Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
WASHINGTON (AP) The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.
The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.
...
The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases.
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.
Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases - Yahoo! News
WASHINGTON (AP) The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.
The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.
...
The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases.
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.
Meanwhile, global temperatures have remained flat for the past ten years.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/30/article-2055191-0E974B4300000578-6_634x639.jpg
But we're in a solar minimum, shouldn't we be going down rather than remaining flat?
Solar minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But we're in a solar minimum, shouldn't we be going down rather than remaining flat?
Solar minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually I think we are approaching the peak of this very weak solar cycle.
But then again, there is always delay when cycles begin to change direction. It takes time for things to cool off after the initial surge of energy begins to decrease.
If you were boiling water on an electric stove, when you first begin to turn down the current on the heating coil, the water does not immediately stop boiling. The coil is still adding heat though at a diminishing rate. I think the same principle applies to the suns weakened radiance heating up the Earth.
The concern of the sun spot theorists is not that the sun is going to simply go into some straight linear decline, but that it is cycling downward in energy and that over the next few decades it will get colder and colder as has happened before in similar circumstances.
But we're in a solar minimum, shouldn't we be going down rather than remaining flat?
Solar minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually I think we are approaching the peak of this very weak solar cycle.
But then again, there is always delay when cycles begin to change direction. It takes time for things to cool off after the initial surge of energy begins to decrease.
If you were boiling water on an electric stove, when you first begin to turn down the current on the heating coil, the water does not immediately stop boiling. The coil is still adding heat though at a diminishing rate. I think the same principle applies to the suns weakened radiance heating up the Earth.
The concern of the sun spot theorists is not that the sun is going to simply go into some straight linear decline, but that it is cycling downward in energy and that over the next few decades it will get colder and colder as has happened before in similar circumstances.
Still declining you say, then we should be seeing a down trend by now, instead of flat temps. You brought them up, you explain them. According to the Wiki article the minimum was several years ago.
Actually I think we are approaching the peak of this very weak solar cycle.
But then again, there is always delay when cycles begin to change direction. It takes time for things to cool off after the initial surge of energy begins to decrease.
If you were boiling water on an electric stove, when you first begin to turn down the current on the heating coil, the water does not immediately stop boiling. The coil is still adding heat though at a diminishing rate. I think the same principle applies to the suns weakened radiance heating up the Earth.
The concern of the sun spot theorists is not that the sun is going to simply go into some straight linear decline, but that it is cycling downward in energy and that over the next few decades it will get colder and colder as has happened before in similar circumstances.
Still declining you say, then we should be seeing a down trend by now, instead of flat temps. You brought them up, you explain them. According to the Wiki article the minimum was several years ago.
I did explain it. Maybe you should try to read it again.
Still declining you say, then we should be seeing a down trend by now, instead of flat temps. You brought them up, you explain them. According to the Wiki article the minimum was several years ago.
I did explain it. Maybe you should try to read it again.
Your explanation was simply a story that doesn't necessarily hold water. How long do we have to wait to see the decline? To me the lag shows that the effect has been blunted, making AGW a likely explanation. After all, if the sun can have an effect, why not other sources? The skeptics like to say that scientists are ignoring natural cycles(a big laugh by the way), but they consistently want to ignore the effects of GHGs.
I did explain it. Maybe you should try to read it again.
Your explanation was simply a story that doesn't necessarily hold water. How long do we have to wait to see the decline? To me the lag shows that the effect has been blunted, making AGW a likely explanation. After all, if the sun can have an effect, why not other sources? The skeptics like to say that scientists are ignoring natural cycles(a big laugh by the way), but they consistently want to ignore the effects of GHGs.
The explanation does hold water, in theory, but that doesnt mean it is true, of course.
As to how long, probably over the next few years, as this cycle (25?) winds down and the sun goes dormant after an abnormally weak peak.
And other sources do have an effect, from green house gasses to the suns cyclic position in the galaxy, to wobbles on the Earths axis.
The thing that most AGW skeptics are doubting isnt that warming has been occuring up untill recently, but whether human emissions of CO2 are the primary driver of that CO2 and if that CO2 increase is what primarily is driving the higher temperatures.
I dont see enough evidence to support such a view except in a very tentative way, and ce3rtainly no where near the certitude I would think necesary to hand over tremendous power to the government and allow government bureaucrats more ability to interfere in our private lives.
CO2 is plant food and know it's poison to global whiners.
Mothernature will self correct itself regardless of our arrogant attempt to change the climate.
CO2 is plant food and know it's poison to global whiners.
Mothernature will self correct itself regardless of our arrogant attempt to change the climate.
Richard Muller, a former skeptic, does!!!
Commentary: Science trumps climate change deniers - KansasCity.com
Muller declared last week in a Wall Street Journal column and a subsequent news conference that climate change is real. The land, he said, is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s.
He also said that "we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias." That should lay to rest the common assertion by climate-change skeptics that scientists are skewing the data to promote their own careers and keep the grant money coming in.
Muller stops short of saying unequivocally that humans are largely responsible for climate change because the BEST team didn't specifically examine that issue.
However, Muller said, "It is my personal opinion that greenhouse gas emissions from humans have contributed to the observed warmings."
"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he added.
CO2 is plant food and know it's poison to global whiners.
Mothernature will self correct itself regardless of our arrogant attempt to change the climate.
