Global warming pollution increases 3 percent
September 25, 2008(AP) -- International scientists say worldwide man-made emissions of carbon dioxide - the main gas that causes global warming - jumped 3 percent from 2006 to 2007
Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .
Similar stories from PHYSorg:
Global emissions to leap 39 percent by 2030: US
May 27, 2009 |
2.6 / 5 (5) |
11
Oceans could slurp up carbon dioxide to fight global warming
Nov 19, 2007 |
4.2 / 5 (18) |
0
China to surpass U.S. emissions levels
Nov 07, 2006 |
2 / 5 (1) |
0
Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago
Jul 13, 2009 |
4.3 / 5 (25) |
24
To meet climate goal, only quarter of fossil fuels can be used: study
Apr 29, 2009 |
4.2 / 5 (53) |
17
Display comments: newest first
Did you know that if CO2 ppm drops below 150 all plant life will die?
You got that right. No CO2, no plants.
Baby Polar Bear, "mummy if global warming is killing us,why am I so f---ing cold!"
%u266B%u266ADooooom di dum doom doomey doom di dum DOOOOOOOOM%u266A%u266B
Mikiwud ,temperatures are going up.
Gir is freaking cool.
Vellanarris, i dont think you have proven anything yet to counter my arguments.
Tell me how the conspiracy works again.
If you dont like propaganda dont propagate.
Nice, very nice.
CO2 isn't a main driver of climate change. That is clearly outlined here:http://www.junksc...enhouse/
Please read.
Did you know that CO2, in the 7-10% range, is an asphyxiant?
Yeah that's about 7000 ppm far outside of the range of human contribution.
Try reading Climate Confusion by Dr. Roy Spencer. It's simple enough (no math) for a majority of the Physorg readers.
I go on recorded and reported MEASURED temperatures NOT Playstation predictions.
The rest is just to egg-on Warmists with no sense of humour.
Any idiot can play that game.
Deepsand I don't see your reply, I do see you gave me a 1, and I'm curious as to why?
There is some debate about peer review. The AGW contrarians could make their point stronger by publishing theirs views (which are perfectly fine, any debate needs to have more than one standpoint) where the "conspiraceous" majority actually reads them. Webpages like this one or junkscience.com might not be the way.
Interestingly, not even on ArXiv.org, which is an impartial and not peer reviewed, but highly regarded research paper server, can you easily find anything disputing AGW (I searched for a while but did not see anything). Why would that be?
I am somewhat impressed by the stamina and numbers that some of you show off with, but could you not use this energy more wisely? That is, if your intention is really to scientifically represent an alternative standpoint, and not just to ramble in virtual discussion forums.
Having said this, I should also get out of here...
Facing in our current climate change, widespread pollution due to massive industry's productivity and lifestyles created greenhouse gases emission. Thus, it will effect much worst scenario of earth's nature itself and without any doubt, massive pollutions leads to earth's catastrophe sooner than expected.
It could be possible that another continents will sink to sea no matter where it is.
Lemurian and Atlantean were sunk, great ancient emperor such as Pharaoh in Egypt, Caesar in Roman were vanished. The question is, who will ruled under the sea in nowadays "established industrialized empire"?
Andi Prama
I prefer the 3rd paper (by J. S. Pethkar, A. M. Selvam) with the following:
The only gospel that's regularly preached is that of big oil's Church of Global Warming Denialism, one of the fastest-growing religious cults in the world.
So effectively you've handed the non-AGW group on this server another good resource, our thanks.
Any dissenting view that doesnt fit in with the majority of information available are suspect and should be treated that way, only if it can fit in a coherent manner it has any potential to become convincing.
If this is not true we might as well believe in fairies, Nessie or The Flying Spagetti Monster.
My Pleasure. Maybe I was too fast with my conclusions...
So basically you're saying, anyone who doesn't believe what everyone else believes is suspect?
That's more than a little ethically wrong.
You said it, not us.
Don't you be diss'ing the Flying Spagetti Monster.
The pastafarian philosophy is well documented and is obviously a great tool to see things better, and live a better life.
I have been touched by him recently and will live my life according to the eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts".
The large increase from developing nations is predominately coal. Coal emmisions include a lot of heavy metals that later deposit in oceans and on land not neccisarily in the country of origin.
While personally I don't buy the whole CO2 will kill us stuff, Mercury and H2S might give us a run for our money.
I guess in light of the Global Warming Law trivial theories like "lead causes brain damage" and "H2S causes acidic rain" are unimportant since they are unproven...
For all the AGW gang, This is what I mean when I tell you that you don't have to prove AGW to reduce pollution. Use proven consequences. Especially if you want to see quick reactions. I'm all for reducing pollution to reduce H2S, Mercury and Lead emmisions.
Actually, most of it is from industrial process, not really coal fired power plants.
The exception to that would probably be Australia and New Zealand where they sit on almost a purely coal fired energy infrastructure.
as far as where it comes from, check the maps and see where the mercury in rainfall concentrations in the US, versus cheap coal use are. Hint:overlays of the maps wouldn't really be neccisary.
http://www.usgs.gov/mercury/