Real news, MSM news, and faux news

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, April 19, 2026 14:49
VIEWED: 7882
PAGE 2 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

1KIKI

Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:51 AM

Now this is real news:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/12889

As CO2 Approaches Symbolic Milestone, Scripps Launches Daily Keeling Curve Update

Levels of the greenhouse gas are approaching 400 parts per million; Scripps offering daily Twitter feed, news and analysis of climate indicators

These iconic measurements, begun by Charles David (Dave) Keeling, a world-leading authority on atmospheric greenhouse gas accumulation and Scripps climate science pioneer, comprise the longest continuous record of CO2 in the world, starting from 316 ppm in March 1958 and approaching 400 ppm today with a familiar saw-tooth pattern. For the past 800,000 years, CO2 levels never exceeded 300 parts per million.

Scientists estimate that the last time CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably the Pliocene epoch, between 3.2 million and 5 million years ago, when Earth's climate was much warmer than today. CO2 was around 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began releasing large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. By the time Dave Keeling began measurements in 1958, CO2 had already risen from 280 to 316 ppm.

1KIKI

Sunday, June 30, 2013 4:02 AM

The Most Influential Climate Science Paper Today Remains Unknown to Most People

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140213/climate-change-science-carb
on-budget-nature-global-warming-2-degrees-bill-mckibben-fossil-fuels-keystone-xl-oil

The Most Influential Climate Science Paper Today Remains Unknown to Most People
Just six pages long, it is stoking a new moral urgency for climate action and forcing the financial world to reconsider the value of fossil fuel reserves.

Though just six pages long, its dense, technical writing makes it largely incomprehensible to non-experts. And yet this paper is transforming the climate change debate—prompting the financial world to rethink the value of the world's fossil fuel reserves and giving environmental activists a moral argument for action.

That's because behind its complicated terminology is a simple question that affects every aspect of society and business: How much time do we have before the burning of fossil fuels pushes the climate system past tipping points? In a worst-case scenario, about 11 years at current rates of fossil fuel use, according to the paper.

The paper, "Greenhouse-Gas Emission Targets for Limiting Global Warming to 2C," was published in April 2009 in Nature, the prestigious science journal. It was the work of researchers from Germany, the UK and Switzerland, led by Malte Meinshausen, a climatologist at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact.

The study filled a factual void in a simmering debate over climate change. By 2006, the year the scientists began their research, many world governments had endorsed the scientific consensus that global temperature rise should be kept below 2 degrees Celsius in this century. But governments didn't know how far down the path of global warming they had already gone—and how much further they could safely go.

Meinshausen and his team, which included his brother Nicolai, a statistician at the University of Oxford, took up the puzzle. "It seemed the obvious thing to do with so many governments asking the question," Meinshausen said.

The scientists created what is called a global "carbon budget," which details how much carbon countries have emitted in the atmosphere from burning coal, oil and natural gas—and how much more they can "spend" before crossing 2 degrees. They didn't invent the concept—many others had crunched carbon budgets. But none were as rigorous.

The paper's methodology was groundbreaking. It was the first to incorporate hundreds of uncertainties in the climate system into a single climate model—factors that had never been modeled together or that hadn't been given proper weight in previous studies, such as radiative forcing or unknowns in the carbon cycle like how much carbon is stored in the deep ocean. In total, 400 environmental parameters were run under 1,000 different emissions scenarios.

What they found was stark: To have a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees, humans would have to stick to a carbon budget that allowed the release of no more than 1,437 gigatons of carbon dioxide from 2000 to 2050.

To have an 80 percent chance of avoiding that threshold, they would have to follow a stricter budget and emit just 886 gigatons.

The paper found that by 2006, nations had already spent a quarter of that amount, or 234 gigatons. Meaning, the planet's carbon budget would be exhausted by 2024—11 years from now— if emissions levels stayed the same, or even earlier if they continue their upward trend.

From a scientific point of view, burning all of the world's proven fossil fuel reserves isn't an option, the paper suggested. The reserves "vastly exceed the allowable CO2 emission budget for staying below 2C" of warming, it said.

1KIKI

Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:50 AM

One last thing:

"The global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted would happen by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change.