Except geological evidence has indicated that these periods of climate change do indeed happen, they are regular cycles of the Earth. Of course it will correct itself, but when will humans do in the meantime? Ever been to the arctic?
CO2 is plant food, but is methane?
CO2 is plant food and know it's poison to global whiners.
Mothernature will self correct itself regardless of our arrogant attempt to change the climate.
Except geological evidence has indicated that these periods of climate change do indeed happen, they are regular cycles of the Earth. Of course it will correct itself, but when will humans do in the meantime? Ever been to the arctic?
CO2 is plant food, but is methane?
We need to look at the earth sun system and realize the magnetic activities(solar flares) on the sun have more profound effects on earth' magnetic field and more over the climate weather. Humans have little effect on our climate. The magnetic activities have more profound effects. In fact it has been trace to earthquakes here on earth to high magnetic activities on the sun. The sun is roughly 109 times the mass of the earth.
methane is from many sources for instance anhydrous(frozen due to pressure) methane is typically located on sea floor confines. It can only be release by heat.
we can't control earthquakes or other weather related systems so why do think humans can possible effect the climate when there are overwhelming evidence sun/earth system as the cause. You also have to look at other variables ie the moon is falling away from earth at 4cm/y, the Milankovitch cycles, earths pole flips, Albedo, how CO2 fusses in and out the ocean, etc
Except geological evidence has indicated that these periods of climate change do indeed happen, they are regular cycles of the Earth. Of course it will correct itself, but when will humans do in the meantime? Ever been to the arctic?
CO2 is plant food, but is methane?
We need to look at the earth sun system and realize the magnetic activities(solar flares) on the sun have more profound effects on earth' magnetic field and more over the climate weather. Humans have little effect on our climate. The magnetic activities have more profound effects. In fact it has been trace to earthquakes here on earth to high magnetic activities on the sun. The sun is roughly 109 times the mass of the earth.
methane is from many sources for instance anhydrous(frozen due to pressure) methane is typically located on sea floor confines. It can only be release by heat.
we can't control earthquakes or other weather related systems so why do think humans can possible effect the climate when there are overwhelming evidence sun/earth system as the cause. You also have to look at other variables ie the moon is falling away from earth at 4cm/y, the Milankovitch cycles, earths pole flips, Albedo, how CO2 fusses in and out the ocean, etc
So you say. The American Institute of Physics says otherwise;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Who to believe, an anonamous internet poster, or the largest organization of Physicists in the world?
Except geological evidence has indicated that these periods of climate change do indeed happen, they are regular cycles of the Earth. Of course it will correct itself, but when will humans do in the meantime? Ever been to the arctic?
CO2 is plant food, but is methane?
We need to look at the earth sun system and realize the magnetic activities(solar flares) on the sun have more profound effects on earth' magnetic field and more over the climate weather. Humans have little effect on our climate. The magnetic activities have more profound effects. In fact it has been trace to earthquakes here on earth to high magnetic activities on the sun. The sun is roughly 109 times the mass of the earth.
methane is from many sources for instance anhydrous(frozen due to pressure) methane is typically located on sea floor confines. It can only be release by heat.
we can't control earthquakes or other weather related systems so why do think humans can possible effect the climate when there are overwhelming evidence sun/earth system as the cause. You also have to look at other variables ie the moon is falling away from earth at 4cm/y, the Milankovitch cycles, earths pole flips, Albedo, how CO2 fusses in and out the ocean, etc
So you say. The American Institute of Physics says otherwise;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Who to believe, an anonamous internet poster, or the largest organization of Physicists in the world?
The nonsense that the last decade has leveled off or declined in temperature is a 'Conservative' talking point that has no basis in reality. Look at the temperatures in the chart below. Nine of the ten warmest years were in the last decade. Why bother to repeat outright easily disproven lies?
Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Year Global[44] Land[45] Ocean[46]
20 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)
Year Global Land Ocean
2005 0.6183 0.9593 0.4896
2010 0.6171 0.9642 0.4885
1998 0.5984 0.8320 0.5090
...
Hansen’s Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 – a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.
Corrections are needed, Masters says, “since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years.” As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren’t any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.
“It would be nice if we had more global stations to enable the groups to do independent estimates using completely different raw data, but we don’t have that luxury,” Masters adds. “All three groups came up with very similar global temperature trends using mostly the same raw data but independent corrections. This should give us confidence that the three groups are probably doing reasonable corrections, given that the three final data sets match pretty well.”
But NASA is somewhat less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data earlier this month.
In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.
Of course, this doesn’t solve problems with NASA’s data, as the newest paper admits: “Much higher resolution would be needed to check for local problems with the placement of thermometers relative to possible building obstructions,” a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that “90 percent of them don’t meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the ’100-foot rule’ for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we’ve got documentation.”
This graph represents the unmodified temperatures summarized by NASA by rural verses urban categories. (The gray lines represent the statistical error for the temperatures, while the red and black lines represent a 5-year running average. Notice that the rural data set (red, top graph) does not show much warming for the past 120 years, while the urban data set (black, lower graph) shows a steep, continuous increase in temperature. Over the period it increased by 2.5 degrees. The rural data set, on the other hand, shows very little warming in the last half of the twentieth century and has even declined slightly.
When the two data sets are combined (black, upper graph), the entire US data set still shows a significant increase in temperature for the period. This increase in temperature has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with changes in land use.
