Global emissions hit record levels

[Trakar]

How much is a gigaton compared to the total weight of Earth's atmosphere?

1=1
1000 = thousand
1000000 = million
1000000000 = billion
1000000000000 = trillion
1000000000000000 = quadrillion

Earth's atmosphere is approximately 5 quadrillion tons of mass. A gigaton is 1billion tons, therefore 1gigaton/5 quadrillion tons = 0.0000002.

1ppm of our atmosphere of CO2 masses essentially 2.12 Gt of Carbon (note C not CO2). There are approximately 2960 Gton of CO2 in the atmosphere currently (396ppm) about 1/4 of this volume is due to the burning of fossil fuels over the last century or so and the rate of increase is accelerating.

By way of comparison. the average human weighs about 60,000g and the lethal dose of cyanide is about 0.09g. This indicates a 1.5E^-6 ratio, or about an order of magnitude greater than the 1Gt to 5Qt ratio. Humanity adds approximately 6Gt per year to the atmosphere. If instead of CO2, we were adding cyanide to the atmosphere at the same rate, and it persisted in the atmosphere, it would only take 2 years for us to make the atmosphere of our entire planet lethal to human life.

Luckily, cyanide isn't the primary byproduct of fossil fuel combustion.

Cynaide? Because CO2 a natural byproduct of breathing and photosynthesis is now some deadly poison?

Moron.

It's matters not if you measure in Gigatons or PPM, the additional CO2 is less than a rounding error and inert.

And if it's as powerful as you allege who don't you have one single lab experiment that shows a temperature increase from a 10PPM increase in CO2?

Hmm?

I apologize, I will not make the mistake of addressing your confused rhetorical rantings with observed and established facts and mainstream scientific understandings, you are of course welcome to your delusions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1=1
1000 = thousand
1000000 = million
1000000000 = billion
1000000000000 = trillion
1000000000000000 = quadrillion

Earth's atmosphere is approximately 5 quadrillion tons of mass. A gigaton is 1billion tons, therefore 1gigaton/5 quadrillion tons = 0.0000002.

1ppm of our atmosphere of CO2 masses essentially 2.12 Gt of Carbon (note C not CO2). There are approximately 2960 Gton of CO2 in the atmosphere currently (396ppm) about 1/4 of this volume is due to the burning of fossil fuels over the last century or so and the rate of increase is accelerating.

By way of comparison. the average human weighs about 60,000g and the lethal dose of cyanide is about 0.09g. This indicates a 1.5E^-6 ratio, or about an order of magnitude greater than the 1Gt to 5Qt ratio. Humanity adds approximately 6Gt per year to the atmosphere. If instead of CO2, we were adding cyanide to the atmosphere at the same rate, and it persisted in the atmosphere, it would only take 2 years for us to make the atmosphere of our entire planet lethal to human life.

Luckily, cyanide isn't the primary byproduct of fossil fuel combustion.

Cynaide? Because CO2 a natural byproduct of breathing and photosynthesis is now some deadly poison?

Moron.

It's matters not if you measure in Gigatons or PPM, the additional CO2 is less than a rounding error and inert.

And if it's as powerful as you allege who don't you have one single lab experiment that shows a temperature increase from a 10PPM increase in CO2?

Hmm?

I apologize, I will not make the mistake of addressing your confused rhetorical rantings with observed and established facts and mainstream scientific understandings, you are of course welcome to your delusions.

LOL

You Warmers think that by expressing the amount in GIGATONS makes it far more ominous that the .0001% rounding error it is

Laughable

 

[Old Rocks]

Traker, Frankie Boy is convinced that the moon is hollow, and artificial. 'Nuff said.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global emissions hit record levels

Global CO2 emissions hit a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011. According to the International Energy Association (IEA) the new peak, which is 1Gt higher than the year before, threatens to scupper plans to prevent global warming.

The IEA has a climate change scenario which requires global CO2 emissions to reach a maximum of 32.6 Gt no later than 2017. This is necessary should we have a chance of limiting a 2°C global temperature increase needed to prevent disaster.

The ‘450 scenario’ is only 1Gt higher than last year’s emissions levels, painting a grim picture for the world’s climate ambitions.

IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol said: “The new data provide further evidence that the door to a 2°C trajectory is about to close.”...

Haven't you learned yet not to believe anything the warmists say?

They're the reason that folks say '87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.....'

PC, you are more delusional on this subject than you are on politics.

 

[Trakar]

Traker, Frankie Boy is convinced that the moon is hollow, and artificial. 'Nuff said.

Given his apparent level of scientific acumen that sounds about right.

 

[waltky]

Granny says next time Paul Revere gonna warn us `bout the British are comin' - he gonna have to do it onna jetski......

Sea rise faster on East Coast than rest of globe
24 June`12 WASHINGTON (AP) — From Cape Hatteras, N.C., to just north of Boston, sea levels are rising much faster than they are around the globe, putting one of the world's most costly coasts in danger of flooding, government researchers report.

U.S. Geological Survey scientists call the 600-mile swath a "hot spot" for climbing sea levels caused by global warming. Along the region, the Atlantic Ocean is rising at an annual rate three times to four times faster than the global average since 1990, according to the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. It's not just a faster rate, but at a faster pace, like a car on a highway "jamming on the accelerator," said the study's lead author, Asbury Sallenger Jr., an oceanographer at the agency. He looked at sea levels starting in 1950, and noticed a change beginning in 1990.

Since then, sea levels have gone up globally about 2 inches. But in Norfolk, Va., where officials are scrambling to fight more frequent flooding, sea level has jumped a total of 4.8 inches, the research showed. For Philadelphia, levels went up 3.7 inches, and in New York City, it was 2.8 inches. Climate change pushes up sea levels by melting ice sheets in Greenland and west Antarctica, and because warmer water expands. Computer models long have projected higher levels along parts of the East Coast because of changes in ocean currents from global warming, but this is the first study to show that's already happened.

By 2100, scientists and computer models estimate that sea levels globally could rise as much as 3.3 feet. The accelerated rate along the East Coast could add about 8 inches to 11 inches more, Sallenger said. "Where that kind of thing becomes important is during a storm," Sallenger said. That's when it can damage buildings and erode coastlines. On the West Coast, a National Research Council report released Friday projects an average 3-foot rise in sea level in California by the year 2100, and 2 feet in Oregon and Washington. The land mass north of the San Andreas Fault is expected to rise, offsetting the rising sea level in those two states.

The USGS study suggests the Northeast would get hit harder because of ocean currents. When the Gulf Stream and its northern extension slow down, the slope of the seas changes to balance against the slowing current. That slope then pushes up sea levels in the Northeast. It is like a see-saw effect, Sallenger theorizes. Scientists believe that with global warming, the Gulf Stream and other ocean currents are slowing and will slow further, Sallenger said. Jeff Williams, a retired USGS expert who wasn't part of the study, and Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of ocean physics at the Potsdam Institute in Germany, said the study does a good job of making the case for sea level rise acceleration.

More Sea rise faster on East Coast than rest of globe - Yahoo! News

 

[bobgnote]

Global emissions hit record levels

Global CO2 emissions hit a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011. According to the International Energy Association (IEA) the new peak, which is 1Gt higher than the year before, threatens to scupper plans to prevent global warming.

The IEA has a climate change scenario which requires global CO2 emissions to reach a maximum of 32.6 Gt no later than 2017. This is necessary should we have a chance of limiting a 2°C global temperature increase needed to prevent disaster.

The ‘450 scenario’ is only 1Gt higher than last year’s emissions levels, painting a grim picture for the world’s climate ambitions.

IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol said: “The new data provide further evidence that the door to a 2°C trajectory is about to close.”...

Haven't you learned yet not to believe anything the warmists say?

They're the reason that folks say '87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.....'

Since this is Trakar's cool thread, I won't post any gag-pix of Republican women, with their mouths open or giant corn-dogs going in and out, in and out . . .

But you know, Trakar is to his fellow Republicans, what Keanu Reeve's character, Constantine is to empty-headed zombies, in the movies. Except Trakar's zombies don't follow him, they daisy chain, with each other.

 

[flacaltenn]

Global temperatures have been flat, or slightly lowering over the past decade and a half because of manmade global warming

Climate trends aren't discernible with any real confidence in much under 30 year intervals, but even here, observable and verifiable facts over the last 15 years (1996-2011) seem to indicate otherwise.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis - Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

NOAA Global Surface Temperature Anomaly - NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies

"Global temperature evolution 1979–2010"- http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

I simply do not see this "flat" or "declining" rate of increase you seem to believe is present in the data.

I prefer to use this data prep and graph.. I'll show you reason below.. But at any rate surface temps from 12,000 sensors are rife for monkey-business..

CLEARLY -- there's an upward trend -- but not a HYSTERICAL upward acceleration seen elsewhere.. WHY? Because the USA has the best damn surface sensor fleet in the business (that's not a brag) and if warming IS GLOBAL than we ought to see it just as well here. BUT MOSTLY because when you subtract the OFFICIAL US RECORD from this well-behaved plot -- you get THIS

And to ME -- you'd really have to squirm and wiggle and dance away that ONE-TIME 0.4degC jump in the middle of the graph at 1996. I don't want to call it fraud, but gee whiz, SOMEONE is cooking the books or spoiling the secret sauce, because I DON'T BUY that.. Anyone here want to defend a whole CENTURY of warming trend occuring in 1996 -- 1998?

Furthermore -- this is the 21st century and lead warming charlatans are STILL ignoring satellite data ON PURPOSE.. The OTHER data prep I recognize as valid comes from ONE SENSOR that looks down every day from space and measures the lower Trop where there should be concommitant warming. It also doesn't show sudden hysterical discontinuities in the data prep...

All the stuff you'd expect to be there IS -- all the "mystery spikes" and hysteria isn't..

Now call me a skeptic -- but there are certain data preps that just don't have that nice new car smell. And MOST of those are the mangled surface temp preps and tree ring studies..

I'll stick with data preps cooked by folks who tell you EVERYTHING they've done to the data... Sorry if that makes my known truths "inconvienient"....

For someone who spends so much effort comparing CO2 to cynanide, I doubt you have ANYTHING of value that I need to reconsider my position...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Traker, Frankie Boy is convinced that the moon is hollow, and artificial. 'Nuff said.

There is far more real scientific evidence supporting the notion that the Moon may have either no core or a very small core than there is for the laughable supposition that 100PPM extra CO2 is acidifying the oceans, causing undersea volcanic eruptions and melting the ice caps

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Traker, Frankie Boy is convinced that the moon is hollow, and artificial. 'Nuff said.

Given his apparent level of scientific acumen that sounds about right.

I'm so hurt.

The only thing that could hurt worse would be when you Warmers post a repeatable scientific experiment that shows a 4-7 degree increase in temperature from adding a 100PPM CO2 to a control tank.

If it works as you allege, how come the lab is so so so cruel to your "theory"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember him?

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

I'm just as familiar with Dr Jones as I am with the Daily Fail's distortions and lies.

If you are willing to accept Dr. Jones' opinion on this issue, I'm perfectly willing to consider them as well, so long as we look at the words he actually said in the context of how he said them and how he clarified and expanded upon them when questioned about them.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
(though the whole interview is important for context - the specific question and initial response was

“Question: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Answer: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

Though I don't do blogs, and generally eschew youtube presentations for similar reasons, here is a youtube explanation that is (from my perspective) surprizingly cogent and well put.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag]8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' - YouTube[/ame]

From 1994 to 2009, the warming trend in the HadCRUT dataset was statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval (CI). 95% CI - is simply a commonly-used interval in scientific research (statistically identifying data that falls within two standard deviations of the mean), it is not any sort of cut and dried or intrinsic determinant. Anecdotally, the HadCRUT 1995-2009 trend was statistically significant at a 93% confidence level.

Trusting Phil Jones on experiments would be like hiring Bernie Madoff or Jon Corzine as financial Controller; he's a fake who has altered and destroyed data

I posted that just to show you how your Jesus is saying "AGW...meh...I'm not so sure"

 

[flacaltenn]

Global emissions hit record levels

Global CO2 emissions hit a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011. According to the International Energy Association (IEA) the new peak, which is 1Gt higher than the year before, threatens to scupper plans to prevent global warming.

The IEA has a climate change scenario which requires global CO2 emissions to reach a maximum of 32.6 Gt no later than 2017. This is necessary should we have a chance of limiting a 2°C global temperature increase needed to prevent disaster.

The ‘450 scenario’ is only 1Gt higher than last year’s emissions levels, painting a grim picture for the world’s climate ambitions.

IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol said: “The new data provide further evidence that the door to a 2°C trajectory is about to close.”...

Gee.. Not a single mention of the 20 nuclear reactors taken off-line in Japan as of March 2011.. Raised the Carbon content of Japan's energy sky high. Fortunately for the eco-nauts, Japan will bring them back on-line slowly.. Otherwise the eco-nauts might have to explain why they have NOTHING that would stop the destruction of the earth from CO2 if both Japan and Germany turned off their nuclear fleet..

If the earth is dying from CO2 -- I'll believe it when the warmers start asking for 120 new nuke plants. Til then --- it's a politically motivated fraud of alternatives, sustainability, global social justice and a parade of other leftist causes like the anti-nuclear crowd..

So FAR -- not ONE SINGLE warmer has cared to refute my cynical belief that y'all are bluffing...

 

[konradv]

How much is a gigaton compared to the total weight of Earth's atmosphere?

This again! Trying to count inert ingredients again, eh? Try talking to real scientists and find out what fool you're making of yourself.

 

[konradv]

If the earth is dying from CO2 -- I'll believe it when the warmers start asking for 120 new nuke plants. Til then --- it's a politically motivated fraud of alternatives, sustainability, global social justice and a parade of other leftist causes like the anti-nuclear crowd..

So FAR -- not ONE SINGLE warmer has cared to refute my cynical belief that y'all are bluffing...

Strawman alert! No one is saying the earth is dying. The earth will be just fine. The concerns are over the effect warming will have on the coasts, in agriculture and on civilization in general. It's no bluff. It's science and logic. Look into it sometime.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much is a gigaton compared to the total weight of Earth's atmosphere?

This again! Trying to count inert ingredients again, eh? Try talking to real scientists and find out what fool you're making of yourself.

Go find me a "Real scientist"

 

[tjvh]

If the earth is dying from CO2 -- I'll believe it when the warmers start asking for 120 new nuke plants. Til then --- it's a politically motivated fraud of alternatives, sustainability, global social justice and a parade of other leftist causes like the anti-nuclear crowd..

So FAR -- not ONE SINGLE warmer has cared to refute my cynical belief that y'all are bluffing...

Strawman alert! No one is saying the earth is dying. The earth will be just fine. The concerns are over the effect warming will have on the coasts, in agriculture and on civilization in general. It's no bluff. It's science and logic. Look into it sometime.

The bluff is that science can tie GW directly to something that humans do, or do not do... Look into it sometime.

 

[flacaltenn]

If the earth is dying from CO2 -- I'll believe it when the warmers start asking for 120 new nuke plants. Til then --- it's a politically motivated fraud of alternatives, sustainability, global social justice and a parade of other leftist causes like the anti-nuclear crowd..

So FAR -- not ONE SINGLE warmer has cared to refute my cynical belief that y'all are bluffing...

Strawman alert! No one is saying the earth is dying. The earth will be just fine. The concerns are over the effect warming will have on the coasts, in agriculture and on civilization in general. It's no bluff. It's science and logic. Look into it sometime.

Oh HELL man. Just answer the question.. Which is a bigger more imminent danger? Your precious AGW apocalyptic visions or nuclear power which would END man-made CO2 threats?

 

[bobgnote]

How much is a gigaton compared to the total weight of Earth's atmosphere?

This again! Trying to count inert ingredients again, eh? Try talking to real scientists and find out what fool you're making of yourself.

Go find me a "Real scientist"

I don't go over to the Crosstard Punk profile, since we both know you are too stupid to be anything but a zombie, but look at Trakar. I don't know what he claims, but I am sure he is enough of a scientist, to teach at colleges. Should we go look?

Trakar's album is titled, "AGW." It is plainly a great collection, of graphs:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/trakar-albums-agw.html

Don't get all excited and try to eat his brain, you goddamn living-dead fucktard!

If you are hungry, try munching on this: atmospheric molecules of three or more atoms contribute, to THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, or Earth would be a lot colder.

Out-gassing will cause runaway warming. Science never sleeps, Crosstard.

 

[skookerasbil]

I love this forum!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This again! Trying to count inert ingredients again, eh? Try talking to real scientists and find out what fool you're making of yourself.

Go find me a "Real scientist"

I don't go over to the Crosstard Punk profile, since we both know you are too stupid to be anything but a zombie, but look at Trakar. I don't know what he claims, but I am sure he is enough of a scientist, to teach at colleges. Should we go look?

Trakar's album is titled, "AGW." It is plainly a great collection, of graphs:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/trakar-albums-agw.html

Don't get all excited and try to eat his brain, you goddamn living-dead fucktard!

If you are hungry, try munching on this: atmospheric molecules of three or more atoms contribute, to THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, or Earth would be a lot colder.

Out-gassing will cause runaway warming. Science never sleeps, Crosstard.

Can you walk me through the "science"? Use small words

Explain how the CO2 is turning the oceans acidic