E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Osama Faisal / AP
Activists criticizing what they called a slow pace to climate talks protest Saturday at the convention center in Qatar. Norway's environment minister, Bard Vegar, speaks to some of them.
DOHA, Qatar -- Almost 200 nations on Saturday extended until 2020 a weak international plan for fighting global warming, averting a new setback to two decades of U.N. efforts that have failed to halt rising greenhouse gas emissions.
The eight-year extension of the Kyoto Protocol keeps it alive as the sole legally binding plan for combating global warming. But it was sapped by the withdrawal of Russia, Japan and Canada, so its signatories now account for only 15 percent of global greenhouse emissions.
A package of decisions, known as the Doha Climate Gateway, would also postpone until 2013 a dispute over demands from developing nations for more cash to help them cope with global warming.
All sides say the Doha decisions fell far short of recommendations by scientists for tougher action.
Though expectations were low for the two-week conference, many developing countries rejected the deal as insufficient to put the world on track to fight the rising temperatures that are raising sea levels. Some Pacific island nations see this as a threat to their existence.
"This is not where we wanted to be at the end of the meeting, I assure you," said Nauru Foreign Minister Kieren Keke, who leads an alliance of small island states. "It certainly isn't where we need to be in order to prevent islands from going under and other unimaginable impacts."
"It was not an easy ride. It was not a beautiful ride. It was not a fast ride, but we managed to cross the bridge and hopefully we can increase our speed," added European Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard.
She said the deal would pave the way to talks on a new, global U.N. pact meant be agreed in 2015 and enter into force in 2020, when Kyoto now expires. It will have emissions goals for all, including emerging nations led by China and India.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which controls the greenhouse gas emissions of rich countries, expires this year. However, the second phase only covers about 15 percent of global emissions after Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Russia opted out.
Originally, Kyoto obliged about 35 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an average of at least 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the period from 2008 to 2012.
The U.S. never joined Kyoto, partly because it didn't include China and other fast-growing developing countries.
Poor countries came into the talks in Doha demanding a timetable on how rich countries would scale up climate change aid for them to $100 billion annually by 2020 — a general pledge that was made three years ago.
But rich nations -- including the United States, members of the European Union and Japan -- are still grappling with the effects of a financial crisis and were not interested in detailed talks on aid in Doha.
The agreement on financing made no reference to any mid-term financing targets, just a general pledge to "identify pathways for mobilizing the scaling up of climate finance."
The two-week U.N. meeting had been due to end on Friday but the talks went on into Saturday evening.
World carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise by 2.6 percent this year, and are more than 50 percent higher than in 1990. Recent growth has come mostly from emerging nations, led by China and India.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
More world stories from NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Did anyone really expect anything different? Each country is worried about their own, not mankind as a whole. Penny wise, but pound foolish.
That is why we need New Tech. Take it from an Engineer it has always been this way. We have to bring in new solutions and can't let Oil lobbyist win to stop it.
Agreement should have been no new coal fired power plants and all existing operational ones to be phased out in three years.
Doug Coal does a lot more then just produce energy. It is used in all metal manufacturing processes to build anything out of metal. That includes cars, canned food, nails to build homes, any product you buy that is metal is formed from coal.
The only way to decrease the amount of carbon is to reduce population by half.
Man will never control the weather, storms will always be, get used to it.
@KevinT, you mean to tell me that coal in metal manufacturing is not replaceable by something cleaner? I'd find that incredibly hard to believe.
Man can control the weather, but these fools at the talks fail to agree.
Yep, the United Nations terrorist organization continues with it's mandates for more cash from member Nations to support those poor landlocked Nations.
Wait a minute.....what about the following U.N. treaties:
The United Nations with their tentacles of G-7, G-8, G-20 and IMF are nothing more that World financial terrorists.
Time to recall our Ambassdor to the U.N. and tell the U.N. to close shop in NYC and move to France.
Absolutely agree ldo
neccesity is the mother of invention.When things get tougher the human race will have to make some serious changes.Especially when the fossil fuels run low.(and they will run low someday.)What is really needed is a revolutionary new energy source and that won't happen until the human race is forced to create one or die.Until then we are stuck with all the petty money grubbing politics involved with day to day life.All ahead warp factor 5.
A waste of time.
Doug, your a CLOWN!
Stupid mandates without viable alternatives are reckless and irresponsible. You seem to be oblivious to the result of your recommendation. $1,000 a month electric bills and $50,000 "economy" cars, $8 a gallon gas.
Get a clue!
I agree, Pigotry. A waste of time (pure theater, if you will), and as predictable as the Sun rising.
This problem will not be addressed with seriousness so long as politicians are allowed at the table, or even allowed in the building. In fact, it is a near certainly that this problem will not be addressed until it is already too late. That is the unfortunate reality of human nature (and of human greed).
And I disagree with the rhetorical approach of so many in arguing that by way of human caused climate change we are risking "destroying the earth." To the contrary, Earth is going to be just fine (albeit marginally warmer, as measured on the cosmic scale). Earth fared just fine for billions of years before humans arrived on the scene and Earth will fare just fine for billions more years when we are gone.
What our rhetoric should be addressing is that by way of human caused climate change, we are risking destroying human civilization as we know it and perhaps over time destroying the ability of humans to survive on Earth at all. One would think THAT should be enough to get our attention, and be our real focus.
We have had every chance in the World (pun intended), ...but human nature will prevail, and we humans appear destined to go the way of the dinosaurs.
I agree Jeff, you need to get a clue.
One wanders to the left, another to the right. Both are equally in error, but, are seduced by different delusions. ~Horace
What? Poor countries came ....demanding ...... rich countries would...aid for them to $100 billion annually.....
Oh I get it this isn't about "Climate Change" instead it is all about MO MONEY!
Just like Al Gore and his.....$9 million Montecito oceanfront villa....http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/how-green-is-al-gores-9-million-montecito-ocean-front-villa/1#.UMQN6awt525
Wow talk about putting your foot where you mouth is...Doesn't he know the Ocean is Rising and the World is Going to End?
Shouldn't Al Gore and his "Crowd" be buying one of those....Agenda 21 Micro-Apartments Built Across America in the Name of Sustainability.... http://occupycorporatism.com/agenda-21-mirco-apartments-built-across-america-in-the-name-of-sustainability/ .....Like "They" keep telling the Rest Of US?
It is all BS folks and America should not and does not take it's "Orders" from or be willing to give more of OUR Tax Money to the UN Globalist and their Man Made Climate Change Terrorists!
Speaking of Terrorists......Impeach President Obama and Prosecute Secretary Clinton for Secret Aid to Al Qaeda in Libya & Syria, The Cover Up of the Murder of a US Ambassador by Al Qaeda, and for their Secret CIA Prison in Benghazi-Gate!
Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor. ~Robert Frost
Except the dinosaurs didn't cause their own extinction.
@MUW
Please take your meds.
boom! reason
"All we want are the Facts Ma'am"~ Joe Friday.....Bumbling, Ignorant, Asinine, Unsupported, or Nonsensical Opinions Need Not Reply!
Eighty per cent of global warming comes from livestock and deforestation. ~Heather Mills
PS And That is Mostly Coming from the Third World.....
And that is also FALSE
Only 20% of human emissions come from All land use issues, farming deforestation etc.
The vast majority of CO2 already in the atmosphere was put there by the industrialized rich countries since the industrial revolution.
The U.S. should lead, not make excuses like blaming poor countries.
So we agree that you should stop posting then.
The problem with taking quotes from a model is that they are more often than not incorrect:
So as you can see, 18% is a whole lot smaller than 80%. Try checking a real source the next time you quote someone. Brainyquote is not a place you should look to for guidance on science issues, and your choice to use that site only speaks to your (lack of) ability to critically analyze information.
Perhaps it's time to start promoting vegetarianism?
Seriously, though, please take your meds.
What are you boom! reason just another Graffitist Kid out smearing your crap on other real posters?
Well bless your evil little black heart for at least you tried honey, of course one my argue the other 62% came from deforestation but far be it for me to defend Heather Mills other any other purveyor of such "Junk Science"!
All the REAL science says it is probably just a Solar Cycle and this too shall pass so smart people unlike Al Gore (and obviously yourself) shouldn't start building a new oceanfront villa!
Of course a quote is a quote no matter who the publisher is / was but I'd guess you are not intelligent enough to understand that minor point!
Seriously Dud..... Eat my shorts~Bart Simpson
When it comes to climate science, Heather Mills doesn't have a leg to stand on!
;-)
Or one could simply read the quote I posted which includes:
As you can see, deforestation is included in that 18%.
Actually, the real science says the opposite:
At least you tried, right? You deserve a medal for just showing up to the discussion!
Bless your heart.
Ouch, shady.
Nonsense boom! reason your are just trying to "interpret" your way out of your mistake by claiming this was Heathers quote when you don't know when or where or what she has said!
Once again I will not argue for or with anyone (including yourself) that is a purveyor of such "Junk Science" just what you can prove and nothing but....I can prove the Weather Changes...Everyday!
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly. How do they or you know this to be a fact? Where they or you there? Did you have instruments back then that where even accurate to a degree?
Again NASA & you are "Interpreting" and voicing your "Opinions" as if they where fact and spreading your Junk Science Nonsense as if it was "Gospel" all the while holding out your hands and making threats like you are Extortionists to get MO MONEY!
Whether the ice caps melt, or expand - whatever happens - the anthropogenic global warming theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology. ~Frank Tipler
This site is full of trolls, right Robert in Oregon?
What you need to do with trolls is report them directly to Newsvine, since they are in violation of the Newvine Code of Honor.
Robert in Oregon, help make Newsvine free of such users by reporting them here (be sure to link to this thread):
http://www.newsvine.com/_nv/cms/info/contact
What are you talking about boom! reason? The only one Trolling and Insulting Other Posters that I have seen tonight is YOU! You also might want to look into the part about making "False Complaints" along with the part about.....
BTW since you are so "Hip" on the science think about the link below and ask yourself "What" Warmer that expected by NASA.....Hmm sounds like System Wide "Global Warming" to me!
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/28/science/la-sci-sn-warm-temperatures-on-mars-may-improve-chances-for-habitability-20120928
Remember we have had accurate Temperature Measurements of Mars at least since the 1970's!
In Russia we only had two TV channels. Channel One was propaganda. Channel Two consisted of a KGB officer telling you: Turn back at once to Channel One. ~Yakov Smirnoff
boom! reason wrote:
Nawwwwww, ...what's the fun in reporting them, 'boom'? Besides, one person's "Troll" is another person's Sage (now how disturbing is THAT?!) It's much more fun to engage them with logical points (and if that fails to send them scurrying back under their bridge, ...ridicule them with their own illogical drivel).
Frankly, I don't see anything in this thread except the expression of differing opinions; certainly nothing rising to the level of "Trolls, so far." I'll leave the "reporting" to others (I have never liked 'tattle-tales). When offended I prefer to use the "ignore this author" feature. It's a 'fool-proof' solution; pun intended ;-)
Cheers!
Robert in Oregon I prefer to use the "ignore this author" feature.
I won't even use that feature, if my Opinion can't stand the light of criticism maybe I need to reconsider what I think and why.....But I won't be intimidated either.
Kind of funny how this subject was brought up though...isn't it? Insecurity maybe? Threat?
None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.~Johann von Goethe
Imagine their frustration when they see they have a one-week suspension and will be unable to air their nonsense on a public forum.
After a while, their deflection does get kind of boring. It gets even more boring when they don't change up their tactics and they just get more illogical, like using Mars as an example. It needs to be changed up a bit for it to remain entertaining.
Although, this is the first time where I've seen one unable to express themselves to the degree where they require a quote in ever post to talk on their behalf.
Then again, I can play the quote game too.
The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know if they are genuine. --Abraham Lincoln
'MUW' and 'boom! reason', you are both a hoot and I have enjoyed reading your posts. So let's not take ourselves so seriously ...and we can all dial-down the intensity and enjoy each other's contributions. Debate is supposed to be fun, isn't it?
And 'boom', your Abraham Lincoln quote looks perfectly genuine to me; HA! Thanks for the chuckle.
Cheers!
First I would tell that clown, Norwegian Climate Minister, to shove the Kyoto Protocol up his tree-hugging a$$ and rotate it a few times. As for the rest of the lying charlatans of the EU, you worthless pieces of sh!t may not have long to rule. Your people, along with the U.S. is fed up with you bully crap. Your worse than the gangster thugs that sell cocaine to customers. Except you sell carbon credits to your customers on the open market which doesn't do jack to stop the "so-called" global warming garbage. The biggest joke done to to Europe was the EU. Now Europe has one giant slave master to overrule and sovereign nation within the EU when it comes to their laws. And to think they got rid of one Hitler to be replaced by another, the EU!
Let's be realistic. This is not about preventing 'Climate Change' but merely about the poor nations getting free money from more developed countries.
There is not the political will to make the changes necessary to actually affect the changing climate because 'adapting' will be far less expensive.
That's what species have done throughout Earth's long history - ADAPT.
The 'Carbon Credits' scheme is noting but a farce to make a few people rich (ala Al Gore). Buying the 'Carbon Rights' to a section of rain forest so they can 'trade them' does not decrease the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere by one iota from a practical perspective.
MUW, you are suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 and # 5 of the Code of Honor.