We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and temperatures will inevitably rise too high. This is not the result of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in the part of its long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would normally be cooling. But they are rising — and it’s because we are forcing them higher with fossil fuel emissions."

GEEZER

Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So is your solution to do nothing? How about being world leaders in this stuff?

Taking active steps so that your country is cleaner and greener generally, has less waste, more recycling. How about encouraging investment in energy efficent products and discourgaing growth in dirty industries?

Tell me where the negatives are in any of this? Because who wants to live in a tip or a wasteland?

My point is that reducing carbon emissions in the U.S., while a worthwhile goal, isn't going to be a solution - not as long as China, India, Africa, and South America increase their carbon emissions.

In 2012, U.S. carbon emissions dropped 3.8%, but Chinese emissions increased 3.8%. Since China produces more carbon overall than the U.S., thats a net loss. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/carbon-dioxide-emission
s-rose-14-percent-in-2012-iea-report-says/2013/06/09/35d32bac-d123-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html

India expects its per capita carbon emissions to increase threefold by 2030.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/per-capita-co2-emissions-to-rise
-threefold-by-2030/article113168.ece

So unless you have a way to get China, India, etc. on board - which I figure is gonna be kind of difficult, since their populations are clamoring for more energy and a better life - It's going to be difficult to reach a global reduction in carbon emissions. This is why I don't have much faith in putting all our eggs in the emissions control basket, and think we need to be prepared to deal with the effects of climate change as well.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
2010

[img]

]

Quote:

Europe, still half, or less, than the US. Cuba 1/10 of US.

Did it change anything? Yes, it made my argument stronger. So thanks for pointing that out, old fart.

Now, do you have any solutions?

Yeah, I thought not.

And what was your argument? That the U.S. has higher carbon emissions per capita than Europe? When did I say it didn't?

Lets look at my statement:

"Even if North America and Europe do everything possible to reduce global warming, China, India, South America, and Africa are still going to increase their usage of fossil fuels for the forseeable future. Should we rearrange the deck chairs by reducing carbon emmissions when they're increasing everywhere else, or try to adapt to a changing climate?"

"Even if" would seem to indicate that this is a supposition, sort'a like "Even if Kiki could pedal a bike at 70mph, a Corvette could cover a mile faster."

And did I say that the U.S. and Europe ARE doing everything possible to reduce global warming? No.

Now I have shown, in the response to Magons above, that China and India are increasing carbon emissions at a rate faster than the U.S. is reducing them. Africa, while still low in overall terms, has increased carbon emissions twelvefold since 1950, and doesn't seem to be slowing down. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_afr.html
Latin America is up tenfold since 1950 and still increasing as well. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_amd.html
Also, "Because of more rapid growth elsewhere, particularly Asia, emissions from North America have shrunk from 46.4% of the global total in 1950 to 20.5% in 2008." http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_nam.html

Look at the regional graphs of total emissions and per capita emissions here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_regn.html and you'll see that while North America and Europe have pretty much flattened out, China, the Far East, China, Africa, and Latin America are all trending sharply up.

So it seems pretty clear that, even if the U.S. (or we can throw in Canada and call it North America) and Europe do quite a bit to reduce carbon emissions, the rest of the world is gonna be increasing at a higher rate for quite a while.

As I've noted several times in the past, I have no problem with energy efficiency and reduction in emissions. But I think it foolish to believe that if North America and Europe reduce emissions when much of the rest of the world is increasing them dramatically (India threefold in the next 17 years, for example), the problem will be solved. I doubt developing countries are going to tell their people to give up their aspirations for a better life just so New Jersey doesn't get coastal flooding.

Now if you have an idea of how we can get China, India, etc. to reduce carbon emissions, or even hold them at current levels, I'd be glad to hear it.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 30, 2013 2:32 PM

Geezer: any solutions yet?

GEEZER

Sunday, June 30, 2013 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Geezer: any solutions yet?

No.

My point is that there are sometimes no solutions, especially that the U.S. can impose on the rest of the world. Sometimes the only solution is to let things work out and prepare for the possible outcomes.

You'll note that even President Obama endorsed this in his recent climate address. He's trying to reduce carbon emissions, but also realizes that actions are going to have to be taken to limit the effects of climate change.

"Obama's strategy in the second-term rests on three pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America, preparing the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, and leading international efforts to cut global emissions."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-2013_n_3
497151.html

Since The U.S. and Canada together now produce only 20% of carbon worldwide (as noted above), even with reductions in the U.S. the amount of carbon being generated elsewhere is still going up(as also noted above). I'm kind of doubtful of the ability of the Obama Administration to get the countries of the world where folks are hungry for a decent standard of living and more stuff to reduce, or even limit, carbon emissions. I think preparing for the impacts is a good move.

I have no problem with reducing energy usage and making production cleaner, but the U.S. doing this is not gonna fix the problem.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 30, 2013 5:00 PM

What I'm hearing is that everything stays essentially the same, but the outcome should change.

Hmmm... eh?

But what if everything DOESN'T stay the same? What if we were to go hell-bent for leather to either reduce climate change, or mitigate the impacts of climate change, or both? What could we do? (Trying to get you to think out of the box, in brainstorming mode. Surely you've been in brainstorming sessions!)

1KIKI

Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:28 PM

So Geezer - do you want to know why I laugh at you? Probably not, but here it is for all to read - because you are so ideologically driven you can't think any other way.

FOR EXAMPLE:

You start out with the argument that EVEN IF the US and Europe were to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to slow down (or even eventually reverse) global warming, the emissions from China and India would undo those efforts. You take this as gospel, and expect everyone else to do that as well.

But there's one really enormous, gaping, obvious logical flaw in your argument - you don't know. You've drawn a conclusion on a qualitative assumption when you need to do quantitative analysis. What do I mean by that? What I mean is that if the US and Europe were to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE - by which I mean technically feasible at the moment * - that one logical possibility is that US and Europe could do SO MUCH that they would at least mitigate the effects of China and India, and perhaps reverse them. You have to run the numbers. You have to make estimates as to how much heat-trapping gasses could be eliminated on one side of the balance sheet, and how they compare to the heat trapping gasses generated on the other side of the balance sheet. Until you do that, you don't KNOW that EVEN IF the US and Europe did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE that it would be moot.

To me, that is such an obvious and seriously fatal flaw in your argument, I can't imagine how you would post it with any level of sincerity.

So, here are the choices as I see them, singly and in various combinations:

you are so blinded by your own ideology of 'US and business first' you really didn't see it

you are so blinded by your partisanship you really can't admit it to a 'liberal'

you are so dishonest you really don't care if you post things you know to be untrue

you really believe that global warming has already gone past the tipping point, and nothing we do to slow it down or reverse it will help

Out of all the reasons I can think of that would motivate your argument, only one is a logic-based one. The rest - all in your head.

So yeah, when I see such patently flawed arguments from someone with a 100% history of patently flawed arguments - who refuses to engage in meaningful discussion - what else is there to do but point and laugh?

So, not to undo SignyM's efforts to remove you from the mental box you've caged yourself in - how about it? How about brainstorming on the basis of 'just suppose'? If you were to imagine what should be done - to mitigate global warming, or to prepare for its effects, or both - out of your storehouse of knowledge, what would you propose?

* CO2 neutral or negative energy generation like solar power, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency, altering the types of food we produce, and so on

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, June 30, 2013 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So unless you have a way to get China, India, etc. on board - which I figure is gonna be kind of difficult, since their populations are clamoring for more energy and a better life - It's going to be difficult to reach a global reduction in carbon emissions. This is why I don't have much faith in putting all our eggs in the emissions control basket, and think we need to be prepared to deal with the effects of climate change as well.

Yeah, its going to be difficult until they do get on board, but we mustn't make the assumption that they won't or aren't interested.

Pressure from the international community, as well as having cheap and efficient fuel alternatives - which we can and will develop with the will - can fix this issue.

The problem is the climate debate itself. While this pointless argument persists, the will isn't there. It will go down as one of the stupidest discussions ever, when businesses and governments could be putting that energy (no pun intended) into developing cleaner sources of energy that don't emmit the same levels of carbon. To me its a no brainer. But I guess you have a lot of vested interested working against common sense in this case.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE