See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases
Source:
comcast
URL Source: http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles ... 11103/US.SCI.Carbon.Emissions/
Published: Nov 6, 2011
Author: SETH BORENSTEIN, AP
Post Date: 2011-11-06 11:47:57 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 892
Comments: 33
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP WASHINGTON — The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming. The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. "The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries — China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases. 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. Extra pollution in China and the U.S. account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said. "It's a big jump," said Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab. "From an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over." Boden said that in 2010 people were traveling, and manufacturing was back up worldwide, spurring the use of fossil fuels, the chief contributor of man-made climate change. India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010. "The good news is that these economies are growing rapidly so everyone ought to be for that, right?" Reilly said Thursday. "Broader economic improvements in poor countries has been bringing living improvements to people. Doing it with increasing reliance on coal is imperiling the world." In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees. Even though global warming skeptics have attacked the climate change panel as being too alarmist, scientists have generally found their predictions too conservative, Reilly said. He said his university worked on emissions scenarios, their likelihood, and what would happen. The IPCC's worst case scenario was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated are likely scenarios. Chris Field of Stanford University, head of one of the IPCC's working groups, said the panel's emissions scenarios are intended to be more accurate in the long term and are less so in earlier years. He said the question now among scientists is whether the future is the panel's worst case scenario "or something more extreme." "Really dismaying," Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon University, said of the new figures. "We are building up a horrible legacy for our children and grandchildren." But Reilly and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver found something good in recent emissions figures. The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8 percent below 1990 levels. The U.S. did not ratify the agreement. In 1990, developed countries produced about 60 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, now it's probably less than 50 percent, Reilly said. "We really need to get the developing world because if we don't, the problem is going to be running away from us," Weaver said. "And the problem is pretty close from running away from us." Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases
Thu Nov 3, 7:05 PM EDT
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
#14. To: farmfriend (#0)
where are your farms?
eaten by development
good thing you got out while the getin' was good. some of that land has been farmed by the same families for generations... seems to be going, now, for five on ten thousand an acre... wouldnt be so good for land prices if sea level starts rising, would it?
well the problem with agriculture in urban areas like Sac is you lose your ag infrastructure. It gets harder and hard to farm and more and more profitable to sell for development. you have to buy off the politicians so that your land can be developed rather than being set aside for "open space" or "habitat".
there's a couple problems with agriculture on land that's below sea level... first of all, we dont know how much sea level's gonna rise... second of all, we dont know if the economy will survive peak oil well enough to build higher dikes. so there are very sound economic reasons for some people to deny global warming and peak oil, arent there...? ...especially if you've got a few million dollars' worth of land below sea level, and have put generations of blood, sweat and tears into that land.
sacramento is not below sea level. the need for levies is because of the hydrolic mining during the gold rush.
that's right (see map, above), but a lot of that extremely productive farmland in the delta is below sea level. if you wanted to keep the price of that land from collapsing, you'd deny global warming and peak oil, wouldnt you?
i was stuck in lodi for a summer, spraying crops in the delta. god was punishing me for something or other.
the asshole i was working for flew too close the barn, stampeded hundreds of thousands' worth of quarter horses through a couple barbwire fences, and didnt even stop to tell the owner which direction the horses went.
#23. To: All (#22)
(Edited)
this has got me to thinking about sleaze... that outfit in lodi was probably the sleaziest i've ever worked for... on a small scale... that was before it became obvious that the rot was everywhere. but i've worked for evergreen... that's global sleaze, and i've watched evergreen and del smith progress from a sleazy little low-rent helicopter outfit to global sleaziness. you got to wonder about the progression of sleaze... does it work from the bottom up until everything gets so sleazy that sleaze starts working from the top down? ...or does little sleaziness always take its cue from bigger sleaziness? is there a turning point in american history when you had to become sleazy to survive?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#15. To: lead.and.lag (#14)
where are your farms?
#16. To: farmfriend (#15)
eaten by development
#17. To: lead.and.lag (#16)
#18. To: farmfriend (#17)
(Edited)
#19. To: lead.and.lag (#18)
#20. To: farmfriend (#19)
(Edited)
sacramento is not below sea level
#21. To: All (#20)
(Edited)
#22. To: All (#21)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 22.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.