Knock it off.
A week ban? Isn't that a bit excessive Sally? While what he's posting is blatantly false, that one snipe was no worse than say….
Or Boom reason @ MUW, "So we agree you should stop posting then.."
If you must ban him, I see no reason why Boom Reason shouldn't be suspended as well. Otherwise you're obviously being hypercritical.
In reality no one should be suspended here.
boom! reason, woops, I missed this. You are also suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Sounds like justice to me Sally.
Need to invent a solution. Where is that liquid battery from MIT and how fast can we get it to market? Can Cleveland State University sell the 4 windmill capacity in one windmill to a company that can mass produce? Can
we develop an affordable electric car for mass production?
The real solution is to invent new products with very low Cabon footprints. According to NASA rate of change means we can turn it around.
According to 1971 NASA Scientists New York City is now under an Ice Sheet over half a mile thick! There are still too many of us around who remember the last time the UN tried to hy-jack the worlds Energy Industries! They simply put a different shade of lipstick on the PIG this time! Same "Peer Reviewed Studies, same Organizations and even many of the same people!
That dog ain't going to hunt this time either!
Source?
No NASA scientist ever said any such thing. Not in 1971, 1980, 1988, or at any other time.
These stories become more and more ridiculous every time they're repeated. People can benefit from reading the actual research, and ignoring fantastical statements like mile-thick ice sheets covering NYC, and other such Hollywood/right wing nonsense.
Good lord.
Batteries still need electricity. Something has to generate that electricity. Other than hydro, all the "green electricity" efforts are almost counter productive. Take solar for example. Solar panel sites big enough to produce any significant amount of electricity (power they can only generate during the day, on mostly sunny days) require huge amounts of land. Land that can no longer be used for things like growing food.
What about small permanent magnet generators for every house in the United States,,,,nope they wont let that happen
A krptonite toilet is the best storage facility for all these UN treaties and global warming fantasies.
i do believe that some sort of magnetic produced energy is in the future.Perhaps some sort of gravitational produced energy or finding someway to turn the theory of relativity to practical use.I know this sounds a bit confused but, i am not a scientist.
wolfhound, we have "magnet produced energy" now. It is called "electricity".
I think that you have forgotten about U.S. Department of Energy programs that offer loans and grants for such purposes. The results have not been very satisfactory so far.
Jim - Oregon in #2.3
The price of panels is way down.
The efficiency is way up.
How about every individual [not apartment multi-housing] house has enough panels to power all but heavy stuff.
[air conditioning heating electric stoves - use natural gas - and other]
That would make a pretty good dent.
But guess who owns the electric - the big oil
Like I said years ago
3 people own everything
Moe, Larry and Curly
Everything is all upside down and backwards.
tedcrawford
I must have debunked the myth about 1970s 'cooling scare' half a dozen times over at Yahoo today.
Here are the facts.
In the 1970s:
There were 42 peer reviewed research papers predicting global warming from human emissions of greenhouse gases. AGW
There were 7 research papers concerned with the possibility of cooling from the aerosols like sulpher oxides, that are emitted from burning fossil fuels.
SIX times as many research papers predicting global warming in the 1970s.
The reason people remember the cooling story is because NewsWeek did a story on it.
The 2007 IPCC report on global warming was based on over 10,000 research papers, and there have been thousands more since then.
Compare those thousands of research papers with 7 papers from 35 years ago.
AGW is arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed theory in the history of science.
For those confused by the word theory, Gravity is also a theory, and an incomplete one.
We have somewhat reduced our emissions of aerosols, because they also create acid rain and smog. But we still emit these aerosols and they mask or offset some of the warming from CO2 emissions. These aerosols only stay in the air for a short time though, a few years, compared with the hundreds of years that CO2 stays resident in the atmosphere.
@Physicist-retired, tedcrawford is referring to the mistaken belief that in the 1970s there was widespread acceptance that the world was cooling. In reality, there was a small handful of scientists who published a paper that due to methodological errors suggested that the world was cooling. This paper was sensationalized by the news, although not based in reality.
Far right-wingers like to smugly bring up this issue since it is mentioned occasionally by pundits, and they fall for it hook, line, and sinker since they don't do any of their own research.
Jim in Oregon says renewables like solar are counter productive.
Yeah sure. That's why Germany now gets 25% of their electricity from them. Iowa now gets 20% from wind energy. Denmark gets 20% from wind energy. Spain and Italy get something close to that from solar and wind. And it's only 2012.
Batteries for grid scale energy storage that are not expensive and are made of common and abundant materials may already be here. That would be a game changer for solar PV and wind energy.
See here.
---------
TED talk
The Weekend Wonk: Liquid Metal Batteries
TED talk video 15 minutes
{watch it at Climate Crocks -3/31/2012}
Developed by a group from MIT
company called LMBC is the commercial developer
Name changed to AMBRI
----------------------------------
And then there are large solar thermal power plants being built in the southwest U.S., that can produce steady base load power Day and Night. Molten salt heat storage does the trick. Much more efficient and cheaper than storing electricity.
Combine wind, PV solar, and solar thermal with heat storage, and most of our energy needs can be met.
Arizona alone, has the potential for 285 GW of solar thermal power plants. That's carefully picked land to avoid conflicts with humans or nature. A tiny percentage of available and suitable land.
Tower power solar thermal plants can have capacity factor as high as 70%. Solar trough solar thermal plants up to 50% capacity factor. The average nuclear plant is 1 GW, though some are twin reactors.
So, conservatively, the potential in Arizona is the equivalent of about 125 nuclear power plants, after adjusting for capacity factors. Nuclear is 85-90%. All the southwest states have big potential.
About 1,000 GW in the southwest
Hey SailRick Science guy CO2 is consumed by all plants so what are you talking about.I would argue it is good for the planet and all Gore is full of crap
Protip: never argue something unless you've done your homework.
CO2 only helps plants for a short period, then they no longer get any benefit from it. That's because they can only grow as well as their limiting factor allows.
RE: "CO2 only helps plants for a short period, then they no longer get any benefit from it."
This sounds wrong and strange coming from a scientist
The basic chemical formula for photosynthesis is:
6 C02 + 6 H20 + Sunlight = C6H1206 + 6 02
In english: 6 units of C02 (Carbondioxide) + 6 units of H20 (Water) + Sunlight =
result in : 1 unit of C6 H12 06 (Sugar) and 6 units of 02 (Oxygen)
This is the basic process of how green plants make their food, and it should be clear that the
Carbon (the C) from the C02 stays in the plant, where it can be used to make leaves, and wood, and
so forth. The sugar in fruit is also there because of this basic photosynthesis formula.
Thus, I would say that it is completely ignorant of Mr. "boom! reason" to say that
"CO2 only helps plants for a short period, then they no longer get any benefit from it".
That is just totally false. The C02 is made up of one Carbon Atom and Two Oxygene Atoms, and in the process of Photosynthesis, C02 gets split into Carbon and Oxygene. Really!
As a result, I suggest that all climate scientists be employed to plant trees, because that would be a specific way to put the C in C02 to a good use. (That's a little joke that I tell sometimes.)
As well, if you care to think about it over a longer time frame, all carbon contained in trees, plants, coal, oil, natural gas was once (billions of years ago) contained in the athmosphere in the form of C02, and the only way all this C from C02 ended up in trees, plants, coal, oil, gas, etc. is very specifically through photosynthesis over the billions of years. So, may be you can think about the circle of life and such. Google photosynthesis if you think I am kidding you.
It only sounds wrong and strange since you only have a little understanding of science, and you don't do any research before you write your comments.
It sounds like you don't understand the concept as a limiting resource. Until you do, this conversation will go nowhere. Relying solely upon high school level science (and the Lion King) won't help you discuss real matters.
Indeed, the effects of elevated CO2 on plants has been studied, and is exactly what I mentioned above.
Perhaps nobody ever told you that plants need nitrogen and phosphorous? Unless we constantly add fertilizer, plants will not grow magically like you seem to think they will.
Or how about this study:
--
Here's one about grasslands, with a little introduction to how plants work for your benefit (I hope you like reading):
I figure you'll probably skip or skim the above quote, so I wanted to make sure this tidbit was singled out for you from the same source:
In one study, long term monitoring of trees is proving that tree growth has accelerated in the last 20 years and is increasing more each year. A non scientific approach: I don't hear farmers complaining about poor crop yields.
To Mr. "boom! reason:"
I specifically pointed out to you that your comment and I quote "CO2 only helps plants for a short period, then they no longer get any benefit from it." is silly and wrong.
It seems to me that is you who does not even have a grade school understanding of photosynthesis, as you did not even "get" the idea that the "carbon" from C02 is "integrated into" plant life, and through animals eating plants, it gets "integrated into" animal life" and "human life".
Without C02 in the atmosphere, photosyntesis would be impossible. Without photosynthesis, all plant and animal life on this planet earth would be impossible. Can you at least agree with that fact? Think before you talk about it.
Next, good sir, I did not say or imply that an endless increase of C02 in the atmosphere is a good thing. As with so many things, too much or too little is dangerous.
Also, nowhere did I indicate that nitrogen and phosporus are unnecessary for plant growth. Where did you get that idea mr "boom ! reason" ? Nor did I mention any kind of "magical plant growth".
Nonetheless, on planet earth we are not anywhere near a level of C02 that would make it impossible to breathe, or impossible to live. Likewise the rate of increase, year over year, in C02 is nowhere near alarming levels, except in the minds of climate scientists, where creating fear and panic is the only way to go. It may well be true that continuing to increase C02 in the atmosphere could cause problems. If things keep going up they way they have been going, I estimate that CO2 in the atmosphere will go from about 390 parts per million to about 600 parts per million. So, has anyone made actual truthful experiments about what that would be like, for plants, animals and humans ?
I like the idea of solar and wind power, especially since the energy source is freely available. But by the same token, I don't like the idea of "climate scientists" dictating to the world what can or cannot be done.
Dave - Here in the south crop yields have indeed been a problem. Farmers in my area have never bothered with irrigation since rainfall is plentiful and fairly regular - sometimes there's to much. However, in the past decade or two I have seen more and more crops wither in the fields because of up to month long periods where it doesn't rain. About two years ago the shortage of hay was so bad that people were actually stealing the grass. Farmers have reduced the size of cattle herds to compensate. We have also had a very unusual amount of tornado's in the past several years. Two years ago we had our first 90 degree weather in April - instead of the usual July/August. Each year we have been setting record highs for days - in winter and summer; some years there are more records broken than others; but, the trend definitely seems to be upward.
We used to run a winter cycle over which the winters would warm and cool over a period of 10 years; for a couple of years at the cold end of the cycle a local lake would completely freeze over. The last time I remember seeing the lake freeze was about 30 years ago. This past winter we had less than a week of consistently below zero weather and not a single day where snow lasted on the roads until the next day (what little snow we did have); on the one had that might seem nice, but the lack of cold temps allows more insects to over-winter - so each summer the pest problem has been getting worse (requiring more use of pesticides). Last winter a spider had built a web outside my back window - and it remained there the entire winter.
My spring flowers have been coming up earlier and earlier - and the trees have started budding again in late fall - early winter. The past several years the flowers have started coming up by December and I've had to add more and more mulch to keep them covered when the freezes start. Last year I didn't have to cover them at all. This year my crocus started coming up last month; the daffodils started coming up about two weeks ago.
Of course all of this is anecdotal; but, there has definitely been a change. Whether or not it lasts remains to be seen; however, I don't see any sign of the warming trend reversing yet. But, in short - yes, there are definately farmers complaining about the changes and the effects that it has had on crops and cattle.
I'm confident about 2 things:
1. No matter what happens, humans will adapt and survive whatever happens WHEN it happens. Even with these "collapsed civilizations", it was the govts that collapsed. The people just went somewhere else.
2. No science or political leader has the credibility to make anything happen before #1. We'll switch energy when something actually better comes along-- not before.
I should clarify as I seem to have misspoken in my first post, "they no longer get any added benefit from the elevated levels of CO2."
The typical argument is "elevated CO2 = more plant growth," followed by a quip about how we should all plants trees to fix the problem.
A quip that goes something like this:"I suggest that all climate scientists be employed to plant trees, because that would be a specific way to put the C in C02 to a good use. (That's a little joke that I tell sometimes.)"
Perhaps you should read up on what climate change suggests rather than simply assuming that it means we'll all suffocate from excess CO2, or that it would outright kill us.
Try reading my comment, particularly my first quoted source.
Also the Duke Forest FACE experiment tested elevated CO2 on loblolly pine trees by pumping CO2 at the trees, which was the basis of my comment that accelerated growth only occurs for a relatively short period without adding fertilizer.
With regard to solutions, a lot of people argue wind and solar, viable solutions, some other solutions would be enhanced geothermal which has been little put out, but could potentially provide baseload power for much of the U.S., and best of all from my opinion would pursue a strategy that could bring the various fossil fuel industries in to the table as it were, drilling for heat instead of oil and natural gas.
Other solutions other than batteries, that isn't mentioned is the concept of using water as a natural battery, basically you use electricity to pump uphill or higher water than during the night let it flow down again get energy from resultant water flow.
So lots of solutions, but the most important solution which isn't talked about is upgrading the power grid, which is necessary for two reasons, one if you implement electric cars it is necessary, and two from the viewpoint of renewables you need to have a connection to those renewables, which tend to be situated in areas far from cities and the like. Upgrading the power grid would not just be about extending these power lines or for increased power draw from electric cars, but also you need to create superconducting cables, or higher voltage systems to minimize power loss over long transmissions.
until there's a consensus that there is global warming, why worry about it, my car won't run on algae, will yours. one person says we have global warming, one person says we don't. why do we spend the money on it???? last report that I saw showed a cyclic pattern that occurs in a cyclic pattern the same number of years apart. guess al gore was wrong just as he invented the internet. by the time we have new products with low footprints, we'll all be dead, so why worry about it and enjoy the untapped energy that we haven't used. mite just create a few jobs and mite just reduce the cost of fuel, heating, and electrical bills. it's time for us to get a grip on real life, not dreams.
And you're the reason there isn't more progress on this issue.
Fatboy1
Even Al Gore doesn't truly believe this nonsense! In fact he knows it a simple recycle of the UN's last attempt to take over the Worlds Energy Industries and redistribute wealth!
If he had truly believed that the Sea Levels were going to rise by 25 feet, why would he have recently purchased a $9 Million property on the beach, who's highest point is only 15 feet above Sea Level? Did he intend to establish the Worlds first Underwater Bed and Breakfast!
FB - your ignorance boggles the mind!
Another falsehood. Montecito's elevation is 150 feet - see photo #8 of Gore's house.
Honestly, Ted, do you hear this stuff somewhere, or just make it up?
Climate change is not a problem for future generations. It's here now. And everyone typing comments on this Vine will be around long enough to experience it's impacts. In fact, you already are.
We can't even pass a budget in this country, so is there little wonder that the entire world didn't come to a consensus? No emerging industrial nation, like China or India, is going to slow their progress, and we in the U.S. are not going to take any steps backwards, which is what it would take for meaningful reductions. It is simply not in our nature to be proactive on this type of global issue. Once Mother Nature kicks us all in the balls, MAYBE then we'll react.
One little noticed effect of GW is the scrambling by animal species all over the planet trying to find more secure habitats. And of course, what goes on beneath the surface of the seas doesn't get noticed much either. Both are serious situations. From the confines of your townhome, the commute to work, and your shopping sprees you don't notice the changes. Heard that lobsters are beginning to turn cannibal now. Global warming is impacting everything on the globe. Weather, water and food resources, species survival. And we are just waiting for the big methane bomb to go off. Sooner or later it will. Probably sooner.
Fatboy1
You said, "until there is a consensus"
Virtually every major professional science organization in the world, with any relevance to earth and climate sciences, agrees on AGW.
97% of publishing climate scientists agree on AGW.
Between 1991 and 2012, there were 13,950 peer reviewed research papers on climate. Only 24 of them reject AGW.
--------------
Scientific opinion on climate change
"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position."
{Wikipedia}
Seems like a concensus to me.
Sailrick, its not the consensus, its the credibility. Unless we're going for geoengineering (scary), any human solution is only going to affect the human caused part of GW and even scientists are all over the map about how much that part is. THEN you have the problem that any solution proposed doesnt even come close to actually doing much about the CO2. It DOES do a lot about global wealth redistribution to prop up failed countries.
Ban the sale and production of carbon dioxide containing soft drinks.
This would have a added plus of weight loss.
"identify pathways for mobilizing the scaling up of climate finance."
Here, in a nutshell, the UN agenda. Watch your wallets!
All the UN wants is world control Get the USA out or they will kill us all
I have never been a gloom and doomer...ever. But, I DO pay attention and try to get as much information as possible on the subject of global warming as possible. We are experiencing a very sharp increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The TYPE of CO2 that HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE CAUSE OF THIS SPIKE is from none other than the burning of FOSSIL FUELS. We caused this spike. NOW...the earths temperature tracks with the CO2 level and is trying it's best to catch up to this spike. In other words....The CO2 level has dramatically spiked upwards and the earths temperature is following it upwards.....WE CAUSED IT.
Now...you tell me...Do you think for one minute the bloated rich energy industry wants to admit it and get on board with turning it around....not no but hell no! NOW....you tell me , who do these bloated rich fokes control?....that's right, our politicians. Were in trouble people, and they know it!
The type of CO2? Are you kidding? CO2 is CO2. Until someone discovers an economically viable alternative to hydrocarbons (in whatever form) the world will keep on producing. Look at the facts. Green energies are 2-30 times more expensive (the low ranges are AFTER subsidies for each energy asset).
Source
Cost per KwH
Source
Coal Steam
$0.036
EIA
Nuclear
$0.024
EIA
Hydroelectric
$0.092
EIA
Gas Turbine
$0.049
EIA
Wind, Onshore
$0.04 to $0.15
NREL
Wind, Offshore
$0.07 to $0.20
NREL
Solar, Photovoltaic
$0.15 to $0.59
NREL
Solar, Concentrating
$0.06 to $0.30
NREL
Geothermal
$0.04 to $0.13
NREL
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
And as for rising ocean levels? That's a non-starter. Ever put ice cubes in your drink? When they melted, did the drink overflow? Of course not. The ice everyone is worried about IS ALREADY FLOATING ON THE ANTARTIC OCEAN. Won't cause ocean to rise one centimeter.
Nitwits do abound. All scientists are very well aware of your ice cube trick. Do you think they are stupid? It's the ice that is not now floating in the oceans whose melting will raise the sea levels. That, dear friend, is the ice everyone is worried about.
Also, I would mention the term "carbon neutral" to take into consideration with your CO2 concerns, if you have any.
The only "everyone" that is worried about ice melting is a few nutcakes. The UN climatologists themselves do not predict a rise in seal level of more than 3 inches in the next century. The notion that the oceans are going to rise 250 feet any time soon is pure fearmongering.
J. Clarke,
I beg to differ on that one. There are concerns all around the globe over the rise in sea levels. Increased flooding, salt water damage to eco systems, with both of those coupled to larger storm systems. Whole cities becoming uninhabitable. I haven't read that the 250 ft. rise is coming tomorrow morning. Have you? What the scientists say is that if all the greenland and antartic ices melt, the levels could rise 250 ft. Another point worth mentioning is that every year the scientists are surprised that the melting is happening much fasther than their models predicted.
Where do these misconceptions come from?
Honestly, people who never took a basic chemistry course in their lives (or don't remember what they learned) come on these threads and act as if they know more then the PhDs who've spent decades studying this stuff.
Chuck is absolutely correct, bowler. Carbon has isotopes, and the (rapidly increasing) carbon isotope warming our atmosphere is precisely the kind found in fossil fuels. It's every bit as clear as a human fingerprint.
