So ran across some interesting numbers. Everybody knows how the lefties are going loony about how the world is going to burn if we don't reduce America's carbon footprint, right?

Well.. here's some numbers. Facts, they are an amazing thing.


From 1980 to 2011, worldwide carbon dioxide emissions increased from 18,433 million metric tons to 32,579 million metric tons

An increase of 14,145 million metric tons, or a 77% increase.

Top offenders:

China increased 7,267 million metric tons.
India increased 1,435 million metric tons.
USA increased 715 million metric tons.
Iran increased 508 million metric tons.
South Korea increased 479 million metric tons.
Sixteen other countries increased by over 100 million metric tons.

Some basic facts:

The USA is currently responsible for 16% of the global carbon dioxide output. China is responsible for 27% as of 2011. By 2013 it's 14% and 29%, respectively.

The ENTIRE output of the United States in 2011 is LESS THAN the INCREASE from China in the last 10 YEARS. China continues to climb at up to 10% increase per year, the United States has lowered it's output to a level from 20 years ago. Another 10 years and India will very likely also be higher than the US.

Graph from a .gov website:




So when the greenies get up to talk about how horrible the US is and how we have to reduce our carbon footprint - maybe drop our carbon output by a whopping 30%? That drop of 1800 million metric tons by the US would be 5% of the total world output in 2011, and less than China's increase of 2,030 million metric tons that they jumped by in THREE YEARS!!!

So, as I see it, if there is a global warming issue due to carbon dioxide, America isn't even in a position to fix it.

jmho..

Personally, I'm still not convinced how much warming is due to carbon dioxide levels versus sun activity, and even how much of the carbon dioxide level is due to human activity or how much is due to warming (there is evidence showing carbon dioxide levels rise due to warming and not vice versa).

They've never said why warming is bad anyway. In the past, the world has been a lot warmer than it is today. The biggest problem is the distribution of fresh water. In the east they've got it. In the west we want it.

I noticed something in that graph.

After our dear leader was elected the US has reduced it's carbon footprint.

Nothing to do with Obama, though. Mostly due to replacing coal with natural gas for electricity generation.

If it'd been up to Obama, he'd have shut down fracking/natural gas and gone all wind/solar.

A near economic collapse will do that.

It all depends on how warm. If were talking more than 5 degrees, I don't think it takes a scientist to figure out how it's bad; you ought to be able to figure that one out yourself.

I don't doubt global warming; I think it's well established.

And while I don't think humanity is helping matters, I'm not convinced we're the cause. All the evidence suggests that warming and cooling are cyclical and it's really not all that uncommon. The worry is that we will warm and then not cool again. But I see no evidence that is the case, because there is some evidence we're in the beginnings of a cooling trend.

The problem with this whole global warming and cooling thing is...buy the time you can solidly peg that one or the other has happened, it's probably over.

And the dumb ones can't seem to discern the difference between weather (as in specific events) and climate (the long term trend). Pundits on both sides will take any single weather event and peg it to "global warming"; which just shows their ignorance.

Reducing our impact on the environment is just a good idea and we've had HUGE successes. Look at the air quality of Los Angeles now vs. the 1970's; night and day. They don't have smog drills and school isn't canceled due to smog anymore, and the number of cars on the road as easily doubled in that time. Everyone likes to breathe clean air.

I think the US is doing a decent job of managing things and balancing environmental issues with economic issues.

Global warming is good for growing more forage, and more food. C0,2 is also helpful for plants. So I think warming up is a good thing.

Climate change is a new thing, right?

A short 20,000 years ago...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet

Carbon dioxide emissions:



Atmospheric carbon dioxide:
http://popularlogistics.com/2013/05/atmospheric-co2-400-ppm/



Global temps:




So over approximately the last 12 years we've had a 23% increase in CO2 emissions, we've had a 10% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels...

And we've had a 0% increase in global temperature.

But the science is settled, and no discussion will be allowed.

Be patient, affirmative action is bound to catch up to these facts.

We have had 0 increase in temps despite the measurements being taken in cities and next to heat source.

So do you just ignore that the long term trend of CO2 concentrations and heat are increasing? Your graphs.

I read somewhere that if civilization could stop all carbon inputs worldwide tomorrow it would take the earth another thousand years to reach its non-manmade carbon-input stasis (so called return to normal). In other words, there is not one frigging thing we can do about it---assuming the theory is even true (and I don't think it is).

Jordan

Yes, because the false models don't account for negative offsets. They are static and cannot account for clouds, their depth, area coverage and duration. The greenies will only show what they believe will trick the average taxpayer into going green - like Gun Geek who posted his drivel again.

They have over sold the false science. Since 1970 we have been told we are on the edge, next year is it, the glaciers will be gone in X years, we can't afford to ignore the science - on and on with their bullcrap.

Doesn't anyone think it curious that all "solutions" become more regulations, costlier substitutes, less free markets and subsidies to the green companies less freedom to the consumer.

The average American has NO science acumen and wouldn't know a greenhouse gas from a popcorn fart.

Cooling side of the cycle started 17 years ago.We should be getting ready for the next little ice age.Has everything to do with ocean currents and solar activity.CO2 is the least of the greenhouse gasses.We need greenhouse gasses.The weather changes,it is supposed to.

The graph provided by Calhoun is from "Global Carbon Project". Guess what, they already subscribe to anthropogenic global warming! How in the hell can you go from there with so-called objective data?

Go read their "About GCP" page and you will see they already are "all in"!
Too many here give them credibility and full authoritarian license.
That is NOT the scientific model!

Last months UN'sIPCC position paper was so alarmist, many scientists backed away from putting their names on that paper. They are priming the pump for the spring of 2015 conference in Paris. That is where hundreds of "believers" fly in from all over the world burning tons of carbon to tell YOU that you are at fault.
Thriving economies must be curtailed and taxed and governed bcc.

It's all b.s folks - the greatest hoax perpetrated on a free society.

Must be why scientists were again today monitoring a big fookin iceberg about to kick loose and cause havok.

Gunner

No, but when the hypothesis doesn't fit the data, it doesn't mean you ignore the data and keep the hypothesis!

The data doesn't fit their models. Not one single model of theirs has come close to being accurate over 30 years.

It's time to revisit the science. This time, in my opinion, with an emphasis on solar activity.





I went with the best graph to for presentation purposes, but I checked the numbers against several web sites. It doesn't mean the data is right, I definitely don't think it's beneath NASA or our gov't or the IPCC to lie about the data (hockey stick graph anybody?), but what I showed does seem to be agreed upon.

This^^^

I find the Mauno Loa graph most interesting. Carbon dioxide goes from 320 to about 400 parts per million. Please note the "parts per million" units. That means we've experienced a shift from 0.032% to 0.040% in our atmospheric composition. That amounts to a 0.008 change. Can a chemical composition shift that small actually induce the postulated effects? I think not. I'm going with the solar activity theory.

As to shutting down carbon dioxide emissions.... Those of us in the wealthy industrial world really carry little weight when it comes to advising developing nations on their energy policies. Shifts to gas/oil still generate tons of carbon dioxide. With our fear of nuclear power and the inefficiencies and low dependability of wind and solar, the US should get off of its high horse.

This^^^
8 thousandths of 1%.

until we are again farming Greenland like my ancestors did 1000 years ago i aint worrying about it.....

Yep. The environmentalists have taken over the brains of libs and the only thing that will satisfy them is the starvation and death of all men. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Right. The "green movement" has hidden their real agenda pretty well although now they have oversold it and cried wolf too often.

Look, back in the 1970, I was a young forestry student who thought the ecology movement made sense. Nixon's EPA and the need to clean up our industries was a necessity and many common sense regulations were passed. New innovations resulted which was a benefit.

Fast forward 44 years and the same movement has morphed into socialist engineering while hiding behind their white lab coats. Real scientific methodology has been transformed into clever computer models driven to change the opinions of government, industry and the public.

If you read last months UN IPCC report, they are stating that the free market economies must be de-constructed in order to lower the living standards and thus the demands for a modern society.

The very bottom line is that these are true socialists at work and they mean to take away your freedom to do and prosper as you choose.

More and more recent analysis is pointing to the solar cycles. Read about the Maunder Minimums and your eyes will be opened.

40-50 years of data is statistically insignificant with regard to climate change. All this captures is a tiny slice of time within an interglacial period. There is absolutely no way to show that an uptick in average annual temps on the order of five centuries is anything other than natural variation within the cycle. Continental glaciers have advanced and receded several times over the last 400,000 years with absolutely no human influence. The relatively brief interglacial periods have been subject to a great deal of temperature variation as well.

Climate change is triggered by a combination of solar activity, the wobble of the earth's rotation, volcanic activity, ocean currents, landmass movement, and likely many mechanisms we have not even thought of. To think that we can arrest the constant state of climate change by altering a small percentage of one greenhouse gas is the height of hubris.