.
Belgium 21.9
United States of America 20.2
Ireland 16.2
Finland 15.1
Australia 13.8
United Kingdom 11.5
China 4.3
Brazil 2.1
India 1.3
Nigeria 0.5
Malawi 0.2
See more countries
The numbers would have shifted quite a bit in the direction of developing countries since 2008 but not enough to remove the very obvious trend that total carbon footprints are much higher in the developed world.
BTW, you have no idea if any of those numbers add any warming to the planet, because you can't prove it.
And I've asked for where there is climate change and nothing there either. So far you've only provided nice numbers from places capturing data, but you have no idea of the significance of it all.
I know everyone sees no significance. Thanks!Actually everyone who isn't severely retarded like you are can easily see the significance. You can't because your head is just too far up your ass.and is that 5 billion tons up or down from previous years?BTW, how much methane do you suppose is generated from the under developed countries with no sewers and millions of people?You don't care about any of the evidence or data because you're a brainwashed retard, or, alternatively and more probably, a paid troll hired to spread lies and misinformation.I don't care about your lame number. It doesn't take away from what is happening here.Keep working on that story blunderhead. My smilies love this board!!!!You ain't got anything that shows evidence of warming. Nothing!!!!!!
More vacuous meaningless nonsense from the denier cult troll, as usual.
As I said before...
"An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months - October 2013 to September 2014 - was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)"
What is happening in some parts of the USA that are getting an Arctic blast this week is just a shifting of energy, not a loss of energy or 'cooling', and "it doesn't take away" anything from the unusual warming happening on most of the rest of the planet right now.
LOLOLOL.......trying to float an "argument from ignorance" again, eh JustCrazy?Learn a little bit would you? BTW how much CO2 is provided by the 2% of the US?
EPA
The US is currently producing over 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year (and more than another billion tonnes of other greenhouse gases) out of the 36 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted by humans every year. This puts the U.S. second behind China in total CO2 emissions (nominally - since so much former American industry and CO2 emissions were outsourced to China while the goods wind up back here), with the U.S. emitting about 5.2 billion tonnes of CO2 to China's approx. 9.8 billion tonnes. However, the USA is still number one worldwide in PER CAPITA CO2 emissions (meaninglessly surpassed only by the extremely tiny nation of Qatar). "While the per capita average for the world as a whole is 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide, China is now producing 7.2 tonnes per person, to the EU's 6.8 tonnes. The US is still far ahead on 16.5 tonnes per person." - (source - BBC - 21 September 2014)
Moreover, looking at the historical accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere (and oceans) over the last 150 years or so, which is what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and its consequent climate changes, the USA is also number one, having contributed about 29% of the total 43% increase in CO2 levels to date.
Historical emissions
Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.
1. US: 339,174 MillionTonnes or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%
See all countries
Of course, it's also possible to look at historical emissions per person, which turns things around yet again. In this view, the UK shoots close to the top of the rankings, while China drops towards the bottom.
1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes
2. UK: 1,127 tonnes
3. US: 1,126 tonnes
4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes
5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes
6. Germany: 987 tonnes
7. Estonia: 877 tonnes
8. Canada: 780 tonnes
9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes
10. Russia: 666 tonnes
See all countries
Consumption footprints
Imported and exported goods add another layer of complexity to the equation. Many commentators argue that focusing on where emissions are produced is unfair, because much of the carbon output of countries such as China are generated as a result of producing goods that are ultimately consumed in richer nations. If emissions are measured in terms of consumption rather than production (that is, each country's exports are excluded from its footprint, and its imports added) the tables turn yet again.
This leads to arguably the best measure of current responsibility for climate change: the total carbon footprint of the average person in each nation. Figures are provided for a selection of countries below based on 2008 data published in a recent science paper.
Belgium 21.9
United States of America 20.2
Ireland 16.2
Finland 15.1
Australia 13.8
United Kingdom 11.5
China 4.3
Brazil 2.1
India 1.3
Nigeria 0.5
Malawi 0.2
See more countries
The numbers would have shifted quite a bit in the direction of developing countries since 2008 but not enough to remove the very obvious trend that total carbon footprints are much higher in the developed world.
BTW, you have no idea if any of those numbers add any warming to the planet, because you can't prove it.
And I've asked for where there is climate change and nothing there either. So far you've only provided nice numbers from places capturing data, but you have no idea of the significance of it all.
Nope, wrong again, JustCrazy, only retards like you fail to see the significance of the figures on both historical and per capita CO2 emissions.I know everyone sees no significance. Thanks!Actually everyone who isn't severely retarded like you are can easily see the significance. You can't because your head is just too far up your ass.and is that 5 billion tons up or down from previous years?BTW, how much methane do you suppose is generated from the under developed countries with no sewers and millions of people?You don't care about any of the evidence or data because you're a brainwashed retard, or, alternatively and more probably, a paid troll hired to spread lies and misinformation.I don't care about your lame number. It doesn't take away from what is happening here.More vacuous meaningless nonsense from the denier cult troll, as usual.
As I said before...
"An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months - October 2013 to September 2014 - was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)"
What is happening in some parts of the USA that are getting an Arctic blast this week is just a shifting of energy, not a loss of energy or 'cooling', and "it doesn't take away" anything from the unusual warming happening on most of the rest of the planet right now.
LOLOLOL.......trying to float an "argument from ignorance" again, eh JustCrazy?Learn a little bit would you? BTW how much CO2 is provided by the 2% of the US?
EPA
The US is currently producing over 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year (and more than another billion tonnes of other greenhouse gases) out of the 36 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted by humans every year. This puts the U.S. second behind China in total CO2 emissions (nominally - since so much former American industry and CO2 emissions were outsourced to China while the goods wind up back here), with the U.S. emitting about 5.2 billion tonnes of CO2 to China's approx. 9.8 billion tonnes. However, the USA is still number one worldwide in PER CAPITA CO2 emissions (meaninglessly surpassed only by the extremely tiny nation of Qatar). "While the per capita average for the world as a whole is 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide, China is now producing 7.2 tonnes per person, to the EU's 6.8 tonnes. The US is still far ahead on 16.5 tonnes per person." - (source - BBC - 21 September 2014)
Moreover, looking at the historical accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere (and oceans) over the last 150 years or so, which is what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and its consequent climate changes, the USA is also number one, having contributed about 29% of the total 43% increase in CO2 levels to date.
Historical emissions
Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.
1. US: 339,174 MillionTonnes or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%
See all countries
Of course, it's also possible to look at historical emissions per person, which turns things around yet again. In this view, the UK shoots close to the top of the rankings, while China drops towards the bottom.
1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes
2. UK: 1,127 tonnes
3. US: 1,126 tonnes
4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes
5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes
6. Germany: 987 tonnes
7. Estonia: 877 tonnes
8. Canada: 780 tonnes
9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes
10. Russia: 666 tonnes
See all countries
Consumption footprints
Imported and exported goods add another layer of complexity to the equation. Many commentators argue that focusing on where emissions are produced is unfair, because much of the carbon output of countries such as China are generated as a result of producing goods that are ultimately consumed in richer nations. If emissions are measured in terms of consumption rather than production (that is, each country's exports are excluded from its footprint, and its imports added) the tables turn yet again.
This leads to arguably the best measure of current responsibility for climate change: the total carbon footprint of the average person in each nation. Figures are provided for a selection of countries below based on 2008 data published in a recent science paper.
Belgium 21.9
United States of America 20.2
Ireland 16.2
Finland 15.1
Australia 13.8
United Kingdom 11.5
China 4.3
Brazil 2.1
India 1.3
Nigeria 0.5
Malawi 0.2
See more countries
The numbers would have shifted quite a bit in the direction of developing countries since 2008 but not enough to remove the very obvious trend that total carbon footprints are much higher in the developed world.
BTW, you have no idea if any of those numbers add any warming to the planet, because you can't prove it.
And I've asked for where there is climate change and nothing there either. So far you've only provided nice numbers from places capturing data, but you have no idea of the significance of it all.
yep those who know science, where adding a mere 120 PPM of CO2 does nothing to temperatures. Those people!!!! See you can't prove me wrong. I love this forum!!!!!Nope, wrong again, JustCrazy, only retards like you fail to see the significance of the figures on both historical and per capita CO2 emissions.I know everyone sees no significance. Thanks!Actually everyone who isn't severely retarded like you are can easily see the significance. You can't because your head is just too far up your ass.and is that 5 billion tons up or down from previous years?BTW, how much methane do you suppose is generated from the under developed countries with no sewers and millions of people?You don't care about any of the evidence or data because you're a brainwashed retard, or, alternatively and more probably, a paid troll hired to spread lies and misinformation.I don't care about your lame number. It doesn't take away from what is happening here.
What is happening in some parts of the USA that are getting an Arctic blast this week is just a shifting of energy, not a loss of energy or 'cooling', and "it doesn't take away" anything from the unusual warming happening on most of the rest of the planet right now.
LOLOLOL.......trying to float an "argument from ignorance" again, eh JustCrazy?Learn a little bit would you? BTW how much CO2 is provided by the 2% of the US?
EPA
The US is currently producing over 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year (and more than another billion tonnes of other greenhouse gases) out of the 36 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted by humans every year. This puts the U.S. second behind China in total CO2 emissions (nominally - since so much former American industry and CO2 emissions were outsourced to China while the goods wind up back here), with the U.S. emitting about 5.2 billion tonnes of CO2 to China's approx. 9.8 billion tonnes. However, the USA is still number one worldwide in PER CAPITA CO2 emissions (meaninglessly surpassed only by the extremely tiny nation of Qatar). "While the per capita average for the world as a whole is 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide, China is now producing 7.2 tonnes per person, to the EU's 6.8 tonnes. The US is still far ahead on 16.5 tonnes per person." - (source - BBC - 21 September 2014)
Moreover, looking at the historical accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere (and oceans) over the last 150 years or so, which is what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and its consequent climate changes, the USA is also number one, having contributed about 29% of the total 43% increase in CO2 levels to date.
Historical emissions
Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.
1. US: 339,174 MillionTonnes or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%
See all countries
Of course, it's also possible to look at historical emissions per person, which turns things around yet again. In this view, the UK shoots close to the top of the rankings, while China drops towards the bottom.
1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes
2. UK: 1,127 tonnes
3. US: 1,126 tonnes
4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes
5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes
6. Germany: 987 tonnes
7. Estonia: 877 tonnes
8. Canada: 780 tonnes
9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes
10. Russia: 666 tonnes
See all countries
Consumption footprints
Imported and exported goods add another layer of complexity to the equation. Many commentators argue that focusing on where emissions are produced is unfair, because much of the carbon output of countries such as China are generated as a result of producing goods that are ultimately consumed in richer nations. If emissions are measured in terms of consumption rather than production (that is, each country's exports are excluded from its footprint, and its imports added) the tables turn yet again.
This leads to arguably the best measure of current responsibility for climate change: the total carbon footprint of the average person in each nation. Figures are provided for a selection of countries below based on 2008 data published in a recent science paper.
Belgium 21.9
United States of America 20.2
Ireland 16.2
Finland 15.1
Australia 13.8
United Kingdom 11.5
China 4.3
Brazil 2.1
India 1.3
Nigeria 0.5
Malawi 0.2
See more countries
The numbers would have shifted quite a bit in the direction of developing countries since 2008 but not enough to remove the very obvious trend that total carbon footprints are much higher in the developed world.
BTW, you have no idea if any of those numbers add any warming to the planet, because you can't prove it.
And I've asked for where there is climate change and nothing there either. So far you've only provided nice numbers from places capturing data, but you have no idea of the significance of it all.
The world community of actual scientists "know science", and they all affirm the reality and dangers of AGW/CC. You denier cult retards who reject the conclusions of the climate scientists for ideological reasons are scientifically ignorant fools who've been brainwashed by fossil fuel industry propaganda and lies.yep those who know science, where adding a mere 120 PPM of CO2 does nothing to temperatures. Those people!!!! See you can't prove me wrong. I love this forum!!!!!Nope, wrong again, JustCrazy, only retards like you fail to see the significance of the figures on both historical and per capita CO2 emissions.I know everyone sees no significance. Thanks!Actually everyone who isn't severely retarded like you are can easily see the significance. You can't because your head is just too far up your ass.and is that 5 billion tons up or down from previous years?BTW, how much methane do you suppose is generated from the under developed countries with no sewers and millions of people?You don't care about any of the evidence or data because you're a brainwashed retard, or, alternatively and more probably, a paid troll hired to spread lies and misinformation.
What is happening in some parts of the USA that are getting an Arctic blast this week is just a shifting of energy, not a loss of energy or 'cooling', and "it doesn't take away" anything from the unusual warming happening on most of the rest of the planet right now.
LOLOLOL.......trying to float an "argument from ignorance" again, eh JustCrazy?
EPA
The US is currently producing over 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year (and more than another billion tonnes of other greenhouse gases) out of the 36 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted by humans every year. This puts the U.S. second behind China in total CO2 emissions (nominally - since so much former American industry and CO2 emissions were outsourced to China while the goods wind up back here), with the U.S. emitting about 5.2 billion tonnes of CO2 to China's approx. 9.8 billion tonnes. However, the USA is still number one worldwide in PER CAPITA CO2 emissions (meaninglessly surpassed only by the extremely tiny nation of Qatar). "While the per capita average for the world as a whole is 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide, China is now producing 7.2 tonnes per person, to the EU's 6.8 tonnes. The US is still far ahead on 16.5 tonnes per person." - (source - BBC - 21 September 2014)
Moreover, looking at the historical accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere (and oceans) over the last 150 years or so, which is what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and its consequent climate changes, the USA is also number one, having contributed about 29% of the total 43% increase in CO2 levels to date.
Historical emissions
Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.
1. US: 339,174 MillionTonnes or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%
See all countries
Of course, it's also possible to look at historical emissions per person, which turns things around yet again. In this view, the UK shoots close to the top of the rankings, while China drops towards the bottom.
1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes
2. UK: 1,127 tonnes
3. US: 1,126 tonnes
4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes
5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes
6. Germany: 987 tonnes
7. Estonia: 877 tonnes
8. Canada: 780 tonnes
9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes
10. Russia: 666 tonnes
See all countries
Consumption footprints
Imported and exported goods add another layer of complexity to the equation. Many commentators argue that focusing on where emissions are produced is unfair, because much of the carbon output of countries such as China are generated as a result of producing goods that are ultimately consumed in richer nations. If emissions are measured in terms of consumption rather than production (that is, each country's exports are excluded from its footprint, and its imports added) the tables turn yet again.
This leads to arguably the best measure of current responsibility for climate change: the total carbon footprint of the average person in each nation. Figures are provided for a selection of countries below based on 2008 data published in a recent science paper.
Belgium 21.9
United States of America 20.2
Ireland 16.2
Finland 15.1
Australia 13.8
United Kingdom 11.5
China 4.3
Brazil 2.1
India 1.3
Nigeria 0.5
Malawi 0.2
See more countries
The numbers would have shifted quite a bit in the direction of developing countries since 2008 but not enough to remove the very obvious trend that total carbon footprints are much higher in the developed world.
BTW, you have no idea if any of those numbers add any warming to the planet, because you can't prove it.
And I've asked for where there is climate change and nothing there either. So far you've only provided nice numbers from places capturing data, but you have no idea of the significance of it all.
and yet they can't prove it! See your little plan falls apart because there isn't evidence.The world community of actual scientists "know science", and they all affirm the reality and dangers of AGW/CC. You denier cult retards who reject the conclusions of the climate scientists for ideological reasons are scientifically ignorant fools who've been brainwashed by fossil fuel industry propaganda and lies.yep those who know science, where adding a mere 120 PPM of CO2 does nothing to temperatures. Those people!!!! See you can't prove me wrong. I love this forum!!!!!Nope, wrong again, JustCrazy, only retards like you fail to see the significance of the figures on both historical and per capita CO2 emissions.I know everyone sees no significance. Thanks!Actually everyone who isn't severely retarded like you are can easily see the significance. You can't because your head is just too far up your ass.and is that 5 billion tons up or down from previous years?BTW, how much methane do you suppose is generated from the under developed countries with no sewers and millions of people?
BTW, you have no idea if any of those numbers add any warming to the planet, because you can't prove it.
And I've asked for where there is climate change and nothing there either. So far you've only provided nice numbers from places capturing data, but you have no idea of the significance of it all.
Here's real science...
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[54] and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."
Ignorant denier cult drivel from a clueless anti-science retard who wants you to think that the entire world scientific community is affirming the reality of AGW/CC without any evidence. JustCrazy is an insane troll.and yet they can't prove it! See your little plan falls apart because there isn't evidence.The world community of actual scientists "know science", and they all affirm the reality and dangers of AGW/CC. You denier cult retards who reject the conclusions of the climate scientists for ideological reasons are scientifically ignorant fools who've been brainwashed by fossil fuel industry propaganda and lies.yep those who know science, where adding a mere 120 PPM of CO2 does nothing to temperatures. Those people!!!! See you can't prove me wrong. I love this forum!!!!!Nope, wrong again, JustCrazy, only retards like you fail to see the significance of the figures on both historical and per capita CO2 emissions.I know everyone sees no significance. Thanks!Actually everyone who isn't severely retarded like you are can easily see the significance. You can't because your head is just too far up your ass.
Here's real science...
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[54] and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."