It's called science.
bowler
WOW! I see that lobotomy on you work. The Antarctic is not floating. WOW! The Antarctic is land covered with ice and surrounded by water; the Arctic is water surrounded by land.
PS
Turn that glass upside down. Put that ice on top of that glass. I bet your table gets wet.
bowler800
You are ignoring the massive externalized or hidden costs from burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels only seem cheap because everyone pretends those costs don't exist. $hundreds of billions just in the U.S. Every Year. Health costs, military costs, environmental costs, damage to infrastructure from acid rain, loss of lives in wars over oil and pipeline routes in Afghanistan, etc. Not to mention the loss of hundreds of mountain tops in Appalachia, to get at the coal.
In just one year during the Iraq war, oil added $700 billion to our trade deficit.
And then there are the subsidies, at least $10 billion a year in the U.S.
International Energy Agency‘s latest report says subsidies for fossil fuel consumption at $409 billion, and subsidies to all renewable energy combined at $66 billion (globally)
Imagine what could have been done to develop clean energy if the $409 billion had been spent on it, instead of an a mature industry over 100 years old, that doesn't need subsidies.
Oil has been subsidized since 1918
Coal has been subsidized since 1932
And most efforts to obtain fossil fuels now are desperate measures that are expensive and environmental disasters waiting to happen.
Tar sands, shale oil, deep sea oil drilling, drilling in the Arctic, with the Arctic ocean open for exploitation, mountain top removal for coal, fracking.
Imagine trying to stop an oil gusher in the Arctic Ocean in dead of winter, under a frozen sea and with no sunlight, in one of the most remote places on earth.
Is this a test to see how stupid humans can be?
The fearmongers using the greenland/antartic ice melt scare fail to mention that even IPCC says that would take at least 1000 yrs. Under normal circumstances over the LAST 1000 yrs, we've seen cities disappear and that was well before any industrial revolution.
Also to the original poster, seriously the UN doesn't have that much power, the UN is a global forum, it is not a government, now I would like it to evolve into a government, but the fact remains, no ability to tax, no military except for that given by member nations(and even that is only usuable by the Security Council (which is composed by all the important nations such as you guessed it the US, and any thing can be overruled by a single veto there). In general if the UN decided to attack it would be annihalated, it has almost no power, none, come up with a more credible threat than the UN, maybe China or Russia are still good if you want.
I guess politically correct issues don't play as well on the world stage as they do in the US. Any country that takes the lead in this issue will be surprised when they look behind them and no one is following them.
It's the U.S. where it isn't playing well. That's what happens when you have the only anti science global warming denial political party in the world - the GOP. And of course Libertarians
Actually, it's the rest of the world causing most of the problems.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-08-17/ap-impact-co2-emissions-in-us-drop-to-20-year-low
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8793269/China-population-to-become-worlds-biggest-polluters.html
http://www.timesnews.net/article/9054658/china-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-dioxide-polluter-us-reduces-emissions
http://www.thenewecologist.com/2009/10/the-worlds-biggest-polluters/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year/
To Sailrick: Well, if, as you say, it is the US where it "isn't playing well", then explain to me why NewZealand, Japan, Canada and Russia opted out of the "Kyoto Protocol".
Are they all "insane world destroyers", or do they possibly feel that there is a "angry, overbearing, unreasonable, dictatorial, tax-everybody to h%ll" attitude among the "save-the-planet-crowd" ?
The people of this planet already have enough insults to suffer from their own respective national governments, now, don't we?
yea, its pretty ironic when even the name-sake country withdraws from the treaty. No country is going to hurt itself for the sake of all the other countries and every country would like to be the only country that DOESNT hurt itself. This global, mutually-assured-destruction approach depends on a global socialist solidarity that just doesnt exist. We dont even see that kind of solidarity between north and south EU.
Humanity is unable to deal with the reality of global warming and its tragic consequences. WE can only watch in shock and horror as the planet I know and love is destroyed right in front of our eyes. Since I know that humanity will do nothing except to continue with business as usual, I know that the destruction will continue and accelerate. Since watching this horror unfold is too painful for me, I have decided to ignore it if I can and try to enjoy my life as much as I can.
Syria has genocide weapons of mass destruction. Iran is on the verge of nuclear bomb capability as we're heading toward the cliff of World War 3... green house gases should be on the back burner ya think?
Glenn,
It will probably be WW3 that causes the whole thing to snap. The global warming is a serious enough problem, but you're right. If WW3 breaks out it will certainly be on the back burner. And then it will be too late. All it will take is for the methane hydrates to all come loose, some ocean current changes, and we'll probably even have to put WW3 on the back burner.
Glenn-2827821
You obviously don't understand how grave the situation with global warming really is. We have no time left to waffle. It will be extremely difficult to cut emissions in time to avoid exceeding the 2C warming that is considered maybe the line between awful climate change and civilization ending climate change.
We already have 0.8 C warming from the last century. And because of lag in climate response to emissions, (thermal inertia of the oceans) we already have cooked in another 0.6 - 0.8 C warming.
So we are really about 3/4 of the way to the 2 C limit.
To put it in perspective; There is only about 5 C difference between today's global temperature and the temps at the height of the last glaciation, 20,000 years ago. and on our current path we are looking at probably 4 C or maybe 5 C warmer than pre-industrial, by the end of this century.
A world humans have never experienced.
Yep, keep enjoying your life Tiffy, when you're not being a drama queen.
And that goes for you too Sail Rick
20,000 yrs ago, humans a lot more primitive and vulnerable to the environment adapted and survived that 10C spike you allude to. I'm not ready to buy my nike sneakers yet.
The Third World countries are looking for a meal ticket.
Earth Day Predicitions from 1970
"We have about five more years at the outside to do something."
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation."
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction."
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
"By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,"
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…."
• Life Magazine, January 1970
"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Stanford's Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling.
"Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone."
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
"We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones."
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’"
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
So? What is your solution? You see, no one has any that really work yet, at least on a large scale. We need energy or people will starve or freeze to death, plain and simple. Can you imagine NYC or any of the big cities without energy?
The Sierra club are a bunch of leftovers from the '60s. They are against Nat gas, the cleanest energy we have so far except for nuclear. They just like to hike in places that hold enormous amounts of energy, but they forget about the old people and the big cities that need those resources. I think they actually forget about the rest of the world. Without energy, we all are dead.
Natural gas is NOT the cleanest energy we have so fa,r outside of nuclear. that's bulsh@t
Gas has 1/2 the C02 emissions that coal has. Better, but clean is a stretch to say the least.
Not saying gas can't help with the transition. What you forget, perhaps, is that if natural gas is used for all the things it's proponents advocate, it will no longer be cheap. Companies have no margin as it is, on gas that is fracked. The abnormally low natural gas prices we see now will not last.
In one recent two year period in the U.S., there were 18.2 GW of wind power installed. After you adjust for wind's lower capacity factor (intermittence), that is equivalent to building about 4.5 -5 nuclear power plants, In Two Years! We now have 50 GW of wind, supplying 3% of U.S. electricity.
That may not sound like much, but it's a start and is real, despite what Romney said.
Photovoltaics have rapidly become cheaper. it will be directly competitive with fossil fuels for much of the U.S. in this decade. It is already there in sunny and more expensive energy markets.
It's now cheaper to build wind farms than new coal plants. and they won't need no stinkin coal.
Procrustes
I noticed that not one of the people who's predictions you quote, is a climate scientist.
Anyone who calls himself a "climate scientist" is by definition already 100% convinced of the horrors of global warming.
The mindset of climate scientists is similar to those who are 100% certain that Jesus returns next Thursday, or that the world might end Dec 21, 2012, or that a comet will crash into earth in 2029, and whatever the next "end of the world story" is.
But actually it's worse, because climate scientists take certain facts, like e.g. "we all know that the planet earth is currently in a warming trend" and attach that fact to "a blinding unreasoning fear and panic machine" along with plans to "tax everyone who uses energy into submission".
I just don't like to be bullied by them.
The reason climate scientists believe we're in a warming trend is because that's what the measurements (air and ocean temperatures, arctic sea ice melt, etc.) show. Furthermore, millions of people around the world who aren't even scientists are noticing signs of warming, such as changes in precipitation and animal migration patterns.
Even animal migrations are adapting to change. What is the big issue about maintaining the absolute status quo in every details. Humans adapt. That's our competitive advantage. Fire and the wheel are pretty good too. Go with it.
Every species adapts, every species also goes extinct, civilizations also collapse historically, just let it happen, that about right.
Humans don't have a predestined capability to survive, we are as capable of being affected by things in the world as every other species, like I would like to see how we would survive in a world depleted of easily accessible resources, depleted of forest cover(you know wood to burn and like), and depleted of fishery stocks, and all the other things that civilizations have taken for granted through history.
I think that we are stuck with technology as a option, we risk falling(if we rise at all) for quite some time if we get off of it, our good options involve applying different technological solutions, our bad options involve falling into the ashbin of human history, and perhaps into the ashbin of species extinction like many species have endured throughout Earth's history.
We are a unique civilization in that we have affected nearly every thing, I don't think we want to conduct the experiment of civilization collapsing and just seeing if we 'adapt', as it is far from certain that we will be able to 'adapt' all that well.
This is a fantastic outcome! Bad science and bad bureaucrats failed again to implement their economy busting theories!
This is one of those instances where if your wrong it will not b ok.......
Late at night in their dark secret labs teams of mad diabolical scientists were dreaming up theories with the sole purpose to destroy the world's economies. I think I read that in Marvel comics some time back. Never fear, the Fantastic Four or maybe the Ninja Turtles will come to our rescue.
No. That's marxists, not scientists.
UH RAH, Enlightened, im glad to see someone else that has put two and two together, yes we need monitoring of the enviroment but not to the point that they demolish and eononmy, that's exactly what has happened in the United States, then they wonder why our populous can't find jobs, they have shut down they majority of companies that provided the jobs. All we have to do in the USA to put people back to work is loosen up the regulations and people will be back at work. Not everyone can be a computer geek, there are miners, electricians, steel workers, construction workers and on and on that don't want to set behind a desk. The current administration wants to increase revenue with taxes, all they have to do is put people back to work and they will get their revenue from income taxes,,,,,,DAH,,,,,, The next thing the world needs to realize is population growth and nobody will go after that one,,,,the more people we have the more resourses we need,,,,another DAH
As far as global warming and climate science, you haven't an earthly clue what you are talking about.
Monitor the environment? We have a global emergency on our hands. Every major science organization in the world agrees on that.
The rest of your comment is nonsense too
Are you sure you're at the right website? This isn't Fox Noise
buy windmills,solar panels, electric cars all made in CHINA
Or stop being so ignorant and support their development in the U.S.
We should be leading
Actually, it's the rest of the world causing most of the problems.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-08-17/ap-impact-co2-emissions-in-us-drop-to-20-year-low
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8793269/China-population-to-become-worlds-biggest-polluters.html
http://www.timesnews.net/article/9054658/china-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-dioxide-polluter-us-reduces-emissions
http://www.thenewecologist.com/2009/10/the-worlds-biggest-polluters/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year
Once again Procrustes,,,,,The biggest problem is "QUIT PUMPIN OUT THE BABIES"
That's a great idea Gossamer Wings, but we don't have any yet and people need to eat, use electricity to heat their homes and such. Nat gas is the best solution, but the very people who complain about global warming are against that. Nuclear is another option, but too many problems with that also.
The fact is, without energy sources, the world would starve. I don't believe there is any possible way to stop global warming, the earth has been warming since the last ice age. More land mass, more heat absorbed from the sun. You would have to be insane, to actually think this is a onetime event. The earth has been changing since the beginning of time and it will continue with or without us.
Dead on a-----rand
"Blah blah blah blah the climate has changed before"
Your logic is like saying that humans can't cause forest fires because they happened naturally in the past, before Man discovered fire.
Standard memorized deneir bullsh@t
Regurgitating ideologically based sound byte talking points is not the same as thinking.
Your biggest problem SailRick is you think there are easy, simple, and cheap solutions.
We need to keep our economy strong so we CAN deploy the solution once it shows up. We're not there yet. Dont pull the trigger too soon.
I have a question, in the title it states " Climate talks end with deal thats' not where "WE" wanted it.,,,,,,Just exactly who the h____— is "WE"
Ya gotta take your hat off to these folks. This is working really well, don't you think?
U.N. is trying to become a Government. It is not.
Kyoto was a scam designed primarily to screw the US.
"The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which controls the greenhouse gas emissions of rich countries.
Poor countries came into the talks in Doha demanding a timetable on how rich countries
would scale up climate change aid for them to $100 billion annually by 2020"
GAME OVER!
Jeff,
And you are saying that if all the developed countries chipped in 100 billion annually to fix this problem it would not be worth it? Hell, man, the US all by itself just threw away between 3.7 trillion and 4.4 trillion on the most recent arab wars. I'd say that 100 billion would be much better spent than those staggering trillions. Wouldn't you?
Jeff
The vast majority of the CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere, since the industrial revolution, was put there by the industrialized nations, especially in the West.
The rich nations.
Those nations that have contributed the least to CO2 levels, are likely to see some of the biggest impacts.
Historical contributions to CO2 resident in the atmosphere, between 1909 and 2004
United States 315,000 million tons
China 89,000 million tons
India 25,000 million tons
--------
Today, China and India rank 78th and 145th in per capita emissions
United States is Number 1 in per capita emissions
China surpassed the U.S. in annual emissions about 4 years ago, and their emissions are still growing, They are burning a lot of coal to modernize the country.
