Would one of you "brilliant" Global warming people can explain this GIGANTIC discrepancy???

[healthmyths]

I really can't believe this!
I've re-read it several times!
Scientific American states in this link:
How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1750 humanity has added 520 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we're on pace to add that much again within 40 years—a scenario that is likely to result in catastrophic climate change.

YET here is another "Scientific" source:
A short history of carbon emissions and sinks

Skeptical Science a biased defender of Global Warming fallacies...

"Since 1750 the human race has been responsible for roughly 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."


The tonne (i/tʌn/) (British and SI; SI symbol: t) or metric ton (in the United States) is a non-SImetric unit of mass equal to 1,000 kilograms;[1][2][3][4] or one megagram (Mg); it is equivalent to approximately 2,204.6pounds,[5]1.10 short tons (US) or 0.984 long tons (imperial). Although not part of the SI per se, the tonne is "accepted for use with" SI units and prefixes by the International Committee for Weights and Measures, along with several other units like the bar, litre and day.
Tonne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A "gigatonne" is 1 billion tons right.

2,000 gigatonnes would be 2,000 times 1 billion (1,000,000,000) or 2 trillion tons!

Folks WHICH is it????
Has humanity since 1750 pumped out 520 billion metric tons or 2 trillion metric tons???

WHICH IS IT from these two respected and revered "Scientific" sources??? Who is right???

 

[tinydancer]

You know what pisses me off hm? Every time I ask the question "if we have had numerous major ice ages and some small ones what happened in between" they run like hell because it doesn't back AGW.

 

[Kosh]

 

[tinydancer]

Oh and my husband who by the way is a UofT graduate and he's my go to science guy (hey I'm only rock and roll) and he asks the question repeatedly on the boards he frequents: why did other planets warm at the same rate or more than we did?

 

[healthmyths]

Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.
The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.
Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

From year 1750 to 1960, additional 250 000 million tonnes CO2, or at the rate of 1190.48 million tonnes per year are added into atmosphere.

From year 1960 to 2007, another 570 000 million tonnes of CO2 are dumped into atmosphere, at much higher rate: 12127.7 million tonnes per year, which is about 10 times faster than the previous 2 centuries!

As of year 2002, human activities, especially fuel burning released 24,126.1 million tonnes of CO2 per year. This number is twice (2x) higher the rate calculated above. Could it mean that half of the CO2 released by human activity is managed to absorbed by carbon sink agents and thus not accounted into the CO2 concentration reading?
Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?

So let's add this up: 250,000 million from 1750 to 1960
570,000 million from 1960 to 2007 or a total of 820,000 million tons. That's 820 billion tons!
So far we've got 2 trillion, 520 billion, 337 billion and now 820 billion. FOLKS which is it???
The importance is if we can't even agree on a simple number how can we agree that there is a problem???
From 337 billion to 2 trillion tons is a huge range for ERROR and we are basing our entire existence that these people generating these numbers are right???

Climate Skeptics on ‘historic’ UN treaty: ‘Does this mean we never have to hear about ‘solving’ global warming again!?’

Climate Depot's Marc Morano: 'Now that the United Nations has officially 'solved' man-made global warming, does this mean we never have to hear about 'global warming' fears again!? Does this mean we can halt the endless supply of federal tax dollars funding 'climate change' studies? Does this mean we can stop worrying about 'global warming's' ability to end civilization and cause wars, and increase prostitution, bar room brawls, rape, airline turbulence, etc.? Can we finally move on to other issues? I spent the last week in Paris marveling at how so many believe a form of modern witchcraft: That a UN agreement or EPA climate regulations can alter Earth's temperature and the level of storms. But now I realize that if they truly believe the UN has solved 'climate change' even skeptics should rejoice! Now that the UN treaty has 'solved' global warming, can we all just move on to something else?'

Morano on UN’s 2C Limit: "We had one UK scientist, Philip Stott, who has said there are quite literally hundreds of factors governing global climate. For the UN to pick one politically-selected factor -- CO2 -- and then try to tweak it at the margins and then come up with some temperature goal 50 -100 years in the future, is akin to scientific nonsense. You could call it modern day witchcraft."



Read more: Climate Skeptics on 'historic' UN treaty: 'Does this mean we never have to hear about 'solving' global warming again!?'

 

[healthmyths]

Oh and my husband who by the way is a UofT graduate and he's my go to science guy (hey I'm only rock and roll) and he asks the question repeatedly on the boards he frequents: why did other planets warm at the same rate or more than we did?

Good question. Is it possible that there is a thing in physics known as "entropy"?
lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse; More
And as such ALL bodies in motion have a tendency to slow down. Just as the Atomic clock calls for an adjustment to
The reason we have to add a second every now and then, is that Earth's rotation around its own axis, is gradually slowing down, although very slowly.
Atomic clocks, however, tick away at pretty much the same speed over millions of years. Compared to the Earth's rotation, atomic clocks are simply too consistent.
And so maybe just maybe there is additional friction ever so minutely to a body in motion that is allowing the earth's atmosphere to "warm" up ever so gradually?

 

[tinydancer]

During the ice age carbon was higher than now. Carbon fluctuates. It was high levels during the years of the dinosaurs era yet some of the glaciation.

Holy crap it's my husband not me.

Since he's watching me do this he would me like me to quote the following...

"HEY CLIMATARDS I GIVE YOU A NICKEL IF YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT GREEN HOUSE GAS AS THE MOST PROFOUND SIGNIFICANCE ON CLIMATE"..........

and its not CO2.

 

[mamooth]

Oh and my husband who by the way is a UofT graduate and he's my go to science guy (hey I'm only rock and roll) and he asks the question repeatedly on the boards he frequents: why did other planets warm at the same rate or more than we did?

That's easy to answer. They haven't warmed, and he's babbling some nonsense that he read off a conspiracy blog somewhere.

Some planets have warmed. Some have cooled. Some have stayed the same.

Mars, for example, has _not_ warmed, even though all the kooks will claim it has.

Good question. Is it possible that there is a thing in physics known as "entropy"?

Yes. And it has nothing to do with planets warming or cooling. Babbling about entropy is much like saying we can fix the problem by recalibrating the flux tubes on the deflector array. It's just technobabble pseudoscience that sounds impressive, but doesn't mean anything.

 

[Rustic]

Global cooling, global warming and climate change people like to do what they want in their own lives. Practice what they preach just don't expect anyone else to practice what they preaching. Green people need to shut up and mind their own business, most times they are oblivious hypocrites.

 

[mamooth]

You know what pisses me off hm?

You know what makes me laugh? Denier cultists running from every answer we give, and then pretending they never got an answer.

Every time I ask the question "if we have had numerous major ice ages and some small ones what happened in between" they run like hell because it doesn't back AGW.

Why didn't you try asking it here? Were you scared to get humiliated again?

What happens between ice ages is the earth warms up quickly, and then cools slowly into the next ice age. Temperature do not jump up and down wildly in that period. They go up, they go back down, with just minor fluctuations on the trend. We had been in the slow cooling phase for the past 6,000+ years. We should have been in it for at least the next 20,000 years. Instead, everything suddenly shifted to fast warming. That's totally contrary to the established natural cycle, hence we know with 100% certainty that the current fast warming is not part of any natural cycle.

 

[mamooth]

WHICH IS IT from these two respected and revered "Scientific" sources??? Who is right???

Both. The bigger number was emissions, the smaller number was what remains after carbon sinks absorb some of the emissions.

That wasn't a tough question. You should have been able to figure out, but you were so intent on getting some "gotcha" sound bite, you failed to actually read and understand the articles.

 

[SSDD]

What cracks me up is the hysterics over even 520 billion tons since 1750 when natural sources, oceans, microbial activity, insect activity, frozen terrestrial sources, volcanos, forest fires, and animals emit approximately 435 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR.

So since 1750 the earth's natural sources of CO2 have edited about 290,500 billion tons of CO2 and we have emitted 520 billion tons if that number can be believed. That means that since 1750, humans have been responsible for a whopping 0.18% of all CO2 emissions...but we are killing the planet...the sky is falling...the sky is falling...

 

[Crick]

So you think we should ignore human GHG emissions because they're so small? Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the Earth's CO2 levels were quite stable. The rate of increase since then is unprecedented in the last 65 million years. Does this look like 0.18%?

You see the problem. You're trying to compare the area under the blue curve with the area under the spike on the right. You're adding an extra integration. The level of the curve is the critical parameter and the cause of the increase on the right is entirely due to human activity. You lose. We lose.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh and my husband who by the way is a UofT graduate and he's my go to science guy (hey I'm only rock and roll) and he asks the question repeatedly on the boards he frequents: why did other planets warm at the same rate or more than we did?

Well, if he asks that question, then he is one dumb son of a bitch. Because that is not happening.

What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system

What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level...

Basic Intermediate
Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.
Climate Myth...
Other planets are warming
"[E]vidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar system, despite the fact that they obviously have no anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system." (Ian McClintock)




This argument is part of a greater one that other planets are warming. If this is happening throughout the solar system, clearly it must be the sun causing the rise in temperatures – including here on Earth.

It is curious that the theory depends so much on sparse information – what we know about the climates on other planets and their history – yet its proponents resolutely ignore the most compelling evidence against the notion. Over the last fifty years, the sun’s output has decreased slightly: it is radiating less heat. We can measure the various activities of the sun pretty accurately from here on Earth, or from orbit above it, so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the sceptical argument that the sun is causing the rise in temperatures.