Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990

[Liability]

"They said if I pretended to be stranded and 'look desperate' they was a baby seal in it for me. Am I proud of my part in the AGW hoax? No. What can I say, I have a weakness for baby seals"

My dog will sometimes try to hump a leg or even a towel. ******* weird dog.

But I bet my doggie wouldn't try to hump a lump of ice like that porno bear.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Steep increase in global CO2 emissions despite reductions by industrialised countries - PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main cause of global warming – increased by 45% between 1990 and 2010, and reached an all-time high of 33 billion tonnes in 2010. Increased efficiency, nuclear energy and the growing contribution of renewable energy are not compensating for the worldwide increase in demand for power and transport, which is strongest in developing countries.

This increase took place despite emission reductions in industrialised countries during the same period. Even though different countries show widely variable emission trends, industrialised countries are likely to meet their collective Kyoto target of a 5.2% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 as a group, partly thanks to large emission reductions from economies in transition in the early nineties and more recent reductions due to the 2008-2009 recession. However, their share of global emissions has fallen from about two-thirds in 1990 to less than half in 2010.

Went to the official page to get the real information. 33 billion tons as of 2010, which is a good amount higher then 30.4 reported in June.

 

[Old Rocks]

The rapid upward trend in GHG emission will continue until there are sufficient catastrophes to convince even these knotheads that we have created a horrendous mess. Kind of like a drunk having to loose his job, home, and family before he admits that there is an error.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The rapid upward trend in GHG emission will continue until there are sufficient catastrophes to convince even these knotheads that we have created a horrendous mess. Kind of like a drunk having to loose his job, home, and family before he admits that there is an error.

Most will go to the gates of hell before they admit it. I'd get ready to ride this sucker out...Get ready for 4-5c of warming.

Not even 30 inches of rain in 24 hours pouring down on there town or city will wake them up.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, not even the Missouri and Mississippi in flood from March to September seems to impress them. Going to be interesting times for our grandchildren.

 

[code1211]

The rapid upward trend in GHG emission will continue until there are sufficient catastrophes to convince even these knotheads that we have created a horrendous mess. Kind of like a drunk having to loose his job, home, and family before he admits that there is an error.

Most will go to the gates of hell before they admit it. I'd get ready to ride this sucker out...Get ready for 4-5c of warming.

Not even 30 inches of rain in 24 hours pouring down on there town or city will wake them up.

4 to 5 degrees?

Over what period of time?

 

[Old Rocks]

According to the researchers at both MIT and the Royal Society, quite possibly before 2100.

 

[Old Rocks]

World Could Heat Up 4 Degrees C In 50 Years - Science News

Table of Contents

AMS Journals Online - Probabilistic Forecast for Twenty-First-Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (Without Policy) and Climate Parameters

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model’s first projections were published in 2003, substantial improvements have been made to the model, and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections; for example, the median surface warming in 2091–2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the twentieth century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting gross domestic product (GDP) growth, which eliminated many low-emission scenarios.

However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger twentieth-century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warming at the end of the twenty-first century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless, all ensembles of the simulations discussed here produce a much smaller probability of warming less than 2.4°C than implied by the lower bound of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to the median projection in this study. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by this analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC because of a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from the inclusion in this model of the carbon–nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.

 

[wirebender]

Most will go to the gates of hell before they admit it. I'd get ready to ride this sucker out...Get ready for 4-5c of warming.

Not even 30 inches of rain in 24 hours pouring down on there town or city will wake them up.

Do you really believe that Matthew? Do you really believe CO2 can possibly be responsible for any warming at all? How might it manage to do it?

 

[wirebender]

Yep, not even the Missouri and Mississippi in flood from March to September seems to impress them. Going to be interesting times for our grandchildren.

Was it an unprecedented flood rocks, or even outside the boundries of natural variability?

 

[Old Rocks]

The area flooded has been flooded before. I know of no time that it has stayed flooded for a season and a half. Perhaps there was another time, if so, I would appreciate the year and records of that event.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Bent, why can I see Scheelite radiating in all directions when I expose it to short wave UV? Shouldn't your EM field vectors prevent that?

 

[gslack]

Hey Bent, why can I see Scheelite radiating in all directions when I expose it to short wave UV? Shouldn't your EM field vectors prevent that?

in all directions.... not just straight down? Well thats odd... Then AGW theory is wrong after all?

Socks seriously.... EM field vectors are a real scientific (quantum) concept and not something he made up. I showed this before so did he. They exist, they are real and you are an idiot.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hey Bent, why can I see Scheelite radiating in all directions when I expose it to short wave UV? Shouldn't your EM field vectors prevent that?

in all directions.... not just straight down? Well thats odd... Then AGW theory is wrong after all?

Socks seriously.... EM field vectors are a real scientific (quantum) concept and not something he made up. I showed this before so did he. They exist, they are real and you are an idiot.

Your right as the outward radiation would move outwards in a uniform upwards motion from all points at the surface. BUT when you think about it wouldn't "cloud" tops and ice sheets have a stronger(higher percentage of the energy EM) out bound vector then area's that absorb more of the energy as oceans, black top, ect. So, yes I have to agree with you about it being uniformed, but some area's are going to be weaker and some stronger.

When I think about it is does make sense.

The net energy transfer rule makes more since when talking about convection...As the net energy does go from warmer to cooler, but latent heat can warm the environment.

 

[IanC]

Hey Bent, why can I see Scheelite radiating in all directions when I expose it to short wave UV? Shouldn't your EM field vectors prevent that?

in all directions.... not just straight down? Well thats odd... Then AGW theory is wrong after all?

Socks seriously.... EM field vectors are a real scientific (quantum) concept and not something he made up. I showed this before so did he. They exist, they are real and you are an idiot.

you are not being entirely honest. there are EM field vectors, they just arent what wirebender states they are. he has taken an esoteric physics model that doesnt relate to regular interactions and redefined it into a quack theory. and just like how CAGW zealots will agree to anything that appears to support manmade global warming catastrope there are some skeptic zealots that will support nonsense as long as it is against CAGW.

 

[wirebender]

Hey Bent, why can I see Scheelite radiating in all directions when I expose it to short wave UV? Shouldn't your EM field vectors prevent that?

Geez rocks, think about it for just a second. Can you see it radiating in "all" directions?

 

[wirebender]

Your right as the outward radiation would move outwards in a uniform upwards motion from all points at the surface.

Does the radiation move outward from all points on the surface? From which point of view? From which vector might radiation not be moving outward? Can you see from the point of view of the UV emitter?[/quote]

The net energy transfer rule makes more since when talking about convection...As the net energy does go from warmer to cooler, but latent heat can warm the environment.

There is no "net" energy transfer Matthew. The second law of thermodynamics states that energy does not spontaneously move from cool objects to warm objects without the input of some sort of work. "NET" energy transfer is a fiction devised in an attempt to skirt the second law of thermodynamics.

I would be interested in seeing some experimental evidence that proves the "net" transfer caveat.

 

[wirebender]

you are not being entirely honest. there are EM field vectors, they just arent what wirebender states they are. he has taken an esoteric physics model that doesnt relate to regular interactions and redefined it into a quack theory. and just like how CAGW zealots will agree to anything that appears to support manmade global warming catastrope there are some skeptic zealots that will support nonsense as long as it is against CAGW.

Elaborate? You keep saying that I have taken an "esoteric" physics model that doesn't relate to regular interactions. You acknowledge that EM vectors are real, how have I described EM vectors in a way that doesn't relate to reality? Are you claiming that energy can flow in two directions along any given vector? How have I missapplied any physical law?

You keep claiming my position is based on nonsense but remain entirely unable to state where my claim is wrong.

 

[IanC]

you are not being entirely honest. there are EM field vectors, they just arent what wirebender states they are. he has taken an esoteric physics model that doesnt relate to regular interactions and redefined it into a quack theory. and just like how CAGW zealots will agree to anything that appears to support manmade global warming catastrope there are some skeptic zealots that will support nonsense as long as it is against CAGW.

Elaborate? You keep saying that I have taken an "esoteric" physics model that doesn't relate to regular interactions. You acknowledge that EM vectors are real, how have I described EM vectors in a way that doesn't relate to reality? Are you claiming that energy can flow in two directions along any given vector? How have I missapplied any physical law?

You keep claiming my position is based on nonsense but remain entirely unable to state where my claim is wrong.

common sense is often difficult to prove to a 'conspiracy theorist'. no amount of evidence is enough, or it is 'worded' wrong according to the quack.

an example to disprove your version of 'EM vector fields'. two blocks of metal are insulated on five sides which leaves one face each able to radiate as a blackbody according to their temperatures. when you place them face to face the one with a higher temperature will radiate more energy than the other but the lower temp block does not stop radiating, it just doesnt radiate as much. time passes and more energy flows from the higher temp block and it cools, reducing its radiation. conversely the lower temp block heats up and increases its radiation. given enough time the blocks will equilibrate and there will no longer be a net flow from one to the other. each block will be radiating equally, the energy lost will be equal to the energy gained but both are still radiating.

in your fanciful world, the 'EM vector field' imposes some unexplained mechanism that makes it impossible for the lower temp block to spontaneously release a photon in the direction of the higher temp block. I have called bullshit on this before and will continue to do so.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Bent, why can I see Scheelite radiating in all directions when I expose it to short wave UV? Shouldn't your EM field vectors prevent that?

in all directions.... not just straight down? Well thats odd... Then AGW theory is wrong after all?

Socks seriously.... EM field vectors are a real scientific (quantum) concept and not something he made up. I showed this before so did he. They exist, they are real and you are an idiot.

Didn't say that they were not real. And why should the Scheelite flouresce only straight down? It radiates in all directions, just as the CO2 molecules that radiate the longwave IR do.

The application of EM Field Vectors to the way the CO2 molecules retain heat in our climate system is totally a false bit of pseudoscience. Falsified so easily with just a standard field UV lamp.