Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Outpace Worst-Case Scenario

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the drill-baby-drill dept.

Earth 760

Layzej writes "The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated. A chart accompanying the study shows the breakdown by country. The new figures mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. It is a 'monster' increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past. The question now among scientists is whether the future is the IPCC's worst case scenario or something more extreme."

cancel ×

760 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Phew... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980398)

Thank goodness that "global warming" is bullshit.

Re:Phew... (5, Informative)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980476)

Note that the US, who in principle did not sign the Kyoto protocol, actually reduced emissions significantly (not just reduction in growth, but actual reduction) since 2007 due to the economic recession.

So, we don't want to reduce carbon emissions because it will hurt our economy - but hurt the economy and emissions automatically reduce. Sounds like a vicious cycle that needs a technological exit strategy to me.

Re:Phew... (3, Interesting)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980588)

Note that the US, who in principle did not sign the Kyoto protocol, actually reduced emissions significantly (not just reduction in growth, but actual reduction) since 2007 due to the economic recession.

So, we don't want to reduce carbon emissions because it will hurt our economy - but hurt the economy and emissions automatically reduce. Sounds like a vicious cycle that needs a technological exit strategy to me.

But that reduction you have there is production somewhere where there are no emission controls. And likely, no economy either.

Re:Phew... (3, Interesting)

Kagura (843695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980700)

Note that the US, who in principle did not sign the Kyoto protocol, actually reduced emissions significantly (not just reduction in growth, but actual reduction) since 2007 due to the economic recession.

So, we don't want to reduce carbon emissions because it will hurt our economy - but hurt the economy and emissions automatically reduce. Sounds like a vicious cycle that needs a technological exit strategy to me.

I already know what will happen. Policy measures will be introduced to barely limit emissions worldwide. Eventually this will become a looming problem, and a reasonably sized international body will decide that we will use active measures to counteract the climate change problems.

Nobody wants to cut back on emissions in any meaningful way because it will mean literal death for large numbers of people unable to be supported by non-oil-based agricultural methods, and it will also mean a reduction in the standard of living for everyone else. You know as well as I do that we won't do anything until the last minute, which will be active climate measures.

Re:Phew... (3, Interesting)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980762)

Note that the US, who in principle did not sign the Kyoto protocol, actually reduced emissions significantly (not just reduction in growth, but actual reduction) since 2007 due to the economic recession.

So, we don't want to reduce carbon emissions because it will hurt our economy - but hurt the economy and emissions automatically reduce. Sounds like a vicious cycle that needs a technological exit strategy to me.

I already know what will happen. Policy measures will be introduced to barely limit emissions worldwide. Eventually this will become a looming problem, and a reasonably sized international body will decide that we will use active measures to counteract the climate change problems.

Nobody wants to cut back on emissions in any meaningful way because it will mean literal death for large numbers of people unable to be supported by non-oil-based agricultural methods, and it will also mean a reduction in the standard of living for everyone else. You know as well as I do that we won't do anything until the last minute, which will be active climate measures.

If we have really reached peak oil, then the cost of oil may fix the problem all by itself... now, we just need to stop digging all the coal from the ground, methane from the deep shale, and other sequestered carbon that could be replaced by nuclear, solar, wind, hamsters on wheels, and all that other green jazz.

Re:Phew... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981092)

Does "active climate measures" mean dusting off the zany-but-endearing-in-a-slightly-creepy-way techno-utopianism of good old Project Plowshare?

There must be a way to obtain carbon offset credits by using nuclear explosives to propel dust into the upper atmosphere and cause global cooling...

Re:Phew... (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981184)

At the rate the cost of solar photovoltaic cells are dropping it will soon be cheapest way to produce electricity. Then all we need is a way to store enough energy to get us through the intermittent nature of solar power.
 

Re:Phew... (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980852)

It's not? The chart says nothing about global warming itself. It only shows which countries release more CO2. China surpassed US both in absolute amount and in relative amount, by the way. US and the rest of the world has expanded their use proportionately. Chinese use has increased VERY rapidly. Just look at the chart. If you insist that the biggest "offender" has to cut the most, you'll have to try getting China to curtail their growth. Otherwise, you are just asking US to voluntarily increase prices on fossil fuels domestically so that China could use more of them.

Re:Phew... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981070)

The chart says nothing about global warming itself. It only shows which countries release more CO2. China surpassed US both in absolute amount and in relative amount, by the way. US and the rest of the world has expanded their use proportionately. Chinese use has increased VERY rapidly. Just look at the chart. If you insist that the biggest "offender" has to cut the most, you'll have to try getting China to curtail their growth.

Maybe if the US stopped propping up the oil industry worldwide. At the moment, we're making sure China can get all the relatively cheap oil they want so they can keep the transnational corporate machine running.

We're digging oil out of the Dakotas to sell overseas, not to use here in the US. The dead-enders like the Koch Brothers are pumping hundreds of millions to tip our political system just to keep the whole suicide machine going a little bit longer. Fracking, shale oil... did you hear the one about how there are "billions" of barrels of oil in North Dakota just laying around for the taking? Does anyone think that the time that oil might give us will be used to seriously look for alternatives? Hell no, we'll probably see them start building Hummers again! There's no exit strategy for these people that doesn't involve a lot of suffering for people who are not them.

I read an article in Science about how many tree species are not adapting to AGW-driven changes and how much forest land is going to become savannah or desert way ahead of previous predictions and another $100million gets spent in the public relations campaign to discredit climate science.

Any effort to try to change our apocalyptic trajectory is met with unbelievable resistance. Does anyone doubt that things are going to have to get really really bad before anyone starts to put forward solutions?

After all, Al Gore is so fat and he's got a high electric bill at his house so clearly global warming is a fraud.

Re:Phew... (3, Interesting)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981258)

Put a price on carbon including the carbon that goes into producing and delivering imports. Then the high carbon/low regulation producers don't have an advantage over domestic producers.

WWIII (-1, Troll)

JamesonLewis3rd (1035172) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980416)

Now is the time.

Re:WWIII (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980688)

you forgot one, Revelation chapter 13, the US Gov is the beast

Re:WWIII (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981232)

Banks are the beast; US Govt is a savior, protector of our rights, providing for the Welfare of the poor, preventing needless suffering.

Models are always right! (1, Insightful)

gatzke (2977) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980424)

Hansen predicted doom unless we cut back on CO2 years ago:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/1988_hansen20.gif [wordpress.com]

What happened? No significant cuts yet 20 years later we are still well under his best case models.

Do they really know what is going on? Shouldn't models somewhat capture trends of the data?

Re:Models are always right! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980484)

You're quoting wattsupwiththat as if it's credible?

You know he can't even quote himself correctly, right?

Re:Models are always right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980704)

Shoot the messenger.

Do you like your cool aid in Grape?

Re:Models are always right! (1, Troll)

bricko (1052210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980536)

This is great news and lets us know that with the last 10 years of NO temperature increase it is likely the CO2 idea is decoupling from any possible warming....great news.

Re:Models are always right! (4, Interesting)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980670)

The models are off because up until 2009/2010-ish were actually experiencing a natural cooling trend, which masked our artificial warming trend and came out as a wash. Now that the cooling trend has subsided, warming is expected to spike in the coming decade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302199.html

Or we could just jump to convenient conclusions given a tiny dataset.

Re:Models are always right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980832)

Note that we have had other types of "Natural Cooling Trends", specifically called "Ice Ages".

Re:Models are always right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980910)

More relevant would be the Maunder minimums, one of which is apparently approaching in few decades.

Re:Models are always right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980966)

The cooling is due in part to aircraft contrails and air particulates from pollution. The argument I'm sure would be to promote more pollution and air travel but that doesn't work either. Fuel cost are going to keep increasing which will eventually price air travel out of the reach of average people like it was 50 years ago. Pollution shortens lives so we need to reduce it. Also CO2 causes acid rain and acidity in the oceans kills fish. Also reducing sunlight is bad for plants. You know what you eat or for the carnivores out there what food eats. It's why all the plans to add particulates to the air even water are a bad idea. It's debatable even if it'll help. Remember plants store CO2 so reducing sunlight may increase CO2 making it a wash.

Re:Models are always right! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981142)

The models are off because up until 2009/2010-ish were actually experiencing a natural cooling trend, which masked our artificial warming trend and came out as a wash. Now that the cooling trend has subsided, warming is expected to spike in the coming decade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302199.html

  Or we could just jump to convenient conclusions given a tiny dataset.

There is a warming/dry trend alternating with a cooling/wet trend every 7-10 years or so. It's called El Nino/La Nina.

No one talks about it much anymore, but my personal experiences over the last 20 years support that cycle very well. Right now we're in a La Nina phase, meaning more cool & more precipitation (hey would you look at that, unprecedented snow in October in the U.S. this year).

One thing that everyone needs to keep in mind is WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. In fact, one of the most agreed upon results of climate change is more VIOLENT weather, not merely "hotter" weather.

When the climate balance is upset, all hell breaks loose in the weather, it doesn't just "get hotter." As a result you see things like that massive snow in Washington D.C. a year or two ago, snow in Texas a year or three ago, while simultaneously having the hottest summers on record.

It's not rocket science.

Re:Models are always right! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980774)

What I wonder is why Climate scientists are estimating CO2 levels, rather than theorizing effects of CO2, or showing how CO2 has affected climate in the past. This only proves that they're not scientists, but alarmists.

Re:Models are always right! (-1, Flamebait)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981156)

What I wonder is why Climate scientists are estimating CO2 levels, rather than theorizing effects of CO2, or showing how CO2 has affected climate in the past. This only proves that they're not scientists, but alarmists.

Scientist: A political activist that also tries to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.

Re:Models are always right! (-1, Troll)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980818)

You are tossing out individual facts at people who have denial mechanisms layered in depth. Look at their in the past.

1. Al Gore gets the science wrong in his movie, their response force more kids to see it multiple times.
2. Al has 20 times the carbon footprint of the average American in one of his homes, and he is actively buying real estate in areas he expects to be under water ? Their response ignore it don't even bother to question it.
3. Al Takes a private jet to stockholm to accept his nobel for promoting green causes ? Doesn't even cause a ripple for them.
4. Turns out Al is getting massive benefit from an investment selling garbage green investments ? Oh well guess he is trying.
5. Hannsen regularly revises the NASA data to to force a warming trend that isn't there ? Not a blink
6. Global warming is in its 13th year of not happening despite record carbon output ? Its not warming its CLIMATE CHANGE YOU DENIER
7. Evidence that the earth was warmer during the Roman empire and the Middle ages, and that global cooling contributed to the fall of civilizations ? Heat is going to kill us you ignorant boob.
8. The hockey stick is a fake, and was manufactured by blatant data manipulation? We are all going to die unless everyone abandons all technology you gravy sucking pig. Get down and grovel in the dirt the way Gaia intended you to.

Been there done that. Its at the point where I am certain the greens are an evolutionary regression to howler monkeys

Re:Models are always right! (2)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980900)

Stop throwing all these other confusing details at me; I'm still cowering in fear of global cooling!

Re:Models are always right! (5, Interesting)

ThePackager (562279) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981128)

Fear the data, denier: * every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992; * the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15; * every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976; * the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25; * every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956; and * every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917. The two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses are the NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis and the CRU direct surface temperature analysis. Both trends are definitely and significantly up.

Hooray! (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980430)

No more 3 hour drives to the coast! I'll be enjoying my beachfront property and palm trees right here at home before too long!

Re:Hooray! (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980488)

Yeah, my older relatives are in the waterfront property, I invested inland at 25 feet above current sea level.

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980638)

Well done, at the current rate of a foot a century you should have a waterfront home sometime in the year 4500 or so.

Re:Hooray! (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980666)

Where do you live? Central Maine?

Yeah uh... (1, Offtopic)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980434)

It takes a while for climates to change
But here is another factor/point that I believe gets lost in translation.
People actually have health problems and lung issues which can be directly linked to pollution.
Why dont they mention that as well?

The cost to treating a child with lung illness greatly increases the cost on society at the luxury of the polluting business. Why is this not a conclusion that people do not see or do not report about?
It is not isolated, it is everywhere. Just seems odd.

Re:Yeah uh... (3, Informative)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980520)

Yeah every time I get too much carbon dioxide in my lungs, I start to feel like my chest is going to explode.

Then I exhale.

Re:Yeah uh... (0)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980550)

read my post again... slowly this time.

Re:Yeah uh... (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980604)

"The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated.

No other pollutant is being discussed.

Re:Yeah uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980684)

Then I exhale.

No other action is being discussed, either. So apparently we're all only capable of exhalation?

Re:Yeah uh... (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981014)

Nor is carbon dioxide itself a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is food for plants.

Hypocapnia means 'not enough CO2' (2)

nido (102070) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981076)

Hypocapnia [wikipedia.org] is when you don't have enough CO2 in your blood.

I have a bookmark for a .co.uk medical gas supplier on another computer. They have PDFs of their products' Material Safety Data Sheets. As I recally, they have Oxygen, Oxygen +5% CO2, Plain Air + 5% CO2, straight CO2 (for anesthesia [anesthesia-analgesia.org] ), etc.

But I did find a printout of this page: Hyperoxia-Induced Hypocapnia [nih.gov] . The practical implication of this piece is that every old person who has been prescribed oxygen by their doctor is also being poisoned. This creates more things to treat, so it's good for the medical system, but not so good for the patient.

If you're going to be on oxygen, 5% CO2 should always be blended in...

Medical Gas Data Sheets for CO2 (1)

nido (102070) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981238)

Medical Gas Data Sheets (MGDS) [bochealthcare.co.uk] has links to them all.

Both the Air + 5% CO2 and Oxygen +5% CO2 sheets say that breathing this gas "increases the rate and depth of breathing".

That means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980436)

More food for plants right?

Re:That means... (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980502)

More food for plants right?

Yeah, are you a vegetable?

Re:That means... (0)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980714)

I'll bet he/she eats vegetables. I'll be he/she also eats meat that eats vegetables. And he/she probably doesn't like the cold. And don't worry, CO2 isn't harmful to us until it reaches 50,000 PPM, it's around 300 PPM right now.

BTW

MAMA SAID SPOCK YOU OUT!

Re:That means... (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980850)

If I were taking him seriously, I would have asked if he could photosynthesize. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a little more complex than just making the grass greener. The one that bugs me more than most is increased ocean acidity, kill the corals, and possibly increase sinkhole formation activity - living in Florida is bad enough now with the idiots pumping water for strawberries so hard that they put holes all over the place, including in roads (I-4 had a big one), under houses, etc. But, more sinkholes would fall into the known unknown category, along with heat trapping, etc. The really scary ones are the unknown unknowns.

Re:That means... (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980856)

Umm, no. CO2 is harmful before 5,000PPM. By the time it reaches 50,000PPM it's beyond harmful and downright lethal.

Of course this is only talking about the direct affect of respiration of high CO2 concentrations, a far fetched danger that no one has ever used as an argument to reduce CO2 emissions.

Oh noes! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980438)

It can't be so! If it has gone up like that, temperatures world-wide must already be up by nearly 10 degrees C, right? That's what the profits (er, prophets?) of doom have been telling us! Searing heat all over the world! Devastation everywhere!

Oh, wait... Temps are going down? How can that be?

Where's the beef? (-1, Troll)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980442)

CO2 outpaces worst-case scenarios yet the heat doesn't show up. Perhaps the computer models were wrong*. [* actually, computer models give you whatever result you want if you tweak them the right way, so they technically, they gave the 'right' results]

Re:Where's the beef? (3, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980540)

The models indicate there is supposed to be a lag. But so far for previous rises the heat did show up.

Re:Where's the beef? (0)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980660)

The models indicate there is supposed to be a lag. But so far for previous rises the heat did show up.

The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were /programmed/ to /assume/ that there will be lag, that's how computer models work. The people creating those models can be biased in their beliefs and in analysis of the data the models are based on

Re:Where's the beef? (4, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980720)

Actually that's not necessarily true. I don't know whether you remember your introductory differential equations class where you did basic modeling, but essentially a model starts with a few observations being converted into hypothesis. Not all facits of a model are explicitly known prior to generating the result data.

Re:Where's the beef? (0)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980904)

None of what you said has anything to do with differential equations. Especially, the "facits of the model" bid. Oh, and, hypothesis is not only observations. It's also the assumptions about the data. So gp was right.

Re:Where's the beef? (5, Insightful)

cwebster (100824) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981080)

They were all talking about differential equations, just some of you don't know it. Global circulation models are a collection of coupled atmosphere, ocean, etc models. Each of these models contain a core set of differential equations, which are either discretized to be integrated forward in time in physical space, or decomposed into spectral space, which has certain benefits for non-linear terms in the Navier-Stokes equation. There are a number of parameterizations to handle sub grid-scale processes so their effects taken into account at the resolved grid scale*. In essence you have a bunch of differential equations and a closure to give yourself a closed system for each component of the GCM, which you then use to force other components, and you integrate it all forward in time.

And the gp was right about observations. If you recall your ODE/PDE class, you'll be interested to know this is a boundary-value problem and you need to specify initial and boundary conditions. Initial conditions are your observations, or whatever your assumptions about the current state are. Often the GCM models are initialized in the year 1800 or 1900, giving them 100+ years of simulation time to equilibrate and match known observations before they are really forecasting the future. As for boundary conditions, the model is global, so the boundaries wrap around and you dont need to worry about them.

* An example of this is convection. When moist air rises and condensation occurs (to form cloud drops, rain, ice, etc), energy is released into the surrounding system (enthalpy of vaporization, deposition, fusion, etc). This translates into warming of the surrounding air, and helps drive convection and represents a transport of warming from the surface to the middle and upper atmosphere. The condensation process happens on a much smaller scale than a GCM can resolve, so the equations being integrated cannot represent this process. The process does however have an effect on temperature at the resolved scale. To handle this, parameterizations are employed that make certain assumptions about these processes and then make adjustments to the resolved scale. It would be better to just resolve these effects directly, but when you try to work at the molecular scale globally, realtime moves faster than the model does.

Re:Where's the beef? (4, Insightful)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980742)

"The people creating those models can be biased in their beliefs and in analysis of the data the models are based on."

It's biased by things like the heat capacity of the ocean, for example.

"The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were /programmed/ to /assume/ that there will be lag, that's how computer models work."

The models are not arbitrary statistical models, they are models of known physics and observed facts of the world.

Re:Where's the beef? (5, Informative)

cwebster (100824) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981158)

> The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were /programmed/ to /assume/ that there will be lag

What the models are programmed with are basic PDE's describing what we know about fluid motion, thermodynamics, mass continuity, etc. In this case there will also be code modeling the known interactions of the CO2 molecule with solar and terrestrial radiation. What the programmers are assuming (not programmers really, but the guys running the model) is how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. The model equations will handle how a number concentration of CO2 ends up being a warming (radiative transfer would be a good class to have had for this), and the rest of your equation set will move that warming around the system.

You should download some model code (lots of it is open source!) and look at it sometime. Convince yourself its just an iterative march to grind on some PDE's and not a collection of "if CO2, wait 2 years, then T+=4K" type things.

Re:Where's the beef? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980718)

It's not like there wasn't a hefty co2 emission before, and then suddenly there was, causing a lag. It's just that co2 is increasing. So if there's a lag, it should have been decades ago, not in the nineties to today. What we should be seeing is an increasing rate of increase, and a lag to the rate increase, not a cessation of increase and a lag to resumed increase. Something is wrong with the model.

Re:Where's the beef? (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980828)

Actually we have seen a sharp increase in temperature globally. global running 5 year ave [europa.eu] .

Re:Where's the beef? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980906)

Actually, this is only "sharp" because of "good" selection of the scales of X and Y.

Re:Where's the beef? (4, Funny)

mevets (322601) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980582)

Last summer some dolt tried to convince me it was 40C outside. I pointed to my drink, which was sitting on the table at a lovely 4C, as evidence it couldn't be that warm, or my drink would be warm too. He got all huffy and mumbled about ice-cubes moderating the temperature, but it was obvious he was just making that shit up.

I finished my drink 5 minutes later, and it was cool and refreshing to the last drop.

Re:Where's the beef? (5, Informative)

Phleg (523632) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980586)

CO2 outpaces worst-case scenarios yet the heat doesn't show up.

I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you're actually [guardian.co.uk] that [usatoday.com] fucking [wikipedia.org] ignorant [climatecentral.org] .

Perhaps the computer models were wrong*. [* actually, computer models give you whatever result you want if you tweak them the right way, so they technically, they gave the 'right' results]

Likewise, climate models are designed to simulate the physics [realclimate.org] of the global ecosystem, and not just perform statistical regressions.

Perhaps next time you might consider having the slightest fucking clue of what you're talking about before joining a discussion with adults?

Re:Where's the beef? (-1, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980650)

maybe you should get a fucking clue, the article you link explicitly states that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Or maybe you should look at "climatologist" (agenda driven paid shill) e-mails wailing "where is the heat going??!!"

Re:Where's the beef? (5, Informative)

sermo-rationis (2502720) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980874)

From the article, which was written in July 2010:

Currently 1998 is the hottest year on record. Two combined land and sea surface temperature records from Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) both calculate that the first six months of 2010 were the hottest on record. According to GISS, four of the six months also individually showed record highs.

At the time the article was written, the first six months of 2010 were hotter than the corresponding months in 1998. Unfortunately that trend continued, and this year NOAA announced that 2010 had tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record. (2005 was hotter than 1998; the guardian got that fact wrong).

Source: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html [noaa.gov]

Re:Where's the beef? (4, Funny)

Phleg (523632) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980902)

maybe you should get a fucking clue, the article you link explicitly states that 1998 was the hottest year on record.

It looks like you're in a discussion related to the climate. Would you like help?

  • — Help me with functions on multiple variables [wikipedia.org]
  • — Teach me about Feedback [wikipedia.org]
  • — No thanks, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night
  • [ ] Don't show me this tip again

I give up. (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980748)

You know, perhaps the only thing to do is just start a anti-idiot revolution. We could get a pack of nerds together and start executing anyone who couldn't explain that correlation != causality or find the roots of a quadratic equation. The best part is nobody would try to stop us, because who would willing join a mob of 'idiots' to put down the packs of wheezy db programmers intent on idioticide...

Re:Where's the beef? (0, Troll)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980926)

You can't possibly point to yellow press like guardian and call someone else ignorant, can you? Are you really that clueless? Or are you just posting from a padded room? Do you really think you are an adult? Read over your post to dissuade yourself of that notion.

Re:Where's the beef? (2)

Phleg (523632) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981082)

Appeal to authority [wikipedia.org] works in the other direction too, you know. Especially when the source in question was just reporting on the release [sciencedaily.com] as [washingtonpost.com] published [usatoday.com] by [www.good.is] NASA [nasa.gov] .

Yeah, whatever. NASA's just part of the leftist lamestream media, amirite?

Re:Where's the beef? (5, Informative)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980590)

> CO2 outpaces worst-case scenarios yet the heat doesn't show up.

Heat lags CO2. Just like the middle of winter is not Dec 21 and the middle of summer is not June 21.
The earth is warming up a little more each year. Please learn a little before making wrong headed statements.

Adding heat to the oceans takes a long time. Think boiling water. Adding 1 or 2 degrees to the entire oceans takes an awful lot of energy accumulation. The heat we have added so far has just started to turn over the ocean currents.

Re:Where's the beef? (0, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980674)

Sure, in the geological record it lagged so much that warming occurred first then CO2 levels rose. Negative lag. Of course, since 1998 was the hottest year on record, I'm not sure we can say "the earth is warming up a little more each year", but over a scant time range starting with lip blown thermometers to now, if we take all the measurements as equally accurate, I'm sure some nonsense might be fabricated. oh look, it has.

Re:Where's the beef? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980948)

So...

Why is this year and last year a cool year, and the last 10 years showing a cooling trend according to BEST?

it's the end of the world (0)

cbeaudry (706335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980450)

Nt

CO2? Not that! (-1, Troll)

amightywind (691887) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980454)

OMG. Not that! I know what will stop it. Let me hand over 50% of my income to spend as these hippies see fit. Then again. I'd rather gas up my Tahoe with nice, cheap tar sands gasoline.

burn baby burn. (0)

mevets (322601) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980464)

Nobody wants to miss out on the party; its now or never.

You know, (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980472)

You know, something seems wrong if the worst case scenario is is this greatly surpassed. Four years ago? It looks like all the countries are at the same rate of increase as they were back then (for the most part) if you go by that Reuter's chart. I'm reading this wrong somehow, right? Status quo increase can't be worse than the "worst case scenario"?

Re:You know, (1)

WrecklessSandwich (1000139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980630)

That's assuming that the "worst case scenario" predictions were correct.

Re:You know, (3, Funny)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980702)

The IPCC figured people someone would actually listen to them and start to make cuts, when they made their worst case predictions. They were wrong.

Re:You know, (2)

Thexare Blademoon (1010891) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981172)

But the assumption that people will do something about it shouldn't be made for a "worst case" scenario. I'm a little more okay with it being a matter of missing data, but to use the phrase "worst case scenario" implies that you're throwing out any remaining naivete and, you know, expecting the worst. To do otherwise is both misleading and incompetent.

Is it weird that I want phrases to consistently mean something?

Worst case scenario = greenhouse cliff (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980506)

In short, the scenario outlined by Ben Bova's near-future Grand Tour series of books.

Think of a pile of thermite, and how it's basically harmless even when red hot... until some part finally gets past the tipping point, and suddenly you've got a river of artificial lava sputtering out drops of molten iron. An example scenario would be the "sudden" shutdown of the Atlantic part of the oceanic conveyor current. In the longer term, ongoing ocean acidification will kick the bottom out from under the entire oceanic food chain.

I hope you've found the act of shitting in the same place you sleep profitable, humans.

Re:Worst case scenario = greenhouse cliff (-1, Troll)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980646)

Writen from a device filled to its eye-teeth with rare-earth minerals and toxic materials.

Which is the entire point. AC is a hypocrite, like all the followers. All it takes to make them feel satisfied with themselves is to *act* as if others are doing vile things they *pretend* they aren't.

Ridiculous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980596)

And two clicks in, here [ornl.gov] , you can see that the 2009 and 2010 so-called 'data' are extrapolated projections, not actual measurements. This is what passes for science today!

faggots get aids (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980618)

they get aids and die. faggots deserve to die.

THATS IT! (3, Funny)

tibbar (30026) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980622)

I'm leaving ...

Re:THATS IT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981114)

I'm leaving ...

Can I have ur ID#?

-@|

Nice clear direct scientific measurements. (0, Troll)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980820)

Still won't shut up skeptics.

Re:Nice clear direct scientific measurements. (3, Insightful)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980984)

Skeptics welcome scientific evidence. It is the obstructionist pseudoskeptics (deniers) that will never be convinced until their ulterior motive is fulfilled.

Just like you never stop spreading FUD (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981002)

Still won't shut up skeptics.

Yes, you'd love to silence all debate, wouldn't you?

Real science welcomes skeptics, thanks for letting us know you'd rather side with a cult that brooks no disbelief, just waiting for the noodly tentacles of the Great Warming Spaghetti Monster to wrap us all in a suffocating layer of warmth.

Re:Just like you never stop spreading FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981040)

*GASP* How dare you use the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a negative light.

Re:Nice clear direct scientific measurements. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981024)

Rightly so, if the interpretation mixes in a bunch of supposition and assumption!

I'm going to grab my swim shorts, sunscreen, etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980826)

And head to the summit Mount McKinley.

I do love the beach.

Actual data here (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980928)

Here's actual data for CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

What worst case? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980936)

There is a finite amount of fossile fuels underground, the worst case scenario is that we develop a way to extract and burn most of it, wich would raise global temperatures by about 6 degrees, regardless of speed.

Re:What worst case? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981058)

There is a finite amount of fossile fuels underground, the worst case scenario is that we develop a way to extract and burn most of it, wich would raise global temperatures by about 6 degrees, regardless of speed.

At 6 degrees we are all dead.

What some people don't get (4, Insightful)

Dasher42 (514179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981022)

Is that scientists, on average, are not crazed alarmists. They work in a field full of cut-throat peer review where the one who truly, verifiably disproves the most long-standing stuff gets the recognition and the spoils. Their language is conservative, a wide range of speculation must be admitted for consideration but they're going to err on the side of caution.

There's nothing in nature short of a major mass extinction event to match what we're creating. I can't fathom why anyone's having kids. The kids we have already are truly screwed.

Re:What some people don't get (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981188)

Eh, not really. Even if we completely melted the ice caps (which would require a lot more CO2 than we're currently venting, but hey, we're pretty good at increasing our rate of output, we can do it!) it's not like we'd wipe out humanity. I mean, a few billion people would starve, but even if civilization completely collapsed we'd only be set back about twenty thousand years. We've got, what, five billion years until the Sun goes red giant and engulfs the earth? We've got time to fuck up and rebuild hundreds of times!

The next round will be trickier, though, because they'll need to go straight from burning wood to nuclear fission as we'll have used all the fossil fuels.

Re:What some people don't get (5, Funny)

Pyzaros (674474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981256)

Is that scientists, on average, are not crazed alarmists. They work in a field full of cut-throat peer review where the one who truly, verifiably disproves the most long-standing stuff gets the recognition and the spoils. Their language is conservative, a wide range of speculation must be admitted for consideration but they're going to err on the side of caution.

There's nothing in nature short of a major mass extinction event to match what we're creating. I can't fathom why anyone's having kids. The kids we have already are truly screwed.

I'm guessing you're no scientist.

Re:What some people don't get (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981260)

I work in science, and this is something of a misconception. Cut-throat peer review is anything but exempt from personal politics, as are those who dole out grants, etc. The livelihood of scientists is entirely dependent upon outside money that is often there in hopes that the scientists in question provide a specific answer. And yes, I am certain that global warming falls entirely within this domain. I have yet to meet a well funded scientist that is looking at the data the other way. If at this point you're thinking that it's bad science to be only looking at a problem from one side, you are correct. It's just that sometimes looking from that other side is a poor career choice.

So... (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981034)

It is a 'monster' increase that is unheard of

Which monster increases have you heard of?

Its not carbon, it's people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981060)

The problem isn't carbon emissions. It's human activity. The sooner we fix the population problem the better off we will be. You can spend yourself bankrup trying to fix emissions but when the population rises 50% in 30 years (According to the UN this will have occurred in the first 3 decades this century) you don't have a hope in hell. Treat the cause, not the symptoms. We already need three earths to sustainably support our current population. 70% of fish stocks are gone, as is 20% of arable land and 30% of potable water. The sooner we stop wasting our time with the carbon red herring the greater chance we will have of averting the collapse of civilisation and billions of deaths.

Worst Case, Indeed (1)

jasnw (1913892) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981104)

What's really sad is that if the IPCC groups tried to put in a REAL worst case scenario the politicians would have a hissy-fit. From what I have heard from colleagues in the field of climate modeling, the IPCC had to work hard to get a consensus on what would be deemed a politically-acceptable worst case scenario. I look at the official "worst case" setups and assume that they represent our realistic best hope.

Canadian numbers don't look too bad (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981138)

The Canadian numbers don't look too bad, despite the bleating about the oilsands.

That, of course, is what I care about the most: whether we're doing our part as a nation. Not much we can do about the rest of the world, especially China and the US.

Re:Canadian numbers don't look too bad (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981208)

We as a nation are outsourcing production to China, etc. We can do our part by only outsourcing to places that actually have some semblance of environmental controls in place.

Doing it wrong. (1)

Harkin (1951724) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981170)

Global warming does NOT DIRECTLY EQUAL TO IMMEDIATE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE. Here is basically why, in a overly simplified and mostly incorrect example. The weather. ocean, biological cycles, etc. are heat engine processes. What happens when you press on the gas in your car? Does it get significantly hotter? No. It just goes faster (unless you have a pos). Ya, it does get a bit hotter but no where near equal to the added energy. True, to have a heat engine you need a differential, which we have, the mass of the crust/ocean/atmosphere itself is a heat sink. Eventually, unlike you car, the average temperature will increase but it will do it very very slowly. For example, if you reduced the cooling to a thermal engine (car depends on intake temperature) the average engine temp would increase and the output would decrease as the system stabilizes at a higher temperature. Our climate will end up doing the same thing and calm back down (sorta), However, in the meantime you can expect bigger storms, more hurricanes, chaotic weather patterns, and generally bigger, stronger, faster weather. A better term is not Global Warming, but Global Climate Change. Forget the concept that its going to get warmer, NONE OF YOU WILL LIVE TO SEE THAT. However, you WILL get to see bigger thunderstorms. And I gotta admit, I do love me a good T-storm.

There is no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981264)

a bungalow on Mars can't solve! Capitalists! To your private tin-foil rockets! The SPECIES awaits your solutions!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>