Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#452
#452
utgibbs said:
Actually, we have a much higher debt than IP suggests.

England and the US still dominate the total per capita contribution since almost half of ALL the CO2 released since 1750 is still in the atmosphere. England had a head start on everybody, but we caught up very quickly.

In fact, I have the data:

Cumulative emissions from 1751 - 2008:

US 27.2%
China 9.1%
Russia 7.3%
UK 5.8%

And I think if you do the math, the US / UK contribution per capita are the highest by far. So, the truth is we are shouldering absolutely none of our debt burden.
Click to expand...

How was this measured?
 
#453
#453
MontereyVol said:
How was this measured?
Click to expand...

In essense, you know how much each country emitted, and you know how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere (~ 100 years).

With that data, you do the sums.

The data comes from James Hansen et al "Dangerous Human-made Interference with Climate."
 
#456
#456
utgibbs said:
In essense, you know how much each country emitted, and you know how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere (~ 100 years).

With that data, you do the sums.

The data comes from James Hansen et al "Dangerous Human-made Interference with Climate."
Click to expand...

CO2 cycles back into the environment withing five years, 50% of man made CO2 recycles withing the first year.

Hansen is misrepresenting the facts just as is the case in the following scare tactic news release and on purpose, it's not an honest mistake.

Climate change study had 'significant error': experts - Yahoo! News

A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.

The study was posted on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was written about by numerous international news agencies, including AFP.

But AAAS later retracted the study as experts cited numerous errors in its approach.
-----------------------------------

But climate scientist Rey Weymann told AFP that the "study contains a significant error in that it confuses 'equilibrium' temperature rise with 'transient temperature rise.'"
Click to expand...

More on AGW fraud:

Democrats try to stop inquiry into Climategate [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has begun an investigation into whether Michael Mann manipulated data to show a rapid acceleration in global warming and Virginia Democrats are out to stop him.

Democratic Sens. Donald McEachin of Henrico and Chap Petersen of Fairfax County say their bills won't give blanket immunity to colleges to defraud the state, but they would curb politically motivated probes.
Click to expand...

We can't have Dorothy looking behind the curtain now can we?????

What we need to do is stop the politically motivated climate change hoax.
 
#457
#457
What were the findings in the Mann case, gs?

And could you elaborate on your 5 year carbon cycle model?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#458
#458
utgibbs said:
Climate scientists generally start the clock at 1750, the presumed beginning of the industrial revolution.

We were a backwater until the Civil War. But we made up for lost time in a big way.
Click to expand...

Do you suggest that he cut emissions to pre-1750 levels?
 
#459
#459
utgibbs said:
In essense, you know how much each country emitted, and you know how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere (~ 100 years).

With that data, you do the sums.

The data comes from James Hansen et al "Dangerous Human-made Interference with Climate."
Click to expand...


Okay, let me get a crack at it...

How do would we know/measure this?
 
#461
#461
IPorange said:
What were the findings in the Mann case, gs?

And could you elaborate on your 5 year carbon cycle model?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Mann was and is an outright liar.

No need to elaborate, those are the facts.




Rasputin_Vol said:
Do you suggest that he cut emissions to pre-1750 levels?
Click to expand...

Of course, that is philosophy, we should all return
to our cave man roots.





MG1968 said:
800 lb. gorillas have a nose for CO2 emissions
Click to expand...

OBAMACOKE.jpg
 
#462
#462
Rasputin_Vol said:
Do you suggest that he cut emissions to pre-1750 levels?
Click to expand...

I would belong to the 350 ppm crowd. We need to stabilize emissions here to avoid possibly planet tipping problems.

Of course, we are well above that now.

I believe it will be two-to-three generations of work, but it is the only work worth doing in our world today. It touches on every sphere of human endeavor: energy, transport, living arrangements, social harmony, international relations, health, wealth, prosperity, bequeathing a biologically rich world to posterity.

This is the good work of our times. This is, in the final analysis, all that really matters. Much of our dissatisfaction, anger, ennui, and frustration stems from being locked into cultural, economic, and political arrangements addressing this great task impossible. It is a world project, absolutely worthy, absolutely in-line with the highest human ideals. The longer we delay, the harder the work becomes, the longer our frustration pounds away at us.

It requires a new culture. It requires a new economy. It requires new work. Ours is the generation which must wrestle with the cultural transitions which make the work which must be done possible. It might be the heaviest burden of all. But, in the final analysis, history will condemn us if we don't, and, in truth, if you look around, we are already condemning ourselves for our delay.
 
#463
#463
utgibbs said:
I would belong to the 350 ppm crowd. We need to stabilize emissions here to avoid possibly planet tipping problems.

Of course, we are well above that now.

I believe it will be two-to-three generations of work, but it is the only work worth doing in our world today. It touches on every sphere of human endeavor: energy, transport, living arrangements, social harmony, international relations, health, wealth, prosperity, bequeathing a biologically rich world to posterity.

This is the good work of our times. This is, in the final analysis, all that really matters. Much of our dissatisfaction, anger, ennui, and frustration stems from being locked into cultural, economic, and political arrangements addressing this great task impossible. It is a world project, absolutely worthy, absolutely in-line with the highest human ideals. The longer we delay, the harder the work becomes, the longer our frustration pounds away at us.

It requires a new culture. It requires a new economy. It requires new work. Ours is the generation which must wrestle with the cultural transitions which make the work which must be done possible. It might be the heaviest burden of all. But, in the final analysis, history will condemn us if we don't, and, in truth, if you look around, we are already condemning ourselves for our delay.
Click to expand...

This is some incredibly dangerous and unsettling prose you've just scratched out right here.

You want to basically dismiss the previous 100 years of advancement... probably the greatest century of human development and replace it with some new system that would require another century's worth of work that would have to exceed that. What you are asking for is a Utopia... a perfect world. There is no way we can maintain our standard of living without some trade offs and consequences. You over simplify the ability to reach the dream scenario that you are describing. To get where you want us to be, ALL industrialized nations would have to shut down their doors.
 
#464
#464
utgibbs said:
Cumulative emissions from 1751 - 2008:

US 27.2%
China 9.1%
Russia 7.3%
UK 5.8%
Click to expand...

What is the significance of those numbers though? Of course the U.S. is going to be at the top since we were among the first to industrialize and have more people. It's kind of like saying my Grandparents have consumed more oxygen than I have.
 
Last edited:
#465
#465
GAVol said:
What is the significance of those numbers though? Of course the U.S. is going to be at the top since we were among the first to industrialize and have more people. It's kind of like saying my Grandparents have consumed more oxygen than I have.
Click to expand...

I don't think of it as meaning to admonish anyone or say look how bad you were. I think if it more as a measure of who caused the current rise in CO2. However, I am also quick to point out that the countries that can develop today more efficiently rhan we did in the past are able to do so because of the technological advances we made as part of the process of making those historical emissions. So, I font think this is a situation where all of the burden must be bore by the historically industrialized.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#466
#466
Rasputin_Vol said:
This is some incredibly dangerous and unsettling prose you've just scratched out right here.

You want to basically dismiss the previous 100 years of advancement... probably the greatest century of human development and replace it with some new system that would require another century's worth of work that would have to exceed that. What you are asking for is a Utopia... a perfect world. There is no way we can maintain our standard of living without some trade offs and consequences. You over simplify the ability to reach the dream scenario that you are describing. To get where you want us to be, ALL industrialized nations would have to shut down their doors.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It does require changes. I believe these changes will demand we have a lot less cheap tat. BUT I FIRMLY BELIEVE, the end vision will mean a healthier, happier, and more enriched culture. I don't think this is utopia. The world of the last 40 years has been described as "the End of History" - utopia achieved. Clearly it is not. In fact, I believe it will take a lot more work - physical, political, social - from each of us. But I think each of us is craving this extra responsibility - this extra effectiveness in our everyday lives.

We will have to use a lot less fossil energy - which is to say, we will have to use a lot less energy. But Lewis Mumford, in the 1930s, in his monumental "Technics and Civilization" describes a study where people tried to shift a 500 lbs stone. With the application of 1500 lbs of force, one group did it with brute strength. Another group, with a little thought, moved the weight with 25 lbs of force.

This is, in essence, the challenge of our time.
 
Last edited:
#467
#467
GAVol said:
What is the significance of those numbers though? Of course the U.S. is going to be at the top since we were among the first to industrialize and have more people. It's kind of like saying my Grandparents have consumed more oxygen than I have.
Click to expand...

It shows who owes the burden of the ecological debt - whose externalities cost the most.
 
#468
#468
TennTradition said:
I don't think of it as meaning to admonish anyone or say look how bad you were. I think if it more as a measure of who caused the current rise in CO2. However, I am also quick to point out that the countries that can develop today more efficiently rhan we did in the past are able to do so because of the technological advances we made as part of the process of making those historical emissions. So, I font think this is a situation where all of the burden must be bore by the historically industrialized.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Assuming people play ball with technology transition. I believe we have fought this tooth and nail within the Kyoto Protocol on this very point. And this is one of the tenets of the Kyoto Protocol.

Unfortunately, China having 35% efficient coal fired plants vice our 33% efficient coal fired plants isn't really fixing the problem though. (Note: my efficiency numbers are just ballpark; I have the data, and I will look it up if asked. I think the world is at ~ 34-35% on anthracite coal fired plants)
 
#469
#469
utgibbs said:
Not at all. It does require changes. I believe these changes will demand we have a lot less cheap tat. BUT I FIRMLY BELIEVE, the end vision will mean a healthier, happier, and more enriched culture. I don't think this is utopia. The world of the last 40 years has been described as "the End of History" - utopia achieved. Clearly it is not. In fact, I believe it will take a lot more work - physical, political, social - from each of us. But I think each of us is craving this extra responsibility - this extra effectiveness in our everyday lives.

We will have to use a lot less fossil energy - which is to say, we will have to use a lot less energy. But Lewis Mumford, in the 1930s, in his monumental "Technics and Civilization" describes a study where people tried to shift a 500 lbs stone. With the application of 1500 lbs of force, one group did it with brute strength. Another group, with a little thought, moved the weight with 25 lbs of force.

This is, in essence, the challenge of our time.
Click to expand...

it's gratifying to know that you're posting this drivel on an internet message board and that you're not in a position to actually put some of your thoughts into action.
 
#470
#470
gsvol said:
Mann was and is an outright liar.
Click to expand...


That's not what every investigation into his work has found, despite constant scrutiny by your ilk: Penn State Live - Investigation of climate scientist at Penn State complete



No need to elaborate, those are the facts.
Click to expand...

You don't want to elaborate because it would undermine your knee-jerk conclusion. It takes 100 years for a carbon atom to totally cycle through to the deep ocean or lithosphere. It may leave the atmosphere relatively quickly, but it doesn't actually leave the larger cycle (it can end up right back in the atmosphere) for much longer. Otherwise, we'd struggle to have any CO2 in the atmosphere at all.
 
#472
#472
utgibbs said:
It shows who owes the burden of the ecological debt - whose externalities cost the most.
Click to expand...
If not for the advancements made by those who developed first, don't you think the cost would have been much greater for those that developed later with the benefit of the advances in technology?
 
#473
#473
GAVol said:
If not for the advancements made by those who developed first, don't you think the cost would have been much greater for those that developed later with the benefit of the advances in technology?
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The finger-pointing and guilting is a destructive and illogical enterprise.
 
#474
#474
GAVol said:
If not for the advancements made by those who developed first, don't you think the cost would have been much greater for those that developed later with the benefit of the advances in technology?
Click to expand...

I'm a big supporter of the technology transfer requirements of Kyoto.

But we haven't signed it.

This argument is rather disingenuous too. Wouldn't it have been great if we had taken due time to consider the consequences of our actions? Embarked on a different path? One, perhaps, embracing the wind technologies - available since the Middle Ages / a diversity of agricultural species instead of adopting Norin 10 and using it as a Cold War weapon?

The words of Judge Doom spring to mind: "It's a construction plan of epic proportions. They're calling it (big pause) a freeway! ... My god it will be beautiful." Remembering the master plan was to sell all the streetcars to fund the epic construction.

I agree with the tenets of the technology transfer. Does it absolve our ecological debt in full? Absolutely not. In part? I dig what you're saying, but it strikes me as rather Marie Antoinette.

I think the "guilting" part is rather overstated as well. You've just got to step up to the plate sometimes and accept responsibility. It's not really about guilt. It's about holding up your hands and saying, "Yup, we did that. We've got to do better."

How exactly is China and India developing more efficiently, by the way?
 
Last edited:
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top