HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Carbon Pollution Up to 2 ...

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:56 PM

Carbon Pollution Up to 2 Million Pounds a Second

Source: Associated Press

Dec. 2, 2012 4:10 PM ET

Carbon pollution up to 2 million pounds a second

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The amount of heat-trapping pollution the world spewed rose again last year by 3 percent. So scientists say it's now unlikely that global warming can be limited to a couple of degrees, which is an international goal.

The overwhelming majority of the increase was from China, the world's biggest carbon dioxide polluter. Of the planet's top 10 polluters, the United States and Germany were the only countries that reduced their carbon dioxide emissions.

Last year, all the world's nations combined pumped nearly 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, according to new international calculations on global emissions published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. That's about a billion tons more than the previous year.

- snip -

Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in Canada who was not part of the study, said: "We are losing control of our ability to get a handle on the global warming problem."

- snip -

The latest pollution numbers, calculated by the Global Carbon Project, a joint venture of the Energy Department and the Norwegian Research Council, show that worldwide carbon dioxide levels are 54 percent higher than the 1990 baseline.

The 2011 figures for the biggest polluters:
1. China, up 10 percent to 10 billion tons.
2. United States, down 2 percent to 5.9 billion tons
3. India

Read more: http://hosted2.ap.org/AZMES/a87e093298b44f1f90ce5c51351f7c69/Article_2012-12-02-Carbon%20Pollution/id-2b96650bffbc43968754dafd5f403ea7

12 replies, 2305 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply Carbon Pollution Up to 2 Million Pounds a Second (Original post)
Hissyspit Dec 2012 OP
triplepoint Dec 2012 #1
NoOneMan Dec 2012 #3
PaulaFarrell Dec 2012 #4
dipsydoodle Dec 2012 #5
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #2
Ghost Dog Dec 2012 #6
Nihil Dec 2012 #8
Ghost Dog Dec 2012 #10
Gregorian Dec 2012 #7
antigone382 Dec 2012 #9
Ghost Dog Dec 2012 #11
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #12

Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:15 PM

1. What is the Net Percentage Change Per Second in the Earth Atmosphere's Volume?

 

...due to ALL known sources and sinks...and please show your work in your answer.


Here's where I was going with this, but would like to see a realtime GLOBAL version spewed to the Net for all to see...at ANY moment..using say, the Google Earth engine.
.
.

.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:38 PM

3. You must also compute earth's sequestering to make this of any use

 

But if you take a look at recent activity, we went up by about 15 ppm in the last 10 years. Assuming near-linear short term growth following the same pattern, it would suggest that we increase atmospheric carbon about 1.5 ppm per year, or 1.5/(365*86400) ppm per second, or .000000048/1000000 % a second. It looks like a very small amount, but remember, atmospheric carbon is only at ~ .04% anyway right now (twice that of levels before industrialization).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:47 PM

4. size isn't everything

little things can have big effects - as of course we are seeing now with the melting ice caps, ocean acidifying, exceptional droughts, et etc etc etc etc etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PaulaFarrell (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:19 AM

5. Aggregate isn't everything either.

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

The US has the highest carbon dioxide emissions per capita of all developed nations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:22 AM

6. M$M victims have already been programmed not to think about what this means...


... We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We'd have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been likely. Now, barring some massive intervention, it seems certain.

Yes, this coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it's already economically aboveground – it's figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony. It explains why the big fossil-fuel companies have fought so hard to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide – those reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their value. It's why they've worked so hard these past years to figure out how to unlock the oil in Canada's tar sands, or how to drill miles beneath the sea, or how to frack the Appalachians.

If you told Exxon or Lukoil that, in order to avoid wrecking the climate, they couldn't pump out their reserves, the value of their companies would plummet. John Fullerton, a former managing director at JP Morgan who now runs the Capital Institute, calculates that at today's market value, those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. Which is to say, if you paid attention to the scientists and kept 80 percent of it underground, you'd be writing off $20 trillion in assets. The numbers aren't exact, of course, but that carbon bubble makes the housing bubble look small by comparison. It won't necessarily burst – we might well burn all that carbon, in which case investors will do fine. But if we do, the planet will crater. You can have a healthy fossil-fuel balance sheet, or a relatively healthy planet – but now that we know the numbers, it looks like you can't have both. Do the math: 2,795 is five times 565. That's how the story ends.

/... http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719?print=true

Three degrees alone would see increasing areas of the planet being rendered essentially uninhabitable by drought and heat. In southern Africa, a huge expanse centred on Botswana could see a remobilisation of old sand dunes, much as is projected to happen earlier in the US west. This would wipe out agriculture and drive tens of millions of climate refugees out of the area. The same situation could also occur in Australia, where most of the continent will now fall outside the belts of regular rainfall.

With extreme weather continuing to bite - hurricanes may increase in power by half a category above today's top-level Category Five - world food supplies will be critically endangered. This could mean hundreds of millions - or even billions - of refugees moving out from areas of famine and drought in the sub-tropics towards the mid-latitudes. In Pakistan, for example, food supplies will crash as the waters of the Indus decline to a trickle because of the melting of the Karakoram glaciers that form the river's source. Conflicts may erupt with neighbouring India over water use from dams on Indus tributaries that cross the border.

In northern Europe and the UK, summer drought will alternate with extreme winter flooding as torrential rainstorms sweep in from the Atlantic - perhaps bringing storm surge flooding to vulnerable low-lying coastlines as sea levels continue to rise. Those areas still able to grow crops and feed themselves, however, may become some of the most valuable real estate on the planet, besieged by millions of climate refugees from the south.

/... http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

BETWEEN ONE AND TWO DEGREES OF WARMING

At this level, expected within 40 years ((now by many expected sooner - ed.)), the hot European summer of 2003 will be the annual norm. Anything that could be called a heatwave thereafter will be of Saharan intensity. Even in average years, people will die of heat stress...

...Across Europe as a whole, the heatwave is believed to have cost between 22,000 and 35,000 lives. Agriculture, too, was devastated. Farmers lost $12 billion worth of crops, and Portugal alone suffered $12 billion of forest-fire damage. The flows of the River Po in Italy, Rhine in Germany and Loire in France all shrank to historic lows. Barges ran aground, and there was not enough water for irrigation and hydroelectricity. Melt rates in the Alps, where some glaciers lost 10% of their mass, were not just a record – they doubled the previous record of 1998. According to the Hadley centre, more than half the European summers by 2040 will be hotter than this. Extreme summers will take a much heavier toll of human life, with body counts likely to reach hundreds of thousands. Crops will bake in the fields, and forests will die off and burn. Even so, the short-term effects may not be the worst:

From the beech forests of northern Europe to the evergreen oaks of the Mediterranean, plant growth across the whole landmass in 2003 slowed and then stopped. Instead of absorbing carbon dioxide, the stressed plants began to emit it. Around half a billion tonnes of carbon was added to the atmosphere from European plants, equivalent to a twelfth of global emissions from fossil fuels. This is a positive feedback of critical importance, because it suggests that, as temperatures rise, carbon emissions from forests and soils will also rise. If these land-based emissions are sustained over long periods, global warming could spiral out of control.

In the two-degree world, nobody will think of taking Mediterranean holidays. The movement of people from northern Europe to the Mediterranean is likely to reverse, switching eventually into a mass scramble as Saharan heatwaves sweep across the Med. People everywhere will think twice about moving to the coast. When temperatures were last between 1 and 2C higher than they are now, 125,000 years ago, sea levels were five or six metres higher too. All this “lost” water is in the polar ice that is now melting. Forecasters predict that the “tipping point” for Greenland won’t arrive until average temperatures have risen by 2.7C. The snag is that Greenland is warming much faster than the rest of the world – 2.2 times the global average. “Divide one figure by the other,” says Lynas, “and the result should ring alarm bells across the world. Greenland will tip into irreversible melt once global temperatures rise past a mere 1.2C. The ensuing sea-level ?rise will be far more than the half-metre that ?the IPCC has predicted for the end of the century. Scientists point out that sea levels at the end of the last ice age shot up by a metre every 20 years for four centuries, and that Greenland’s ice, in the words of one glaciologist, is now thinning like mad and flowing much faster than it ought to. Its biggest outflow glacier, Jakobshavn Isbrae, has thinned by 15 metres every year since 1997, and its speed of flow has doubled. At this rate the whole Greenland ice sheet would vanish within 140 years. Miami would disappear, as would most of Manhattan. Central London would be flooded. Bangkok, Bombay and Shanghai would lose most of their area. In all, half of humanity would have to move to higher ground.

Not only coastal communities will suffer. As mountains lose their glaciers, so people will lose their water supplies. The entire Indian subcontinent will be fighting for survival. As the glaciers disappear from all but the highest peaks, their runoff will cease to power the massive rivers that deliver vital freshwater to hundreds of millions. Water shortages and famine will be the result, destabilising the entire region. And this time the epicentre of the disaster won’t be India, Nepal or Bangladesh, but nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Everywhere, ecosystems will unravel as species either migrate or fall out of synch with each other. By the time global temperatures reach two degrees of warming in 2050, more than a third of all living species will face extinction.

/... http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm

At four degrees another tipping point is almost certain to be crossed; indeed, it could happen much earlier. (This reinforces the determination of many environmental groups, and indeed the entire EU, to bring us in within the two degrees target.) This moment comes as the hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost - particularly in Siberia - enter the melt zone, releasing globally warming methane and carbon dioxide in immense quantities. No one knows how rapidly this might happen, or what its effect might be on global temperatures, but this scientific uncertainty is surely cause for concern and not complacency. The whole Arctic Ocean ice cap will also disappear, leaving the North Pole as open water for the first time in at least three million years. Extinction for polar bears and other ice-dependent species will now be a certainty...

... In Europe, new deserts will be spreading in Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey: the Sahara will have effectively leapt the Straits of Gibraltar. In Switzerland, summer temperatures may hit 48C, more reminiscent of Baghdad than Basel. The Alps will be so denuded of snow and ice that they resemble the rocky moonscapes of today's High Atlas - glaciers will only persist on the highest peaks such as Mont Blanc. The sort of climate experienced today in Marrakech will be experienced in southern England, with summer temperatures in the home counties reaching a searing 45C. Europe's population may be forced into a "great trek" north.

To find out what the planet would look like with five degrees of warming, one must largely abandon the models and venture far back into geological time, to the beginning of a period known as the Eocene. Fossils of sub-tropical species such as crocodiles and turtles have all been found in the Canadian high Arctic dating from the early Eocene, 55 million years ago, when the Earth experienced a sudden and dramatic global warming. These fossils even show that breadfruit trees were growing on the coast of Greenland, while the Arctic Ocean saw water temperatures of 20C within 200km of the North Pole itself. There was no ice at either pole; forests were probably growing in central Antarctica...

/... http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost Dog (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:05 AM

8. You can have a healthy fossil-fuel balance sheet, or a relatively healthy planet but not both

Yet so many people prefer to believe the oil/gas/coal companies and their sell-out political
supporters - yes, including Obama - that the choice appears to have been made long ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nihil (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:51 AM

10. It's all Freud's fault, so I'm hearing being said...

... And the "bastard offspring" (sorry): the propaganda social-mind-control "marketing" "industry".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:31 PM

7. The world cannot wait for full acceptance of birth control.

And that is not a remark in the context of anything other than free choice for women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:27 AM

9. Only eight posts over the last several days...

...yet this is perhaps the most important post on this entire site right now.

This is where the rubber meets the road. Even as the effects of our carbon addiction make themselves clear, as our crops dry out and fail in the fields; as we slaughter immature stock animals to ward off starvation and thirst; as our cities are inundated and sent into chaos; as millions around the world suffer all of this and worse, we continue to use and produce ever greater amounts of the poisons that are destroying us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigone382 (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:54 AM

11. Not "sexy" enough.

Bunch of anoraks...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:19 PM

12. Fuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread