BF2S Forums No ice at the North Pole

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The article clearly differentiates between power industry emissions and total emissions - but uses numbers that don't fit in with anything I've ever seen before.

No, it doesn't: the whole article quotes emissions from power plants, as that was all the study looked at.  When it talks about total emissions it's distuingishing overall from per capita.

Like I said, it's terribly written.

But if that's the case, the numbers don't add up. What do US power plants emit? Is it 2.5bn tonnes or 2.8bn tonnes? That's not looking at it on a per capita and total basis, it's just 2 different numbers for the same thing. Why? In any case the numbers don't seem to make any sense.

One thing we can certainly agree on is that the source is complete rubbish.

As long as you people keep buying products, industry will continue, and so will emissions due to the production and transport of products.  I for one like things and having the option to buy things.  You can go live in a tree and smoke pot for all I care, but don't try and shove your sky is falling global warming crap down my throat.

Bertster7 wrote:

But if that's the case, the numbers don't add up. What do US power plants emit? Is it 2.5bn tonnes or 2.8bn tonnes? That's not looking at it on a per capita and total basis, it's just 2 different numbers for the same thing. Why? In any case the numbers don't seem to make any sense.

Certainly, but the two sources don't contradict each other in the way you were suggesting.

Bertster7 wrote:

One thing we can certainly agree on is that the source is complete rubbish.

Yeah, I just realised how funny it is that in a post criticising something as terribly written I wrote something that made no sense

thats what I tell serge

In in the boat climate change is 70% natural and humans are just accelerating it quicker in the upcoming ice age apex, we are long over due for another ice age. Warming is part of the cycle, then it drops back off. which it has done this year, but will happen next year?

The sun/sol get's hotter as it ages also, everyone knows this. So this could also be another factor, with the the crap we throw in the air.

I saw a special on thermoforming mars, and they mention using large amounts of carbon monoxide/dioxide and other gases to help create an atmosphere, something to think about..while on earth some of those gases are to blame for the holes in ozone from cars etc.

anyway i like to Litter, it helps create jobs..i throw something on the city street, some other poor guy has to go pick it up. They usually get paid for this...so we all win in the end. just live your life.

heeeeeeeeeee

beerface702 wrote:

1) In in the boat climate change is 70% natural and humans are just accelerating it quicker in the upcoming ice age apex, we are long over due for another ice age. Warming is part of the cycle, then it drops back off. which it has done this year, but will happen next year?

2) The sun/sol get's hotter as it ages also, everyone knows this. So this could also be another factor, with the the crap we throw in the air.

1) Relatively 'small' changes in the natural carbon cycle could be catastrophic in the long run.  It's truly a snowball effect, once you throw a bunch of carbon dioxide into the air, the greenhouse becomes greater and the planet warms (even if it's a seemingly minute amount).  A result of the warming of the planet is that carbon dioxide is released from rocks/the ground and it snowballs out of control until the earth can no longer sustain life.

2) The sun doesn't heat up by that much in the cosmic blink of an eye that we've on earth.

Higher temps = more melting polar ice = Rising sea level = less people = more resources left for the survivors.

It's time to move to the mountains.

Bertster7 wrote:

Because it correlates properly with all the other figures I've seen. That's just an easy list.

You still cited older data. If you have more recent information please share. The more recent the better. Especially considering:

For 1980-2004, the average growth rate of Australian emissions was about twice that for the world, twice that for
the USA and Japan, and five times that for Europe.

Bertster7 wrote:

That simply isn't true.

    University of California research suggests China overtook the US as the worst producer of carbon emissions in 2006

    Australians 'worst per capita emitters'
    Thursday, 15 November, 2007

Look at the article dates. While it said:

and probably passed those of the US in 2006-2007.

The published dates were just as I said. Hopefully this will help you understand the perceived contradictions.

Bertster7 wrote:

You still don't seem to have picked up on the fact that isn't about total carbon emissions. The articles only focus on emissions from power stations.
Only two of your links mention Australia as the worst polluter per capita (many mention them as being amongst the worst, but not the worst) - those two articles are specifically about emissions from power stations.

I've looked at the CDIAC site and I could not find exactly what they based their figures on four years ago. The article I sourced does mention the probable reason for Australia being Power Stations (coal use in power stations being the most influential). If you have a recent report including all the factors involved show me. For now I'll leave you with this.

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Australia's per capita greenhouse emissions are the developed world's highest, at around 26.

http://www.bushheritage.org.au/download … LinkID=820

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Because it correlates properly with all the other figures I've seen. That's just an easy list.

You still cited older data. If you have more recent information please share. The more recent the better. Especially considering:

For 1980-2004, the average growth rate of Australian emissions was about twice that for the world, twice that for
the USA and Japan, and five times that for Europe.

Bertster7 wrote:

That simply isn't true.

    University of California research suggests China overtook the US as the worst producer of carbon emissions in 2006

    Australians 'worst per capita emitters'
    Thursday, 15 November, 2007

Look at the article dates. While it said:

and probably passed those of the US in 2006-2007.

The published dates were just as I said. Hopefully this will help you understand the perceived contradictions.

Bertster7 wrote:

You still don't seem to have picked up on the fact that isn't about total carbon emissions. The articles only focus on emissions from power stations.
Only two of your links mention Australia as the worst polluter per capita (many mention them as being amongst the worst, but not the worst) - those two articles are specifically about emissions from power stations.

I've looked at the CDIAC site and I could not find exactly what they based their figures on four years ago. The article I sourced does mention the probable reason for Australia being Power Stations (coal use in power stations being the most influential). If you have a recent report including all the factors involved show me. For now I'll leave you with this.

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Australia's per capita greenhouse emissions are the developed world's highest, at around 26.

http://www.bushheritage.org.au/download … LinkID=820

You really do seem to be confusing yourself with those figures, which are specifically about the power sector. Australia does have very high per capita emissions, but they are not the highest in the world.
The data you are referring to is from CARMA, a group specifically dedicated to studying the power sector. From their website:

At its core, Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) is a massive database containing information on the carbon emissions of over 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies worldwide. Power generation accounts for 40% of all carbon emissions in the United States and about one-quarter of global emissions. CARMA is the first global inventory of a major, emissions-producing sector of the economy.

As you can see, power generation only accounts for around a quarter of emissions and so you're only looking at about a quarter of the whole picture.

You can find proper figures for all the emissions (from all sectors) you want on proper sites like this.

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Because it correlates properly with all the other figures I've seen. That's just an easy list.

You still cited older data. If you have more recent information please share. The more recent the better. Especially considering:

For 1980-2004, the average growth rate of Australian emissions was about twice that for the world, twice that for
the USA and Japan, and five times that for Europe.

Bertster7 wrote:

That simply isn't true.

    University of California research suggests China overtook the US as the worst producer of carbon emissions in 2006

    Australians 'worst per capita emitters'
    Thursday, 15 November, 2007

Look at the article dates. While it said:

and probably passed those of the US in 2006-2007.

The published dates were just as I said. Hopefully this will help you understand the perceived contradictions.

Bertster7 wrote:

You still don't seem to have picked up on the fact that isn't about total carbon emissions. The articles only focus on emissions from power stations.
Only two of your links mention Australia as the worst polluter per capita (many mention them as being amongst the worst, but not the worst) - those two articles are specifically about emissions from power stations.

I've looked at the CDIAC site and I could not find exactly what they based their figures on four years ago. The article I sourced does mention the probable reason for Australia being Power Stations (coal use in power stations being the most influential). If you have a recent report including all the factors involved show me. For now I'll leave you with this.

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Australia's per capita greenhouse emissions are the developed world's highest, at around 26.

http://www.bushheritage.org.au/download … LinkID=820

You really do seem to be confusing yourself with those figures, which are specifically about the power sector. Australia does have very high per capita emissions, but they are not the highest in the world.
The data you are referring to is from CARMA, a group specifically dedicated to studying the power sector. From their website:

At its core, Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) is a massive database containing information on the carbon emissions of over 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies worldwide. Power generation accounts for 40% of all carbon emissions in the United States and about one-quarter of global emissions. CARMA is the first global inventory of a major, emissions-producing sector of the economy.

As you can see, power generation only accounts for around a quarter of emissions and so you're only looking at about a quarter of the whole picture.

You can find proper figures for all the emissions (from all sectors) you want on proper sites like this.

http://unfccc.int/2860.php is not CARMA. Check the other links next time. Maybe you won't be so confused. If 26 tonnes per capita is only for the power section Australia has got an even bigger problem.

From your link. (Left Side Per capita Emissions)

Table H.1cco2 World Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and                                
Flaring of Fossil Fuels, 1980-2005                               

US : 20.14
Australia: 20.24

It seems back in '05 Australia had already started to pass the US.

Hope that helps.

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

From your link. (Left Side Per capita Emissions)

Table H.1cco2 World Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and                                
Flaring of Fossil Fuels, 1980-2005                               

US : 20.14
Australia: 20.24

It seems back in '05 Australia had already started to pass the US.

Hope that helps.

The fact that Australia emits more carbon per capita than the US is not in question. The relevance of your first link about Australia (purely focused on the power sector, giving a distorting perspective) and the claim that it is the biggest per capita emitter of carbon is.

Da hell it isn't. This is where we started.

Bertster7 wrote:

In fact I would question the fact that Australia is the biggest per capita emitter. It seems wrong and doesn't fit with any other figures I've seen. The rankings listed on Wikipedia seem far more accurate.

Did you not check your own Co2 data before making that statement? I must say I'm amused. Your wikipedia link contradicts your last link.

I said CARMA didn't include all sectors and added the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Using your supplied link to show your own distorted perception was just an added bonus.