World Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Outpace Worst-Case Scenario 760
Layzej writes "The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated. A chart accompanying the study shows the breakdown by country. The new figures mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. It is a 'monster' increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past. The question now among scientists is whether the future is the IPCC's worst case scenario or something more extreme."
Phew... (Score:5, Funny)
Thank goodness that "global warming" is bullshit.
Re:Phew... (Score:5, Informative)
Note that the US, who in principle did not sign the Kyoto protocol, actually reduced emissions significantly (not just reduction in growth, but actual reduction) since 2007 due to the economic recession.
So, we don't want to reduce carbon emissions because it will hurt our economy - but hurt the economy and emissions automatically reduce. Sounds like a vicious cycle that needs a technological exit strategy to me.
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that the US, who in principle did not sign the Kyoto protocol, actually reduced emissions significantly (not just reduction in growth, but actual reduction) since 2007 due to the economic recession.
So, we don't want to reduce carbon emissions because it will hurt our economy - but hurt the economy and emissions automatically reduce. Sounds like a vicious cycle that needs a technological exit strategy to me.
But that reduction you have there is production somewhere where there are no emission controls. And likely, no economy either.
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that the US, who in principle did not sign the Kyoto protocol, actually reduced emissions significantly (not just reduction in growth, but actual reduction) since 2007 due to the economic recession.
So, we don't want to reduce carbon emissions because it will hurt our economy - but hurt the economy and emissions automatically reduce. Sounds like a vicious cycle that needs a technological exit strategy to me.
I already know what will happen. Policy measures will be introduced to barely limit emissions worldwide. Eventually this will become a looming problem, and a reasonably sized international body will decide that we will use active measures to counteract the climate change problems.
Nobody wants to cut back on emissions in any meaningful way because it will mean literal death for large numbers of people unable to be supported by non-oil-based agricultural methods, and it will also mean a reduction in the standard of living for everyone else. You know as well as I do that we won't do anything until the last minute, which will be active climate measures.
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that the US, who in principle did not sign the Kyoto protocol, actually reduced emissions significantly (not just reduction in growth, but actual reduction) since 2007 due to the economic recession.
So, we don't want to reduce carbon emissions because it will hurt our economy - but hurt the economy and emissions automatically reduce. Sounds like a vicious cycle that needs a technological exit strategy to me.
I already know what will happen. Policy measures will be introduced to barely limit emissions worldwide. Eventually this will become a looming problem, and a reasonably sized international body will decide that we will use active measures to counteract the climate change problems.
Nobody wants to cut back on emissions in any meaningful way because it will mean literal death for large numbers of people unable to be supported by non-oil-based agricultural methods, and it will also mean a reduction in the standard of living for everyone else. You know as well as I do that we won't do anything until the last minute, which will be active climate measures.
If we have really reached peak oil, then the cost of oil may fix the problem all by itself... now, we just need to stop digging all the coal from the ground, methane from the deep shale, and other sequestered carbon that could be replaced by nuclear, solar, wind, hamsters on wheels, and all that other green jazz.
Re:Phew... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Insightful)
That feels far safer, indeed. :P
Re: (Score:3)
it could be replaced by nuclear, solar, wind, hamsters on wheels, and all that other green jazz.
I look forward to the day we can all start complaining about how patents to would-be miracle inventions are being bought up and squirreled away by Big Hamster.
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, because simple neo-liberal economics *always* works when once-in-a-century events happen. If the market was really free, OPEC members would be allowed to massively cut production to keep oil in the ground (and would be run by long-term thinkers, not populists trying to please the both US overlords, and the mobs with AKs).
The danger is, there can be a long lead time on "nuclear, solar, wind, hamsters on wheels, and all that other green jazz". Trying to change the whole world's fuel source in a short time period could be catastrophic. Maybe not for everyone, but if energy prices double then food prices in poor countries will go through the roof.
People *are* looking into alternatives, but there's no serious funding. Everyone knows that the groundbreaking discoveries will go down in the history books, but not make a mint. Someone will then copy the technology, sidestep IP rights (through work-arounds, or lawyering, or some emergency degree annulling energy patents), find a way to make it 1/2 the price, and roll it out everywhere.
There's no point doing research, if commercial applications won't be there for decades. The patents will expire, and the technological advantage will fade. Industry needs price signals, which are being suppressed by governments who want to burn up as much of our finite resources as possible before they have to run for re-election.
Re: (Score:3)
Batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
Show me nuclear, wind, hamsters,. etc. that will power a car down the road...
You may have missed the stories of electric cars .... the whole point of which is to consume nuclear, wind, ... energy.
Similarly the move to trains all across Europe - specifically Electrc trains.
Re: (Score:3)
Expand the petroleum infrastructure: In the US (and Europe) car ownership per capita peaked in 2004. Absolute car numbers have been in decline since 2008 in the US. Not only can you move away from the car, its already happening.
Plan for it. Zone so that town and city centers are dense enough to undo the need for most car journeys. This has been happening in (parts of ) Europe for decades now.
Do public investment for the trains. Train systems pay off over decades, which is far too long for private investment
Re:Phew... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm driving to Las Vegas from Virginia in March, and there are no electric cars that will do that in the timeframe my WRX will.
Waaaa. Waaaa. I'm entitled to luxuries that no one in the entire history of humanity had outside of the last 70 years. Waaaa.
The reality is our lifestyles are going to radically change over the next few decades. You might not like it, but, the physical realities of oil production and vehicle design being what they are, you'll just have to suck it up.
More trains over land, more ship travel over sea, less personal automotive and passenger flight. That's the reality we're heading towards. Get over yourself.
Re:Phew... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There must be a way to obtain carbon offset credits by using nuclear explosives to propel dust into the upper atmosphere and cause global cooling...
Re:Phew... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody wants to cut back on emissions in any meaningful way because it will mean literal death for large numbers of people unable to be supported by non-oil-based agricultural methods
Your argument displays at least two logical fallacies. Firstly you imply that reductions in carbon emissions must necessarily involve an abandonment of fossil fuel use in agriculture. Emissions can be substantially reduced by living closer to where we work, by using more efficient transportation, and by designing our buildings more efficiently. This is an example of an all or nothing fallacy. Secondly, you implicitly misrepresent the views of more reasonable environmentalists, which is the strawman fallacy.
Re:Phew... (Score:5, Insightful)
He also misrepresents the entire process of modern agriculture - namely, none of the inputs are implicitly dependent on the active production of more CO2. All of them could be done more efficiently, or utilizing alternative power sources. Of course, he's also not covering the rather considerable issue that high-energy-driven intensive farming is doing a lot of long term damage to arable lands all over the world, and actively reducing their productive capacity. Changes to more sustainable farming methods would reduce the dependence of fertilizers and follow effects on marine ecosystems from run-off.
But there's no sense letting any of that get in the way of trying to co-opt global hunger as a perverse argument *against* doing anything about climate change.
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Insightful)
No worries, a good chunk of that land won't be arable once the climate shift really gets going!
Container ships (Score:3)
Just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
Making more of an effort to produce items more locally is sort of the same as "living closer to where we work", but it has benefits far beyond a shorter commute. Additionally, where most of us live we probably have stricter environment
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody wants to cut back on emissions in any meaningful way because it will mean literal death for large numbers of people unable to be supported by non-oil-based agricultural methods, and it will also mean a reduction in the standard of living for everyone else.
That is bullshit. Insulating your house increases your living standard and reduces costs (less heating/cooling required). How does that "kill" the economy? It should even allow for cheaper oil (less demand). If you can save money and get better comfort, how is this bad?
Look at BMW and Mercedes. You think they compromised on power or comfort with their new line of fuel efficient cars? When you don't lose as much time at the gas station and reduce toxins how is this bad?
Household appliances use less power. This means I can now use both the washer and dryer simultaneously on the same circuit without losing the circuit breaker. When you can do more with less. How is this bad?
CPUs and other electronics use less power for the same amount of processing capacity in each generation. Higher efficiency means longer battery life, smaller/lighter components as less cooling is required, ...
You think we would have smartphones and iPads if components were as energy efficient as they were in the 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? 2000s (P4 anyone?)? When you can have things which could not exist before, how is this bad?
I am not saying this is true for all branches of the economy, but get your head out of the sand.
Recycling (= renewable resources) is an increasing branch in our economy and we could no longer live without as we simply do not have access to cheap resources and the same will be true for energy.
A lot of our devices and habits are VERY inefficient. Every house wastes energy for generating heat (heating, cooking) and cooling (airco, fridge) at the same time. Increasing the efficiency means cutting back on costs and emissions while standards of living increases for everyone. Did you hear about passive houses? They use residual heat from appliances to heat the house.
How great would it be if each building was self sufficient and would have "the grid" only as a fall-back option? How cool would it be if you could drive to the store on the cooking grease of the previous meal? How much better would it be if you did not need to drive to work at all (work from home)?
We are now using resources which took millions of years to form. You think we can keep this pace for another 500 years? 300 years? 100 years (this may be in the lifetime of my daughter which is 3 years old now)? 50 years (this may still be in my lifetime)? Who are we to use up all the resources for our enjoyment now and leave nothing for future generations? Our current habits are UNSUSTAINABLE and HAVE to change.
Either we make changes ourselves or something cataclysmic will happen before 2150. We are at a crossroad between the responsible and the irresponsible way. Changing habits (responsible) takes effort but could preserve prosperity. The irresponsible road leads to destruction.
You remember the days when we had acid rain?
You remember the days when the hole in the ozone layer was growing?
You remember the days when nuclear waste was dumped in the oceans?
Economies and standards of living today dependent too much on cheap energy and cheap credit. Both will crumble eventually. Better prepare yourself or get wiped out and as we saw with the credit crunch (credit went away briefly), it can happen VERY fast and incur irreparable damage.
Energy efficiency (aka reduction in emissions) is essential to our way of life (short term < 70 years) and even survival (long term > 300 years).
Re: (Score:3)
> large numbers of people unable to be supported by non-oil-based agricultural methods
Looking over the numbers, this does not appear to be an issue.
The practical way to fix problems is to start with the biggest ones. The biggest ones in this case, as clearly shown on the graph, are "liquid" and "solid", namely fuels for transport and coal for electricity. Both of these are solvable, now. Unfortunately the solution to the first, PEH's and hybrid semis, *may* require more base load depending on where you l
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody wants to cut back on emissions in any meaningful way ...
In Denmark, we do. I think it's the same for several other European countries. Denmark supported wind power way back and as a result have the world's largest wind turbine company [wikipedia.org] despite a population of only 5.5 mio. As I gather, their percent-wise market share has been dwindling over the last years, perhaps because the former government (2001-2011) killed most of publicly-supported home-market initiative out of what was probably ideological (libertarian) reasons.
EU has a goal of 30% of the energy usage from renewable sources in 2020 I think.
Re: (Score:3)
At the rate the cost of solar photovoltaic cells are dropping it will soon be cheapest way to produce electricity. Then all we need is a way to store enough energy to get us through the intermittent nature of solar power.
Re: (Score:3)
Grid-scale storage will be very helpful, yes, but super-conducting very-long-distance transmission could also be used (if it can be developed), to shunt power from sunny to cloudy or dark regions of a (super) continent or from windy to calm regions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm probably what you would call one of "these global warming religion people." I and the people I "worship" with know that it's going to take 20-30-40 years to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. It's going to take that long just to replace all of that fossil fuel infrastructure. Anyone with a lick of sense can figure that out. The point is to get serious about it. You should do a little research on leading edge battery research.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Phew... (Score:5, Informative)
Note that the US, who in principle did not sign the Kyoto protocol, actually reduced emissions significantly (not just reduction in growth, but actual reduction) since 2007 due to the economic recession.
So, we don't want to reduce carbon emissions because it will hurt our economy - but hurt the economy and emissions automatically reduce. Sounds like a vicious cycle that needs a technological exit strategy to me.
Either you are wrong or the article's graph [planet3.org] sourced from the US department of energy is. It shows no significant reduction, only a slight dip before a continued upward trend.
Re: (Score:3)
These reactors are not "forbidden by the government". They are only theoretical designs and not expected to be ready for construction until at least 2030. If anyone can overcome the hurdles of cost, design of new technology, safety, etc., the government will license it for use. The problem is that no one wants to make the large investment in new nuclear technology when the old technology is so problematic and the payback so uncertain.
O
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe if the US stopped propping up the oil industry worldwide. At the moment,
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Insightful)
I read an article in Science about how many tree species are not adapting to AGW-driven changes and how much forest land is going to become savannah or desert way ahead of previous predictions
I don't know what tree species that was referring to, but an increase in temperature doesn't necessarily lead to desertification. People in temperate zones (especially those in Cs climates, which are rare outside California and southern Europe) may associate 'hot weather' with 'dry', but in the tropics, summer tends to be the rain season. During the exceptionally warm 90's and early 2000's, the deserts actually receded in Northern Africa. Now after a cooler than usual summer, drought is causing crops to fail again.
By very far the major reason for the disappearance of forest land is the growing population cutting or burning it down to make farm land.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I recall, it wasn't just the increase in temperature, but the drought and insect infestations that the higher temperatures bring that was causing certain species, specifically types of pines and poplars. Now, other species are replacing some of the ones that are not doing so well, but there's also a lot of areas that are becoming grassland or desert sooner than expected
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Informative)
From what I recall, it wasn't just the increase in temperature, but the drought and insect infestations that the higher temperatures bring that was causing certain species, specifically types of pines and poplars. Now, other species are replacing some of the ones that are not doing so well, but there's also a lot of areas that are becoming grassland or desert sooner than expected.
In what part of the world? In North America pines are dying of a pest accidentally introduced from the old world. Something similar happened or is happening to chestnuts, elms and a number of other tree species and families. This is related to the columbian exchange, not to climate change.
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Interesting)
Put a price on carbon including the carbon that goes into producing and delivering imports. Then the high carbon/low regulation producers don't have an advantage over domestic producers.
Re:Phew... (Score:5, Insightful)
China surpassed US both in absolute amount and in relative amount, by the way.
What do you mean by relative amount? That graph shows China 15-20% above US. China has a population ~4.3 times the size of the US. Relatively speaking, that puts the US at about 360% of China's CO2 production.
THATS IT! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm leaving ...
Actual data here (Score:3, Informative)
Here's actual data for CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
What some people don't get (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that scientists, on average, are not crazed alarmists. They work in a field full of cut-throat peer review where the one who truly, verifiably disproves the most long-standing stuff gets the recognition and the spoils. Their language is conservative, a wide range of speculation must be admitted for consideration but they're going to err on the side of caution.
There's nothing in nature short of a major mass extinction event to match what we're creating. I can't fathom why anyone's having kids. The kids we have already are truly screwed.
Re:What some people don't get (Score:5, Funny)
Is that scientists, on average, are not crazed alarmists. They work in a field full of cut-throat peer review where the one who truly, verifiably disproves the most long-standing stuff gets the recognition and the spoils. Their language is conservative, a wide range of speculation must be admitted for consideration but they're going to err on the side of caution.
There's nothing in nature short of a major mass extinction event to match what we're creating. I can't fathom why anyone's having kids. The kids we have already are truly screwed.
I'm guessing you're no scientist.
There is one human extinction scenario (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently it's also explained in detail in Peter Ward's Under a Green Sky [energyskeptic.com].
Re:What some people don't get (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in science, and this is something of a misconception. Cut-throat peer review is anything but exempt from personal politics, as are those who dole out grants, etc. The livelihood of scientists is entirely dependent upon outside money that is often there in hopes that the scientists in question provide a specific answer. And yes, I am certain that global warming falls entirely within this domain. I have yet to meet a well funded scientist that is looking at the data the other way. If at this point you're thinking that it's bad science to be only looking at a problem from one side, you are correct. It's just that sometimes looking from that other side is a poor career choice.
Re:What some people don't get (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't fathom why anyone's having kids.
Because we value life and intelligence, and if some of us don't have kids, there will be no more human life?
The thought that intelligent, responsible people should know better than to reproduce implies that only unintelligent, irresponsible people should create the next generation. That's not exactly a recipe for success.
There have always crisis in history, wars, famines, plagues, collapses of empires, but people continue on.
A population collapse would add to the problems. The fact that some parts of the world are having more than enough kids doesn't offset the problem in more developed parts of the world. The US, as an example, would have a declining population without immigration. A wealthy, educated population can incorporate poor, uneducated immigrants, but can't well replace itself that way entirely.
Yes, its kind of crazy that it took hundreds of millions of years for oil to accumulate in the earth, and people are set on burning it in a couple of hundred. A foolishness that people will suffer for, and unfortunately the people who suffer the most won't be the ones who contributed the most to the problem. But how rational is the thought that we should all just throw up our hands and commit suicide?
Yes humanity is screwed up, and there's no excuse for it, to the extent that we're intelligent to know better. But if you think that humanity invented selfishness and misery, perhaps you should get out and study nature more.
Re:What some people don't get (Score:4, Informative)
You misunderstand. I feel it's an obligation to hand the world to our children at least as good as we found it, and presently, we're failing abysmally. No really, how can you have a child knowing full well you'd have to explain to them why your generation ran their world off the edge with the foot literally on the gas?
Re:What some people don't get (Score:4, Informative)
Another guy who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is chaotic in nature but it varies within a range. For instance the highest temperature ever recorded on the Earth was 134 F in Death Valley and the lowest was -128.6 F at Vostok Station. Those records may be broken sometime but not likely by much. Climate defines the range that weather is chaotic in. If the climate shifts the range for the weather shifts right along with it.
It's Chtorr! (Score:3)
They are chtorrforming our planet to make it more suitable for their form of life!
And it will continue to do so (Score:4, Informative)
If America was smart, we would drop the cap-n-trade and put a tax on ALL GOODS based on where the final assembly and the primary sub component come from. In addition, it would be done as a percentage based on CO2 emissions per sq km. That way, it can be easily checked from the sky via sat. In addition, by doing it this way, it discourages nations from allowing high growth rates, as well as does not punish the vast majority of 3rd world nations.
Best of all, it tells EVERY NATION that they must partake. If they emit a load of CO2 per sq km, then they will have a tax put on their goods. If the lower it, and then later when succesful (see China), then they will have a larger tax put on them. This has a nice feedback to prevent successful nations from skipping the CO2 controls.
In addition, this same approach should be used for pollution controls. One nation in particular emits more than 1/2 of all mercury that man has ever emitted. That has to be stopped.
Its one of them 'Nash Equilibrium' thingies. (Score:3)
The influence of the US is bound to the strength of its economy, the strength of its economy is bound (currently) to its use of fossil fuels. So if the US acts preemptively, it loses its power to influence others to do the same, it drives up costs for itself while driving down fossil fuel costs for others, so their economy and thus influence increases. Yet, if (in the terms of A Beautiful Mind) "If everybody goes for the blond, nobody gets laid", which is to say if consumption can't be curbed, everybody is
Re: (Score:3)
Now, as to forcing all nations to participate, again, you are wrong. In particular, China, Russia, Brazil, India, etc. depend heavily on exports esp. to the wes
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming the chart in TFA [planet3.org] is accurate (admittedly from the US DOE), doesn't this refute the EU stance on the Kyoto Protocol, and validate the U.S. stance that any meaningful reduction treaty had to include developing nations? Looking at those lines, it seems even if Kyoto had been ratified by everyone and everyone had hit their 1990-level reduction targets, it wo
We are so fucked (Score:3, Interesting)
I can say that on Slashdot can't I? I mean I may (will?) be modded down because of my content but swearing isn't automatically penalized right?
Anyway, years ago my brother gave me Michael Chrichton's anti-global warming book to show me what HE (and my brother) thought about global warming. I didn't get into a big argument because I (unfortunately) knew that the effects would be visible in our lifetime. And if I was wrong, I'd be more than happy to buy a new SUX 6000 with 9mpg (except that would mean I'm buying oil from countries that finance terrorism and hate our guts; but that's another story).
So now it appears as if we really are headed to disaster; if global warming was a myth then how come the projections keep getting WORSE not better? If it was all a short term blip or fabrication we should be seeing things going back to normal shouldn't we?
Of course not, because man-made global warming is real. So i expect the Republicans amongst us will change:
Global Warming isn't real - TO - Man Made Global Warming isn't real. -THEN - There isn't anything we can do about it anyway
which will go along with:
Evolution is just a theory (against 95% of biologists) - AND - The constitution really doesnt state the separation of Church and Govt. (against 99% of historians) - TO - Stimulus spending doesn't boost the GDP (against 85% of economists.)*
When did the Republican party become the party of ignorance? Why do people like Rupert Murdoch keep at it even when someone like Steve Jobs (I know, I know) warns him to be mindful of his legacy? I mean when future generations look back upon what this group of people did to our country and planet, you've got to wonder what they're going to write in the history books. Do they not care?
So yes, we are so fucked
*By the way, do Republicans believe that vaccines cause autism?
Global Warming is not a Threat (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess, with that attitude, there wouldn't be anything that would qualify as a threat.
Re:Yeah uh... (Score:4, Informative)
Then I exhale.
Hypocapnia means 'not enough CO2' (Score:3)
Hypocapnia [wikipedia.org] is when you don't have enough CO2 in your blood.
I have a bookmark for a .co.uk medical gas supplier on another computer. They have PDFs of their products' Material Safety Data Sheets. As I recally, they have Oxygen, Oxygen +5% CO2, Plain Air + 5% CO2, straight CO2 (for anesthesia [anesthesia-analgesia.org]), etc.
But I did find a printout of this page: Hyperoxia-Induced Hypocapnia [nih.gov]. The practical implication of this piece is that every old person who has been prescribed oxygen by their doctor is also being poisoned. This cre
Re:Hypocapnia means 'not enough CO2' (Score:5, Informative)
The practical implication of this piece is that every old person who has been prescribed oxygen by their doctor is also being poisoned.
Since I'm a doctor I just had to chime in. Physicians are well aware of the toxicity of oxygen. Usually a young person can handle 100% pure oxygen with no problems for up to 24 hours, but after 24 hours the damage from free radicals starts, and it doesn't take much more than 24 hours before even a healthy person dies - ironically from asphyxiation - while breathing 100% oxygen.
In the elderly it's a different story. Most elderly have a certain amount of lung damage - especially ex-smokers with COPD. While they have learned to live with this damage and their bodies have compensated (CO2 dissolves in blood to form bicarbonate, and not only the lung can dissipate CO2 but also the kidney can get rid of excess bicarbonate, making another CO2 "sink") for their poor lung function. As part of this compensation, the breathing regulatory mechanism is altered. There are two basic stimuli that tell the brain it's time to draw another breath - one receptor measures blood CO2 and another measures blood O2. The CO2 receptor is the most sensitive one and normal people are using this receptor all the time to work out when it's time to take the next breath. However in the elderly or other people with chronic lung problems, these people have gotten accustomed to high CO2 levels. The CO2 receptor no longer works - it's suppressed by the brain to prevent hyperventilation. So these people are dependent on the O2 receptor to tell them when O2 levels are getting low - then it's time to take another breath.
What happens when you put one of these people on 100% oxygen is that the O2 receptor never fires because there is plenty of oxygen dissolved in the blood all the time, so they never get the signal to take another breath and they simply stop breathing. At this point CO2 levels build up to toxic levels faster than the O2 levels deplete because CO2 was almost at toxic levels anyway, and they go into a coma and die - suddenly and quietly. This is why a doctor always has to be careful when there are inexperienced nurses near elderly patients. A well intentioned nurse who sees an old man struggling for breath is likely to turn up the oxygen flow to "help him out", and in fact she ends up killing him. True story - and it has happened even in my hospital.
Re:Medical Gas Data Sheets for CO2 (Score:4, Informative)
If you are breathing supplemental oxygen for medical purposes you aren't breathing pure oxygen. Lifetime smoker types who need a bit more oxygen than available in garden variety air (aprox 20% O2) are given nasal cannula (prongs) that add 4 - 8% more oxygen for a whopping total of less than 30%. Plenty of room for CO2 to be 'blended in' by room air.
There are conditions where even relatively low concentrations of added oxygen are problematic, that's what your link talks about it. It isn't true of everyone, basically people with smoking induced lung damage.
Just pulling out citations from the literature without understanding them doesn't get you far.
Re: (Score:3)
"The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated.
No other pollutant is being discussed.
Oh god dammit. CO2 = released by burning shit (imagine a coal-fired electrical power plant). Some other pollutants with more immediate health effects = also released by burning shit. GP was asking why focus on just one. That no other pollutant was being discussed was precisely what he was questioning and it's foolish to point it out as if he didn't realize it.