But China has also made a big commitment to renewable energy. They acknowledge AGW, unlike most scientifically illiterate GOP politicians, who largely base their opinions about climate change on Creationism beliefs and the fossil fuels money they get.
China has made a bigger commitment to developing renewable energy than the U.S. has.
The Chinese government will spend $450 billion supporting renewables in China, over the next five years and $750 billion by 2020.
they have set a goal of 15% renewables by 2020
their new goal for wind power is 1,000 GW by 2050 and 150 GW by 2020
They have set a goal of 50 GW of solar by 2020
There is a city in China where over 800,000 people are employed in solar energy. (though this is not all for domestic use, but export also)
There are 120 million installed solar water heaters in China.
(1,000 GW of wind power is equivalent to about 300 nuclear reactors, using 30% capacity factor for wind, for it's intermittancy, and a rough estimate.
Nuclear plants are about 85% capacity factor. The average nuclear plant is 1 GW, though some are twin reactors)
[Sept 18 2012
"China is now launching a major build out of solar electricity generation in the domestic market, aiming for 21GW of installations by 2015, increasing its previous target of 5GW by five-fold."
{By Shareholders Unite at Seeking Alpha}]
Yep, and the Senate voted it down 95-0
And your behind the ball on where the emissions come from
Actually, it's the rest of the world causing most of the problems.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-08-17/ap-impact-co2-emissions-in-us-drop-to-20-year-low
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8793269/China-population-to-become-worlds-biggest-polluters.html
http://www.timesnews.net/article/9054658/china-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-dioxide-polluter-us-reduces-emissions
http://www.thenewecologist.com/2009/10/the-worlds-biggest-polluters/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year
Actually, Qatar (as is Doha) is #1 per capita. Ironic, isnt it?
SailRick, do you know how they measured CO2 emissions for countries, as far as using those measurements to get them to decrease emissions, according to the IPCC Report? How about I quote directly from the document for you?
You can see that by using the formula they use, the most affluent countries, such as the US, will ALMOST ALWAYS wind up having the most CO2 emissions. This may seem logical right now since industrialized nations have historically used the most fuel and most fuel has been carbon based; however, suppose more affluence in the future leads to the ability to develop alternative fuels and more affluent countries wind up with LESS carbon emissions? The IPCC Report itself acknowledges that China surpassed the US in carbon emissions in 2007. Yet this article states:
If they are truly concerned ONLY about saving the world and not at all about having richer, more developed nations giving money to nations that are less developed, then why would they measure CO2 emissions based partly on "affluence," and why wouldn't they include the worst offender in the Kyoto Protocol? It's not as much the science as it is things like this (among other things) that make people like me skeptical about climate scientists.
They would reduce emissions more by cancelling these conferences that don't accomplish anything. Just think of the CO2 reductions due to no one traveling to and attending the conferences...
I would imagine that the location was not all that appealing.
To really get a grasp of this issue one needs to get a grasp on the concept of carbon neutral. You can release all the carbon you want to into the cycle and as long as it was part of the cycle to begin with no damage is being done. It's the addition of carbons sequestered for millions of years in fossil fuels being injected into the cycle that is causing the harm.
The simple solution to increasing CO2 emissions is ... Stop breathing, and plant more oxygen producing plants.
The earth, like all of us, started dying the day it was born.
Global warming started long before man came on the scene.
Man will not stop any natural progression of the earth's existence.
msgt51
And if you understood one word of what Plotinus just said just before you, you wouldn't be making such an ill informed comment.
Do you even know what the carbon cycle is?
Global warming is NOT just a natural warming like the earth always goes through.
There has never before been a large species on Earth, 7 billion strong, burning fossil fuels and speeding up the natural short term carbon cycle.
( 20% of human caused emissions are from land use impacts. )
In the short term (or active) carbon cycle, carbon cycles through the atmosphere, water, top soil, and living things. We are made of carbon compounds.
This cycle has been in a kind of balance or equilibrium for at least the last 10,000 years, and maybe as long as humans have been on earth.
That balance made possible the Holocene, during which agriculture and civilization emerged in a fairly benign climate regime. Carbon effects all life, the climate, geology, the chemistry of the oceans.
(the Holocene is the epoch since the last ice age about 11,000 years ago)
Have you heard of clean coal technology? It's called carbon capture and sequestration. The idea is to capture CO2 from power plants and pump it deep underground to sequester it. In other words, take it out of circulation, take it out of the short term carbon cyle.
Nature has done a kind of carbon sequestration. The carbon from former living things gets deposited underground, where after many tens of millions of years, it becomes coal. This locks it out of the short term carbon cycle, helping keep it in a balance that has made life, as we know it, possible
.
We are now taking maybe 65 million years of coal, burning it, and releasing all that carbon back into the active carbon cycle, in a few human lifetimes. That's a blink of an eye in geological time scales.
So carbon from fossil fuel emissions are ON TOP OF the normal carbon that naturally cycles through the carbon cycle.
That is Not just a natural cycle that the earth is going through.
In the natural carbon cycle, nature adds and removes carbon from the carbon cycle through natural processes. Humans are adding 30 billion tons of CO2, or about 8 billion tons of carbon, to the atmosphere and the oceans every year.
And we are not removing any. That overwhelms the natural systems ability to keep the carbon cycle in balance.
You are my hero SailRick!
This is just another energy wasting meeting by those professing to want to limit green house gases. But, of course, what this meeting really is about is the money; namely poor and corrupt countries asking for another handout.
Yep!
The vast majority of the CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere, since the industrial revolution, was put there by the industrialized nations, especially in the West.
The rich nations.
Those nations that have contributed the least to CO2 levels, are likely to see some of the biggest impacts.
Historical contributions to CO2 resident in the atmosphere, between 1909 and 2004
United States 315,000 million tons
China 89,000 million tons
India 25,000 million tons
--------
Today, China and India rank 78th and 145th in per capita emissions
United States is Number 1 in per capita emissions
China surpassed the U.S. in annual emissions about 4 years ago, and their emissions are still growing, They are burning a lot of coal to modernize the country.
But China has also made a big commitment to renewable energy. They acknowledge AGW, unlike most scientifically illiterate GOP politicians, who largely base their opinions about climate change on Creationism beliefs and the fossil fuels money they get.
Mother Nature will survive,with or without us.
Art,
Yeah, but she is going to blame us for turning her into a dried-up shriveled lesbian nag.
We'll survive it too. We just dont know how yet. TBD.
I think PSY could fix this problem. He could suck in CO2 rather than Oxygen. It would reduce carbon emissions immensely, and eliminate one a$$hole.