Are you serious? Human activity does not even come remotely close to contributing 60% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Human output is 29 gigatons of CO2 a year. Nature produces 750 gigatons of CO2 a year.
Um... You really should not display your scientific illiteracy by confusing a cumulative number (750 gigatons, the atmospheric part of the 'carbon pool') with the net changes -- human-caused and natural -- that happen annually. Net human-caused changes are, indeed, larger than the natural. You may wish to look up "the carbon cycle," if you'd really like to learn the facts.
Also, human-caused activity emits not 29 gigatons of GHGs annually, but 49 gigatons (happy to give you specific cites if interested). Earth's systems (plants, forests, oceans) absorb about 16-20 gigatons of that annually, and the rest gets thrown out into the atmosphere, where it stays for well over 100 years.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the many tens of gigatons extra per year, over the course of the last century (when since 1970 alone, we've emitted over a trillion tons of CO2, I.e., more than half of the entire cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution) adds up cumulatively to quite a sizable piece of the atmospheric carbon pool.
What are you talking about? I'm not an idiot. I'm not confusing anything. You are confused with your lack of reading comprehension skills. I was commenting on the fact that it's simply not true humans contribute 60% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. I stated how much CO2 in gigatons is going into the atmosphere every year. I'm very well aware of the carbon cycle. My sources say 29 gigatons, so I could care less about your sources. The fact is, the natural world produces more CO2 than humans do. I'm well aware the earth can't absorb the extra CO2 emissions. The extra CO2 emissions do come from the natural world too. Your scientific illiteracy is on display. We don't know for sure how much the earth is absorbing carbon dioxide by humans. When I was studying this in college, some studies showed the earth absorbs 50% of our CO2 emissions, while others showed less, and some studies showed the earth absorbs more than 50%. It's impossible to know exactly. We still don't even understand the processes by which ecosystems of the world are removing CO2 from the atmosphere. A lot of ecosystems around the world are actually changing for the better. An example is the reforestation projects going on in Europe. Reforestation is happing here in the states as well. Carbon dioxide absorption is also changing in different ocean regions around the world.
I'm all for reducing pollution, don't get me wrong, but I fail to see the alarmists view point as reality.
Fox News? ROTFLMAO.
I think you accidentally misssed the "/sarcasm" tag?
(You do know they're talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, right?)
Fox News publishing a report by someone else is no different than your liberal buddies at MSNBC publishing the same report. Who the f*** cares which news organization publishes the report. It's still the same information.
You are, of course, quite correct that Fox News is perfectly capable of reporting the science. The problem is that it's not clear what point or argument you are trying to make by citing that study. If, as you appear to imply, you think that it refutes or contradicts the concept of global warming in some way, then you either did not read the article or did not understand its conclusions. Zwally et al. postulate that warming conditions since the last ice age have resulted in increased snowfall across parts of Antartica, and that the deposited snow is still adding to the continental ice sheet thickness. It doesn't change the broader observation that recent temperature rises are depleting the Antarctic glaciers at an accelerating rate, and has no bearing on the question of anthropogenic climate change.
Um... You really should not display your scientific illiteracy by confusing a cumulative number (750 gigatons, the atmospheric part of the 'carbon pool') with the net changes -- human-caused and natural -- that happen annually. Net human-caused changes are, indeed, larger than the natural. You may wish to look up "the carbon cycle," if you'd really like to learn the facts.
Also, human-caused activity emits not 29 gigatons of GHGs annually, but 49 gigatons (happy to give you specific cites if interested). Earth's systems (plants, forests, oceans) absorb about 16-20 gigatons of that annually, and the rest gets thrown out into the atmosphere, where it stays for well over 100 years.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the many tens of gigatons extra per year, over the course of the last century (when since 1970 alone, we've emitted over a trillion tons of CO2, I.e., more than half of the entire cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution) adds up cumulatively to quite a sizable piece of the atmospheric carbon pool.
What are you talking about? I'm not an idiot. I'm not confusing anything. You are confused with your lack of reading comprehension skills. I was commenting on the fact that it's simply not true humans contribute 60% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. I stated how much CO2 in gigatons is going into the atmosphere every year. I'm very well aware of the carbon cycle. My sources say 29 gigatons, so I could care less about your sources. The fact is, the natural world produces more CO2 than humans do. I'm well aware the earth can't absorb the extra CO2 emissions. The extra CO2 emissions do come from the natural world too. Your scientific illiteracy is on display. We don't know for sure how much the earth is absorbing carbon dioxide by humans. When I was studying this in college, some studies showed the earth absorbs 50% of our CO2 emissions, while others showed less, and some studies showed the earth absorbs more than 50%. It's impossible to know exactly. We still don't even understand the processes by which ecosystems of the world are removing CO2 from the atmosphere. A lot of ecosystems around the world are actually changing for the better. An example is the reforestation projects going on in Europe. Reforestation is happing here in the states as well. Carbon dioxide absorption is also changing in different ocean regions around the world.
Gosh, where to begin? Let me try, if you say you're "not confusing anything."
1) What is the 750gt you claim? Is that a level or a flow? Of what, where? If it's a flow, can you provide a breakdown how the emissions from the natural systems add up to 750? I'll wait.
2) If you understand the 'carbon cycle' like you say you do (apparently since you were "studying this in college"), can you tell us how much comes from which source (e.g., photosynthesis, air-sea exchange) annually, how much is absorbed by each of those sources (e.g., plant respiration, microbial decomposition, air-sea exchange) annually, and therefore, what the net contribution of natural systems is? If you can't, or don't have a clue, I would be happy to.
The rest of your post ("it's impossible to know exactly;" "we still don't even understand the processes....;" "reforestation;") is just a pointless, random ramble. I have absolutely no clue what you're saying.
Do you know that difference between the Arctic ice sheet (which is in the North and is what is being lost in spades, and is the real source of worry for scientists) and the Anatrctic ice sheet (which is in the South, and it is well known, has not suffered that much loss, therefore has not been a concern to scientists)?
Do you therefore realize that you cannot simply use the term 'ice sheet' as you did in your original post, without noting whether you're talking about the North or the South?
Do you realize that Fox News could be playing like a fiddle their viewers -- apparently, such as yourself -- who don't know the difference or any better?
I think you accidentally misssed the "/sarcasm" tag?
(You do know they're talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, right?)
Fox News publishing a report by someone else is no different than your liberal buddies at MSNBC publishing the same report. Who the f*** cares which news organization publishes the report. It's still the same information.
What 'information'? Who watches MSNBC? I certainly don't. Are you saying you do (because you think they reported the same thing)?
This kind of subject always leads to confusion on reservoir levels, reservoir totals, fluxes etc. It is true that natural CO₂ fluxes are large compared to anthropogenic emissions, but those are historically balanced. It doesn't take a large new source term to upset the equilibrium.
The graphic below, originally published by New Scientist, I think, illustrates the relative numbers.
This kind of subject always leads to confusion on reservoir levels, reservoir totals, fluxes etc. It is true that natural CO₂ fluxes are large compared to anthropogenic emissions, but those are historically balanced. It doesn't take a large new source term to upset the equilibrium.
The graphic below, originally published by New Scientist, I think, illustrates the relative numbers.
You're exactly right. People don't understand the differences among levels, flows, and rates of flow.
The New Scientist figure is broadly right, but perhaps slightly overstates the relative impact of anthropogenic emissions.
Using Solar Power will, in the long run bring Apple some financial incentive. But Finding the right partner and getting the grid to work with such demand require lots of planning and regulation hurdle.
I am pretty sure if there wasn't such hurdle to go through, Apple would have been 100% Net Zero Green house gas by now.
Right. So let's do absolutely nothing and have every major city in the world be like Beijing and Los Angeles on a bad day.
You know even if global warming did not exist, everything we do to prevent it will reduce all kinds of diseases including cancers, emphysema, etc. And getting off of fossil fuels will also enable us to walk away from the insanity of the Middle East. We're actually doing a pretty good job of that already - less than 18% (it might now be as low as 13%) of our oil comes from the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia is flooding the market with oil in spite of cheap prices so that fossil fuel remains cheaper than the alternatives because they want to kill all development of wind, solar, hydro, natural gas, etc. But that can't go on forever.
The people who are pushing the idea that Global Warming is a farce are doing so because they have major financial interests in alternative energy not succeeding. What do you think the Koch brothers are all about?
Do you think the Apple Car is going to be gasoline powered? Do you think Apple would have ever considered going into the business to produce a gas powered car even if there was no global warming? So those on here who think global warming is a farce or none of the government's business have to also believe that Apple should not produce a car that doesn't use fossil fuel.
A goal to accomplish in 15 years... Nice and aggressive. Not. The announcement gets applause and PR/karma kudos, but the execution plan is just leisurely enough to not disrupt the profit margins... and maybe when 2030 rolls around, the goal will have been forgotten. Commit or stop talking.
Apple should do this if and only if it will maximize their total profits. Apple is not a public charity.
Right. So companies should only maximize profits and not give a damn one bit about their impact on the community and the world. They should pollute, pay their employees lousy and cheat on their finances as much as possible because profits are the only important thing.
While climate change is pretty much scientific fact -- for anyone with a reasonable education and the ability to process fairly rigorous and undeniable empirical evidence founded on strong theoretical foundations
It’s also scientific fact that we’re having no effect thereon.
anantksundaram said: Fox News? ROTFLMAO. (You do know they're talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, right?)
You do know that both sheets are growing, right? fastasleep said:
Comments
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
1) What is the 750gt you claim? Is that a level or a flow? Of what, where? If it's a flow, can you provide a breakdown how the emissions from the natural systems add up to 750? I'll wait.
2) If you understand the 'carbon cycle' like you say you do (apparently since you were "studying this in college"), can you tell us how much comes from which source (e.g., photosynthesis, air-sea exchange) annually, how much is absorbed by each of those sources (e.g., plant respiration, microbial decomposition, air-sea exchange) annually, and therefore, what the net contribution of natural systems is? If you can't, or don't have a clue, I would be happy to.
3) Please provide a source for your 29gt claim. Here's mine. My claim of 49gt is from the IPCC's Synthesis Report 'Summary for Policymakers' (2014), Figure SPM.2, p. 5: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf. Again, I'll wait.
The rest of your post ("it's impossible to know exactly;" "we still don't even understand the processes....;" "reforestation;") is just a pointless, random ramble. I have absolutely no clue what you're saying.
Do you know that difference between the Arctic ice sheet (which is in the North and is what is being lost in spades, and is the real source of worry for scientists) and the Anatrctic ice sheet (which is in the South, and it is well known, has not suffered that much loss, therefore has not been a concern to scientists)?
Do you therefore realize that you cannot simply use the term 'ice sheet' as you did in your original post, without noting whether you're talking about the North or the South?
Do you realize that Fox News could be playing like a fiddle their viewers -- apparently, such as yourself -- who don't know the difference or any better?
The graphic below, originally published by New Scientist, I think, illustrates the relative numbers.
The New Scientist figure is broadly right, but perhaps slightly overstates the relative impact of anthropogenic emissions.
I am pretty sure if there wasn't such hurdle to go through, Apple would have been 100% Net Zero Green house gas by now.
You know even if global warming did not exist, everything we do to prevent it will reduce all kinds of diseases including cancers, emphysema, etc. And getting off of fossil fuels will also enable us to walk away from the insanity of the Middle East. We're actually doing a pretty good job of that already - less than 18% (it might now be as low as 13%) of our oil comes from the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia is flooding the market with oil in spite of cheap prices so that fossil fuel remains cheaper than the alternatives because they want to kill all development of wind, solar, hydro, natural gas, etc. But that can't go on forever.
The people who are pushing the idea that Global Warming is a farce are doing so because they have major financial interests in alternative energy not succeeding. What do you think the Koch brothers are all about?
Do you think the Apple Car is going to be gasoline powered? Do you think Apple would have ever considered going into the business to produce a gas powered car even if there was no global warming? So those on here who think global warming is a farce or none of the government's business have to also believe that Apple should not produce a car that doesn't use fossil fuel.
Right. So companies should only maximize profits and not give a damn one bit about their impact on the community and the world. They should pollute, pay their employees lousy and cheat on their finances as much as possible because profits are the only important thing.
anantksundaram said: It’s also scientific fact that we’re having no effect thereon.
You do know that both sheets are growing, right?
fastasleep said:foggyhill said: Do none of you have any fucking clue what a genetic fallacy is?
So an amount that is higher than the last ten years, minimum, is the “lowest maximum ever”. Sure thing.