Now I could answer that question in a variety of ways, such as pointing out that studying just this one thing in isolation (levels of CO2 vs. p
Re: (Score:3)
Allegedly? There are quite fisherman out of work because of of the algae blooms they cause. What's great for some parts of nature is very bad for other parts. How about we just agree to classify pollutants in economics terms: Any emission which creates a negative externality for another person is a pollutant. If someone ELSE has to bare the cost for YOUR actions, then you are polluting.
Your raw sewage leaks into the river, lowering downstream property values? Well you just polluted there, buddy.
Fisherman
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:4, Informative)
The models indicate there is supposed to be a lag. But so far for previous rises the heat did show up.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually that's not necessarily true. I don't know whether you remember your introductory differential equations class where you did basic modeling, but essentially a model starts with a few observations being converted into hypothesis. Not all facits of a model are explicitly known prior to generating the result data.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Insightful)
They were all talking about differential equations, just some of you don't know it. Global circulation models are a collection of coupled atmosphere, ocean, etc models. Each of these models contain a core set of differential equations, which are either discretized to be integrated forward in time in physical space, or decomposed into spectral space, which has certain benefits for non-linear terms in the Navier-Stokes equation. There are a number of parameterizations to handle sub grid-scale processes so their effects taken into account at the resolved grid scale*. In essence you have a bunch of differential equations and a closure to give yourself a closed system for each component of the GCM, which you then use to force other components, and you integrate it all forward in time.
And the gp was right about observations. If you recall your ODE/PDE class, you'll be interested to know this is a boundary-value problem and you need to specify initial and boundary conditions. Initial conditions are your observations, or whatever your assumptions about the current state are. Often the GCM models are initialized in the year 1800 or 1900, giving them 100+ years of simulation time to equilibrate and match known observations before they are really forecasting the future. As for boundary conditions, the model is global, so the boundaries wrap around and you dont need to worry about them.
* An example of this is convection. When moist air rises and condensation occurs (to form cloud drops, rain, ice, etc), energy is released into the surrounding system (enthalpy of vaporization, deposition, fusion, etc). This translates into warming of the surrounding air, and helps drive convection and represents a transport of warming from the surface to the middle and upper atmosphere. The condensation process happens on a much smaller scale than a GCM can resolve, so the equations being integrated cannot represent this process. The process does however have an effect on temperature at the resolved scale. To handle this, parameterizations are employed that make certain assumptions about these processes and then make adjustments to the resolved scale. It would be better to just resolve these effects directly, but when you try to work at the molecular scale globally, realtime moves faster than the model does.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:4, Interesting)
You are correct that i am simplifying the matter. In truth, the east/west boundaries would be considered periodic, so that essentially the grid points on opposite edges of the domain are actually the same point. The north/south boundary gets interesting :). For spectral models, which require periodicity in the wave solution, the 'wraparound' zonally provides this, guaranteeing periodicity around a latitude circle. My personal modeling experience is cloud scale and regional modeling (CM1 and WRF, primarily), so I dont deal with global grids in physical or spectral space, or climate models for that matter.
Also there is still a need for upper and lower BC's, which in a very simple model might employ a no slip condition on the bottom and a radiative boundary at the top with a sponge layer to minimize energy reflecting off the top. Tthe lower boundaries will also have forcings from ocean and vegetation models/parameterizations (for moisture fluxes, sensible heat fluxes, roughness lengths, albedo, etc).
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The people creating those models can be biased in their beliefs and in analysis of the data the models are based on."
It's biased by things like the heat capacity of the ocean, for example.
"The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were /programmed/ to /assume/ that there will be lag, that's how computer models work."
The models are not arbitrary statistical models, they are models of known physics and observed facts of the world.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Informative)
> The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were /programmed/ to /assume/ that there will be lag
What the models are programmed with are basic PDE's describing what we know about fluid motion, thermodynamics, mass continuity, etc. In this case there will also be code modeling the known interactions of the CO2 molecule with solar and terrestrial radiation. What the programmers are assuming (not programmers really, but the guys running the model) is how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. The model equations will handle how a number concentration of CO2 ends up being a warming (radiative transfer would be a good class to have had for this), and the rest of your equation set will move that warming around the system.
You should download some model code (lots of it is open source!) and look at it sometime. Convince yourself its just an iterative march to grind on some PDE's and not a collection of "if CO2, wait 2 years, then T+=4K" type things.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Funny)
Look pal, pseudo-skepticism only works if you blindly repeat Heartland Institute talking points. There is absolutely no room for actually knowing a fucking thing about AGW.
Now get back in your Ferrari, you cock-smoking teabagging super-rich scientist with your big house and your ten 18 year old girlfriends and your seven digit bank account, and leave those poor wittle oil companies alone.
Fucking climatological bully.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry but that is wrong. From the 2001 AR3 report [grida.no], specifically WG1 Chapter 9: Projections of Future Climate Change. [grida.no] "The temperature change for the 30-year average 2021 to 2050 compared with 1961 to 1990 is +1.3C with a range of +0.8 to +1.7C...". That is a far cry from 2.5 degrees (C or F?) in 2010-2015.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Funny)
Last summer some dolt tried to convince me it was 40C outside. I pointed to my drink, which was sitting on the table at a lovely 4C, as evidence it couldn't be that warm, or my drink would be warm too. He got all huffy and mumbled about ice-cubes moderating the temperature, but it was obvious he was just making that shit up.
I finished my drink 5 minutes later, and it was cool and refreshing to the last drop.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you're actually [guardian.co.uk] that [usatoday.com] fucking [wikipedia.org] ignorant [climatecentral.org].
Likewise, climate models are designed to simulate the physics [realclimate.org]of the global ecosystem, and not just perform statistical regressions.
Perhaps next time you might consider having the slightest fucking clue of what you're talking about before joining a discussion with adults?
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Informative)
Currently 1998 is the hottest year on record. Two combined land and sea surface temperature records from Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) both calculate that the first six months of 2010 were the hottest on record. According to GISS, four of the six months also individually showed record highs.
At the time the article was written, the first six months of 2010 were hotter than the corresponding months in 1998. Unfortunately that trend continued, and this year NOAA announced that 2010 had tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record. (2005 was hotter than 1998; the guardian got that fact wrong).
Source: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html [noaa.gov]
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like you're in a discussion related to the climate. Would you like help?
Re: (Score:3)
Appeal to authority [wikipedia.org] works in the other direction too, you know. Especially when the source in question was just reporting on the release [sciencedaily.com] as [washingtonpost.com] published [usatoday.com] by [www.good.is] NASA [nasa.gov].
Yeah, whatever. NASA's just part of the leftist lamestream media, amirite?
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Informative)
> CO2 outpaces worst-case scenarios yet the heat doesn't show up.
Heat lags CO2. Just like the middle of winter is not Dec 21 and the middle of summer is not June 21.
The earth is warming up a little more each year. Please learn a little before making wrong headed statements.
Adding heat to the oceans takes a long time. Think boiling water. Adding 1 or 2 degrees to the entire oceans takes an awful lot of energy accumulation. The heat we have added so far has just started to turn over the ocean currents.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, middle of winter is probably earlier than June 21st and middle of summer is definitely after December 21st...
(What? Some of us do live below the equator!)
Re: (Score:3)
1998 is the hottest year in the CRU record. Both the GISS and NOAA records have 2010 and 2005 tied for the hottest year. Of course the CRU group is headed up by Phil Jones so how can you trust it?
A recent paper by Ben Santer et. al. found it takes at least 17 year of data to be sure the climate signal has overridden the noise of weather so you need to go back to at least1993.
Re: (Score:3)
Several more reasons why this couldn't be true:
a) Ocean acidity is increasing, which indicated CO2 is absorbed, rather than released.
b) Carbon isotopes of atmospheric CO2 indicate that there has been in increase in very old carbon, which matches the signature of carbon stored in fossil fuels.
c) Oxygen levels in the atmosphere have decreased slightly in the last century, consistent with increase CO2
Re:Models are always right! (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302199.html
Or we could just jump to convenient conclusions given a tiny dataset.
Re:Models are always right! (Score:5, Insightful)
The models are off because up until 2009/2010-ish were actually experiencing a natural cooling trend, which masked our artificial warming trend and came out as a wash. Now that the cooling trend has subsided, warming is expected to spike in the coming decade.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302199.html
Or we could just jump to convenient conclusions given a tiny dataset.
There is a warming/dry trend alternating with a cooling/wet trend every 7-10 years or so. It's called El Nino/La Nina.
No one talks about it much anymore, but my personal experiences over the last 20 years support that cycle very well. Right now we're in a La Nina phase, meaning more cool & more precipitation (hey would you look at that, unprecedented snow in October in the U.S. this year).
One thing that everyone needs to keep in mind is WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. In fact, one of the most agreed upon results of climate change is more VIOLENT weather, not merely "hotter" weather.
When the climate balance is upset, all hell breaks loose in the weather, it doesn't just "get hotter." As a result you see things like that massive snow in Washington D.C. a year or two ago, snow in Texas a year or three ago, while simultaneously having the hottest summers on record.
It's not rocket science.
Re:Models are always right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate science is considerably more complex than rocket engines, ballistics, and even the fluid dynamics of re-entry. So I guess you are correct, it's not rocket science.
Re: (Score:3)
What OP means, is that it is quite obvious that something is changing. I remember seasons being a lot more regular than they are now. And my grandparents even more so. Spring (weather) started March 21, give or take a day or two. Now, it's give or take two months, perhaps even more random in other places.
You can argue that it's natural, that it's some sort of natural cycle. Other people argue that it's god punishing us. The fact remains that the climate is changing, and therefore so is the weather, becomin
Re: (Score:3)
Well at least it's not brain surgery [youtube.com]
Re:Models are always right! (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a warming/dry trend alternating with a cooling/wet trend every 7-10 years or so. It's called El Nino/La Nina.
No one talks about it much anymore, but my personal experiences over the last 20 years support that cycle very well.
So 3 observations make it a cycle?
Sorry, you are mistaken. Neither El Nino nor El Nina are truely cycles. The used to be pretty 'random' events occuring roughly every 15 to 20 years, sometimes even more rarely. The slight temperature increase over the last 30 years however makes especially the El Nino events more common.
So global warming is causing more El Nino events than we had lets say 100 years ago and less El Nina events. Both don't realy come alternating. You can have several El Ninos in a row intermixed with "normal" phases.
Your analysis regarding violent weather versus hotter is correct. "Global warming" results in the first place in _more energy_ in the air/atmosphere, hence more wind.
Re:Models are always right! (Score:5, Informative)
CO2(ppm) Warming
340 1K
430 2K
540 3K
670 4K
840 5K
1000 6K
2000 9K
Note that there are massive error bars associated with the concentrations, and the scenarios are merely likely. It may take hundred of years to equilibrate to the new higher global average.
Source [nap.edu]
Re:Models are always right! (Score:5, Informative)
Hansen's 1988 projections used a climate sensitivity [wikipedia.org] of 4.2 C which wasn't an unreasonable value to use at the time. Current estimates put the value from 2 - 4.5 C with the value most likely around 3 C. Using a sensitivity of 3 C in Hansen's 1988 model would put his projections, particularly using Scenario B, more in line with what actually happened. At the bottom of this post [realclimate.org] they discuss Hansen's 1988 model in light of the data up to 2010 and here [realclimate.org] they give a more detailed discussion of Hansen's model specifically.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Models are always right! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Models are always right! (Score:4, Informative)
And the last 10 days actually warmed, so CO2 must not be heating the atmosphere at all! Great argument!
Your "10 years" number is actually a couple years out of date and no longer true. About 12 years ago there was one extremely hot year, so in 2009 you could use the "10 years" argument and show a flat average line. Of course, even then 12 years or 8 years would both show warming. But now here we are in 2011 and warming has continued, so the trend line for the last 10 years actually shows significant warming.
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to S (Score:5, Informative)
source:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html [noaa.gov]
What's your source on say there has been no temperature increase in the last 10 years?
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the graph of the Berkeley data you're talking about:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/berk4.jpg [wordpress.com]
Blue line is a linear interpolation of pre-1998 data.
Green line is an extrapolation of that same line.
Red line is interpolation of post-1998 data.
I don't see any evidence the trend has stopped. Do you ?
Re:You know, (Score:4, Funny)
The IPCC figured people someone would actually listen to them and start to make cuts, when they made their worst case predictions. They were wrong.
Re:You know, (Score:4, Insightful)
The scientists, even in their worst imaginings, weren't expecting the stunning level of willful ignorance of consequences, and the sheer magntitude of selfish @ssh0lishness which we collectively have displayed in our consumption increase pattern.
Also, they had to tone it down because their political masters wanted a cover-up of the scale of the problem, so the editorial committee of IPCC low-balled the severity in their reporting.
Re:Nice clear direct scientific measurements. (Score:4, Insightful)
Skeptics welcome scientific evidence. It is the obstructionist pseudoskeptics (deniers) that will never be convinced until their ulterior motive is fulfilled.
Just like you never stop spreading FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Still won't shut up skeptics.
Yes, you'd love to silence all debate, wouldn't you?
Real science welcomes skeptics, thanks for letting us know you'd rather side with a cult that brooks no disbelief, just waiting for the noodly tentacles of the Great Warming Spaghetti Monster to wrap us all in a suffocating layer of warmth.
Re:Just like you never stop spreading FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Real science welcomes skeptics
Real science welcomes scientists. Intelligence, honesty, integrity, inquisitiveness, rigour, domain knowledge, logic are among the desirable aspects of scientists in addition to and more significant than scepticism. The so called global warming "sceptics" typically don't have any of those attributes.
Define yourself by your "scepticism", and you're not a scientist, you're a fuckwit.
Re:Just like you never stop spreading FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not fall into the popular myth that all opinions (or skepticism) are equal. All opinions are not equal (nor are they facts as more American college students seem to think...)
Real scientists have work to do and don't need to be wasting our time with every asshat armchair skeptic who believes whatever propaganda and conspiracy theory they happen to be listening (passively) to.
Belief that the world's experts in a particular field of study; a "science" if you will, is not the same as believing in God or a Spaghetti Monster.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I call B*llsh*t... (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect you're a troll, but some idiots will end up agreeing with you if they ever read your post, so we'll just refute the idiocy right now.
"Volcanoes release more than humans" = wrong [skepticalscience.com]. Volcanic activity releases on average 65-319 mln tonnes/year, fossil fuels release 29 bln tonnes/year (EIA 2007).
"Humans breathe more".. well there's a ton of sites just doing the simple math, but in my lazy search I found this [wordpress.com]. It indicates human emissions via respiratory system is 1-2 bln tonnes/year. 2 / 29 = ~7% of all fossil fuel burned, so that is also not correct.
Honestly, I don't really feel like continuing anymore than this. I really hope you were a troll, and that you don't procreate.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only should they have access to the raw data, they must also have access to the way this raw data was collected.
In fact, that's not even enough. Anybody wishing to discuss this issue must personally collect all raw data themselves, using instruments they personally created. This is too important to rely on 3rd party data.
In the mean time, we must choose to err on the side of caution, and keep the party going.