Climate Change Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

reply to post by Phage


No the point is this:

www.governing.com...

The Associated Press reports more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants will close and another 36 plants could also be forced to shut down as a result of new EPA rules regulating air pollution.

Guess it sucks to be one of them coal workers who no longer have a job.

And those people who will be paying more for electricity.

The markets has jacksnip to do with it.

More than 34 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity are now set to retire because of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (colloquially called Utility MACT)[1] and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)[2] regulations. Most of these retirements will come from coal-fired power plants, shuttering over 10 percent of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity.

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org...

The Environmental Protection Agency didn’t let a Clean Air Act requirement that mandated technologies be “adequately demonstrated” hinder their new performance standards ruling that puts a 1,100-pound limit per megawatt hour on carbon emissions from new coal power plants. Not only is there no scientifically-supportable climate benefit for limiting such emissions, there is no viable commercial-scale technology to achieve that ideological pipedream. Even if it mattered, the most modern coal-fired plants can only reduce CO2 emissions to 1,800 pounds. What’s more, they already knew that.

www.forbes.com...

Hot damn they 'saved the planet' !

Oh well too bad for those who get put of work.

Anyone paying attention to what has been done to tobacco.

Can easily see who is right here. Because the same people who run around saying tobacco is 'bad' are the same people who are crying about 'global warming'.

In the last 30 years tobacco prices have gone up, and they keep going up to now people are paying more in taxes than for the actual product itself.

History repeats.

Oh, and it's the first thing on the list that gets automatic tax increases.

It didn't stop consumption either.

Good little article asking people in position their views on it.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Good to see something will be done.
Lets just hope they can all agree and get it right for the future of us all.

reply to post by the2ofusr1


When we consider how man has been spread out over the globe and living in environments ranging from the Aborigines of Australia to the Natives in the Arctic and at a time when there was no electricity and fossil fuels to any extent .... Man is a creature that can not only adapt but become a part of that system ...If there is going to be things we should fear it is a group of un elected people living in ivory towers associated with Agenda 21 telling the rest of the planet what we must do to survive ...peace

reply to post by Phage




not a bad picture.

can somebody explain how the "bad" CO2 emissions from fossil fuels compare to the natural emissions ?

why is the picture not showing where the CO2 from fuel burning is coming back like the naturals seem to be ?

the "oceans" and "land vegetation" return arrows show more than they emit.

Is there two kinds of CO2 ?

Or is that nature at work ?

reply to post by xuenchen


Last time I checked plants, and trees need co2 to 'breathe'.

Makes more sense to plant more trees than to tax people in to oblivion.

reply to post by xuenchen

can somebody explain how the "bad" CO2 emissions from fossil fuels compare to the natural emissions ?

The numbers are provided.

why is the picture not showing where the CO2 from fuel burning is coming back like the naturals seem to be ?

The picture is showing the amount of CO2 which leaves the atmosphere naturally. The source of the CO2 is not relevant. The picture shows that 12.9 Gt of human produced CO2 is absorbed by the environment. That leaves an excess of 15.2 Gt of CO2 added to the atmosphere.

the "oceans" and "land vegetation" return arrows show more than they emit.

Yes.

Is there two kinds of CO2 ?

No.

Or is that nature at work ?

Yes. Nature is not capable of absorbing all of the CO2 which is being produced. That is why CO2 levels are rising.

reply to post by neo96


There was a picture I seen recently of the border between two countries . One country burnt fossil fuels and the other country did not . It was incredible how much the difference was because the fossil fuel country was green but the other was brown and grey . Countries that burn fossil fuels have more trees and that makes sense .It was a sight to behold and I was stunned ....peace

ETA link to the pics climatism.wordpress.com... Just scroll down to see the difference

reply to post by xuenchen

Do you think that SO2 (sulfur dioxide) from volcanoes is a bigger contributor to climate change?

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview
Volcanoes can impact climate change. During major explosive eruptions huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere. Injected ash falls rapidly from the stratosphere -- most of it is removed within several days to weeks -- and has little impact on climate change. But volcanic gases like sulfur dioxide can cause global cooling, while volcanic carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has the potential to promote global warming.

USGS

As opposed to CO2 (carbon dioxide) from natural sources or human generated?

Is there any data about CO2 natural vs. human generated?

The scientists must have some answers.

Yes there are many studies and much data if you have a computer they are easy to find.

Climate Myth...


Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.SScience

EVs roll

There are natural and human caused carbon dioxide (CO2) sources. The natural sources
are much larger than human sources. However, over geologic time (billions of years), the natural sources have managed to balance themselves out so that life as we like it can
survive. Maintaining this balance is part of the carbon cycle. Changing the CO2 balance
is a big deal.

Natural CO2 sources include plants, animals, the oceans, and volcanoes. Human caused sources are primarily some form of combustion from fires to furnace flues.

Animals create CO2 through respiration (breathing) and plants use CO2 during
photosynthesis. Plants concentrate carbon from the CO2. This is the carbon released
by humans burning the plants later on. Plants have over time also been converted to
fossil fuels, which people burn a lot of, and which pollute the air considerably more.

The oceans are huge carbon dioxide sinks. CO2 is constantly being exchanged from the surface of the ocean to the air above and then from the air above back into the ocean. The amount depends on how much CO2 is already in the water, water temperature, mixing and
so on. Oceans are becoming packed with excess CO2 and more acidic as a result.

Volcanoes were the first of the carbon dioxide sources as part of the carbon cycle billons of years ago. Carbon rich rocks and sediments plunging into the hot mantle released carbon dioxide gas through volcanoes. This is still happening. The amount is estimated at around 110 million tons per year, which is only a small fraction (0.4%) of what people put into the air.

The largest human carbon dioxide sources have one thing in common: the burning of carbon based fuels. When a carbon based fuel is burned, one of the main compounds released is carbon dioxide gas. Carbon based fuels may be wood, paper, plant matter or another type of hydrocarbon. These fuels are often termed fossil fuels.

To simplify classification, there are three main CO2 sources in the carbon cycle: vegetation/land, oceans, and humans. The values of these sources are shown in the chart below.
- See more at: www.evsroll.com...

reply to post by Phage


And with all that natural and man made CO2 in the air, how do we determine with absolute certainty which CO2 is which?

How can they determine with certainty what the oceans and plants are actually emitting and absorbing?

How do they separate the exact measurements?

Or is this where the "guessing" comes into play.

reply to post by xuenchen

And with all that natural and man made CO2 in the air, how do we determine with absolute certainty which CO2 is which?

It doesn't matter. CO2 levels are rising because more CO2 is being introduced into the atmosphere than is being absorbed. The increase in CO2 being added to the atmosphere is directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels. This can be determined by isotopic analysis.

Or is this where the "guessing" comes into play.

No. It's where the science comes into play. Interesting though, you seemed happy to accept the numbers when you didn't understand their implications.

xuenchen
reply to post by Phage

 

And with all that natural and man made CO2 in the air, how do we determine with absolute certainty which CO2 is which?

How can they determine with certainty what the oceans and plants are actually emitting and absorbing?

How do they separate the exact measurements?

Or is this where the "guessing" comes into play.

All the man-made CO2 has very tiny little Halliburton logo's on them.

*shakes an angry fist at Dick Cheney!*

reply to post by Grimpachi


A little bit of an update on the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes.

In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, releasedthis February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.   

m.livescience.com...

reply to post by Skymon612


So what is the IPCC's point? Who cares about global warming? Clearly no one other than the governments/ government backed "scientists" who can only think up monetary/ economic penalties for a "solution" to something that we actually have little impact over. We wouldn't want to actually change the economic model so it isn't so enslaving and wasteful would we? Nah, just make everyone pay more for gas and lower everyone's standard of living. All while a VERY small group of people gain true freedom through stratified socio-economic systems allowing them hegemony within them.

Humans will be extinct before we can cripple this planet. The earth is a self correcting system and humans have little say in their own future because of it. Time to wake up and take back what is ours to begin with.

reply to post by liejunkie01

How about a look at what the study that article is talking about actually says?

Notwithstanding the uncertainties in our understanding of CO2 degassing from Earth, it is clear that these natural emissions were recently dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions, which have rapidly increased since industrialization began on a large scale in the 18th century, leading to a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

www.minsocam.org...

How much CO2 do humans produce? More than 30 gigatons a year. That's billions, not millions.
www.iea.org...

reply to post by Sparkymedic

Who cares about global warming?

People with children, among others. Particularly those who don't wish their children and grandchildren to "survive" in misery. Those who understand that the sooner action is taken, the less it will cost in the long run.

Not sure if this has been linked in this thread but found it to be a good read ..heartland.org... It's from the Heartland Institute ..They are the ones that Peter Glick had fabricated a document from and got caught . He is just one of the many shady characters in a high positions feeding of tax payers dollars and telling lies that the AGW crowed gobble up and think he is some sort of a god ...pathetic ....peace

reply to post by Phage

The article doesn't say volcanic sources have increased, it says estimates of the amounts have increased.

That is correct Phage.

I do not believe I said that either.

But a six fold increase from their previous estimates is a pretty significant, well increase in numbers.

ETA: it seems you butchered your reply while I was in the process of replying to you. Had to make it more "right".

You still missed the entire point of the post. Which was that the estimates that the previous poster above said 110 million pounds of CO2 released, when in fact the current estimates are more like six times that amount. I wasn't trying to imply that volcanoes put more CO2 in the atmosphere than human activity. Thanks though for taking the time to read the article.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Skymon612

 

Just another foolish document produced by the IPCC with lots of doom porn ...Anyone believing this crap care to answer me this one question ...When did AGW start ?...Peace

circa 1870 and the start of the industrial revolution.

2nd

reply to post by Phage


well that doesn't answer any questions.

now i'm more confused than ever.

i'll let it go at that.