Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

It would be nice if you for once got your facts straight, ican. It is NOT a decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere, which continues to increase. It is a DROP IN THE RATE OF INCREASE. In 2007, CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 3.3%

Cicerone's statement did not allege "A DROP IN THE RATE OF INCREASE."

BUT INSTEAD ALLEGED:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I just heard on the radio returning home from the coffee shop that CO2 emissions dropped this past year by the equivalent of one year's emissions because of the world recession. They claimed it's only a drop in the bucket, because when the economy picks up again, the increase in emissions will more than make up for this "loss."

0 Replies

Which is precisely why you should always go back to original sources before you leap to erroneous "explanations" of erroneous conclusions, ican.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

25 June 2009
Global CO2 emissions: annual increase halved in 2008
Very high oil prices up to the summer of 2008, together with a worldwide financial crisis have caused a halving of the annual increase in global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from consumption of oil, coal and gas, and from cement production. Emissions increased by 1.7% in 2008, against 3.3% in 2007. Since 2002, the average annual increase was almost 4%. In addition to high oil prices and the financial crisis, the increased use of new renewable energy sources, such as biofuels for road transport and wind energy for electricity generation, had a noticeable and mitigating impact on CO2 emissions. These figures are based on preliminary estimates by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), using recently published energy data from BP (British Petroleum).

However, I agree that YOUR REFERENCE ALLEGES THE RATE OF INCREASE DECREASED BY HALF FROM 3.3% TO 1.7%.

0 Replies

Precisely. CO2 did not decline. It increased.

0 Replies

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
329
Economist Tim Curtin, a former advisor with the EU, World bank, and an Emeritus Faculty member of Australian National University, debunked the notion that global warming would have serious economic consequences. In a June 29, 2007 paper titled "The Da Vinci Code of Climate Change Economics," Curtin wrote, "This paper questions the claims of the IPCC and the Stern Review that the predicted warming climate over the next years will have serious adverse economic consequences for the poor everywhere and above all in Africa. Finally, the paper suggests that attempts to reduce carbon emissions by systems of caps and trades are unlikely to produce any net reductions in emissions." Curtin explained, "With a little more inaction on the part of the government, we will with any luck escape the horrors of carbon emission trading, with its associated armies of inspectors and traders all engaged in an essentially unproductive and useless exercise - useless because when permits have been issued to all current emitters at or pro rata within their current level of emissions, the subsequent trades between emission cutters and emission increasers can only produce ZERO net reduction emissions. In sum, Nicholas Stern's quest for the da Vinci code that will save the globe may seem in retrospect as no more than another of those episodes like the persecution of the Witches of Salem that occasionally beset the most rational and well ordered societies." (LINK)

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

0 Replies

I love it, right after ican's graphs which show global temperature increasing, the a2k revenue-producing ad was from Greenpeace, with the headline "Urge President Obama to sign an international climate treaty now". You go, Greenpeace.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Oh, okay, now the ad is after my reply, since we haven't hit the bottom of the page yet. Right on, Greenpeace.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Why dont you list the asumptions and possible errors you have based that on ? Do you think all oceans everywhere are the same temperature uniformly through their depth ? Perhaps in your world ocean currents do not exist ? Oceans have no tides and no plant life ?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You like greenpeace ?? Extraordinary. A group that are quite prepared to kill someone to save ugly fat whales. A bureaucracy that is paying itself most of peoples contributions ? Oh, there are places to go, and people to see... potential murderers to put in charge of operations. Go greepeace, right to the bottom of the oceans !

0 Replies

Somebody needs to clue ican that a 150 year climate report on earth that is 4.5 billion years old has very little meaning. It misses the two ice ages, and the other high temperature ranges during the past several billions years.

0 Replies

Inventing "facts" again, Ionus? according to the Better Business Bureau, Greenpeace meets its standards for responsible charitable behavior, it spends 83% of its income on programs, 12% on fundraising, and just 5% on administrative costs, not exactly your contention that they pay themselves the bulk of the contributions. They also put their own bodies on the line to stop heinous practices--they're not trying to kill anybody. Your description of one of nature's greatest wonders as "ugly fat whales" tells us more about you, and your sadly deficient aesthetic and scientific sense than it does about Greenpeace.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I'm with you, MJ. Those big fat whales are wonders and beautiful to see out in the open oceans. We humans are notorious at the destruction of nature, and it doesn't excuse our brutality against mammals any more than it does killing other humans. Some people's sense of nature leave me cold.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack, read the whole graphs--especially the last 10 years of them!
You wrote: "right after ican's graphs which show global temperature increasing ..."
But, in the last 10 years of the graphs I posted global temperature is DECREASING!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

A 150 year record on climate on this planet that is 4.5 billion years old means nothing - whether it's increasing or decreasing. DUH!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You're always on about celebrating the 150th of Darwin's simplification thesis.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Ignorant of facts AGAIN, MJ ? Unless I believe whales are beautiful, Nazis like are you are going to....do what ? Tell me you are right ? I see beauty in my own species, I dont need to be greener than green like you. I see beauty in all of nature, I dont need to emphasise one over another. Save the whale, no no, save the tiger, no no no you are all wrong, save the cockroach.

Quote:

They also put their own bodies on the line to stop heinous practices--

So if I endanger your life I am a hero ? Now just watch you come back with the best possible spin on these criminal acts.

Quote:

they're not trying to kill anybody.

The Captain of the Rainbow Warrior is on video record saying he would kill to save a whale.
As for your statistics from the Better Business Bureau, I can buy you a report..just give me the money and influence. If you believe statistics without reading the full version then you are 85% stupid. My facts are based on individuals far greener than you who have left green peace.

What is your selfish motive in saving whales ? If you havent found a selfish motive then you either know as much about psychology as you do about the environment or are living in fear of your own dark soul. You want to improve your status amongst us, to be a hero with a cause...or you are just another mindless moron not thinking for themselves but following the crowd...baa...baaa....you dont want to save whales.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendi, The reason you are unable to comprehend science is that climate change and evolutionary theories are different specialties. Planet earth is 4.5 billion years old, but "life" studies on this planet are much younger at about 700 million years. Not only has the land mass on earth changed, but the climate changes associated with that change have also affected the life from that change.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

As water heats up, CO2 within it is released, IF AND ONLY IF THE WATER IS AT SATURATION, THAT IS, IF IIT IS HOLDING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CO2 iIT CAN HOLD AT THAT TEMPERATURE. If it is not as saturation, it is not forced to give up any CO2.

FALSE!

When CO2 in a water mixture evaporates, both the H2O and the CO2 molecules within that evaporating mixture evaporate. The water mixture of H2O and CO2 molecules does not have to be saturated with CO2 for evaporating water to release both H2O and CO2 molecules into the atmosphere. The mixtures of H2O and CO2 within the evaporated water vapor remains in the atmosphere until the water vapor precipitates, or until the CO2 separates from the water mixtures and it remains in the atmosphere, or is absorbed by plants.

Uncap a bottle of soda, reducing the pressure in the bottle eventually to room pressure, and let the temperature of the soda in the bottle increase to room temperature, and then stand at room temperature and pressure. The CO2 in the soda evaporates as the pressure in the bottle decreases to that of room pressure and its temperature increases to room temperature. However, after the pressure and temperature of the soda reach room pressure and temperature, remaining CO2 will continue to evaporate along with remaining soda as long as the soda bottle is not capped again.

Heat up the remaining soda above room temperature and the rate of evaporation of the soda and its remaining CO2 will increase, because whenever soda evaporates, any remaining CO2 with in it will also evaporate.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Heat up the remaining soda above room temperature and the rate of evaporation of the soda and its remaining CO2 will increase, because whenever soda evaporates, any remaining CO2 with in it will also evaporate.

You gotta give it to ican. Now he is arguing that soda contains liquid CO2. Laughing

2 Replies

@parados,

Now that is really a stupid twist. Soda contains gaseous CO2 in mixture with H2O. Therefore, whenever soda evaporates, any remaining CO2 with in it will also evaporate.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know