"Monster" greenhouse gas levels seen

(AP)  WASHINGTON - The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.

"The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

Department of Energy's carbon dioxide information center
Global warming skeptic now says: It's true
Berkeley: Earth surface temperature report

The world pumped about 564 million more tons of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries - China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases.

It is a "monster" increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.

Extra pollution in China and the U.S. account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said.

"It's a big jump," said Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab. "From an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over."

Boden said that in 2010 people were traveling, and manufacturing was back up worldwide, spurring the use of fossil fuels, the chief contributor of man-made climate change.

India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010.

The world is slowly using more coal and less natural gas when it should be doing just the opposite because of climate change, Marland said.

In 2007 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.

"Really dismaying," said Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon University. "We are building up a horrible legacy for our children and grandchildren."

[elvesr]

"The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming."

Most of the biggest offenders are expending any effort to reduce emissions...that's how we got in to this mess. When we finally get serious about reducing emissions, it will take a long time to slow the momentum of global climate change and to see a meaningful reduction in global temperatures. And that is why we're screwed - we've dug ourselves in very deep, and there is no "if" future generations will suffer but "how much".

[MemeMine]

Transparent Greens are too yellow to admit they are red.

[MemeMine]

Climate Change Soup of the Day:

Scientist: What can I get you sir?
Voter: What's the soup of the day?
Scientist: Global warming is our soup of the day kind sir.
Voter: Good, I'll have the soup, but this time can you heat it up a little please? It was stone cold last time.
Scientist: Very well. I still get paid, cold or "unstoppably" warm.
Voter: Will you be having this same soup of the day next week? I just love it.
Scientist: Next week? We don't know what's happening next week or this coming weekend but we DO know what is happening 50 years from now.
Voter: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
Scientist: I don't know sir, why don't you just go ahead and tell me.
Voter: None.
Scientist: None?
Voter: Ya none. BUT they DO have consensus that it will change?
Scientist: Ha ha sir. Do you know why the climate change believer crossed the road?
Voter: No, why?
Scientist: Because he left his purse on the other side.
Voter: Unscramble these letters; "K2TYto
Scientist: B#%$ me?
Voter: Close. No its Y2Kyto.
Scientists: What's that?
Voter: We thought you would know.
Voter: Do you know what the new definition of a climate change denier is?
Scientist: Anyone who isn't conformist, obedient and believes in "Who" is saying what, not "what" is being said?
Voter: No but close. The new denier is anyone who still thinks voters will vote yes to taxing the air and to authorize bank funded and corporate run carbon trading markets ruled by politicians being left in charge of managing the temperature of the planet Earth.
Scientist: Whatever! Oh look, here is your soup sir.
Voter: There is a fly in my soup.
Scientist; Strange, considering you eat up anything else we dish out at you mindless believers.
Voter: Whatever. Just bring me my roast.
Scientist: No problem, here is your main course sir.
Voter: The roast is really hot but the parsnips are cold.
Scientist: And thus, clear evidence sir that it IS actually warming.
Voter: Complete this sentence; "CO2 Climate Crisis Science has done to science, liberalism and journalism what suicide bombers and nasty priests did for.............?
Scientist: Religion?
Voter: Correct! Good job girl!
Scientist: Yer too kind, jerk!
Voter: What's the difference between a scientist and a lab coat consultant?
Scientist: Oh DO tell me!
Voter: Scientist is easier to say.
Scientist: At least it's better than being an unconscionable lazy copy and paste news editor!
Voter and Scientist: Hahahahahahahahahahha!
Scientist: Security! SECURITY!!!!!

[TheLastBrainLeft]

Lost in all this is the fact the global temperature hasn't risen in over a decade. If we're pumping out record amounts ...

Before we attack our "feeble" attempt to control man made global warming, we need to do a better job to prove it actually exists. No more hiding the decline. Admit the truth. Stop the bullsh!t.

[troutfishman2]

wrong

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp

[Noval53]

The solution is not in climate MAD science politics, name calling, high taxation, or punitive regulation. The solution must be to develop alternative fuels to fossil fuel that are "cheap" and affordable; even for the poor. Without such a development, middle class and poor people are simply going to use whatever fuel they can without giving a hoot what the carbon foot print is. All the climate numbers, facts, figures, percentages, are all useless information to the average person trying to make a living.
Survival and prospering "now" trumps next year or 50 years from now every time. Name calling anyone who doesn't buy the doom & gloom predictions just adds to the global warming hot air.

[troutfishman2]

Why are you proposing solutions when you see no problems? odd

[Noval53]

I see problems, but I certainly see no answers or solutions with Climate MAD Science. Working for cleaner air by developing alternative fuel is much more important than penalizing industry and pouring money into a research black hole attempting to change the thermostat on the sun. And lets quit pretending that "both" pathetic political parties don't have banking & corporate masters. That is odd.

[troutfishman2]

Lets just admit the far right wing conservatives and their corporate masters won. Their goal was to create just enough doubt in the public mind that nothing would be done about this. Congratulations.

The only consolation is that their children will also inherit this mess.

[Hutterite]

If you'd just spend some time in Utah, which has more armchair climatologists than any other state, you'd know that climate change is a farce, man cannot alter the climate, god is our hvac guy and so on. Don't worry, be happy!

[jamfree]

dominos are falling, to late now. Scary to think what this place will be like in 20 yrs or so.

[j_mcdonald-2009]

And be sure to avoid any propaganda from oil industry shills or the national chamber of commerce, as they have less than zero credibility. (I.e. more likely to lie than tell the truth.)

[RetLAEnvEmployee]

Photo shows a coal fired electric power plant with tall pencil stacks (painted red/white) and cooling equipment on the roofs of the power plant. The same photo has evaporative cooling towers usually used for a nuclear plant? with a gas station canopy in front with C. N. G. in english (compressed natural gas? in China?). Yes, I know the large evaporative cooling towers are used to cool large coal fire electric plants but the Chinese don't put both types of cooling systems in one plant?

The people in front of the photographer are not in camera focus? Why? The f stop is easy to set on a camera to get everything in focus. The coal fired plant is in focus; strangely the "nuclear" cooling towers are in camera focus too. The photo shows 6 feet of snow on the ground - the second nuclear cooling tower that is being used/has steam coming out of it has frost and snow on it - the first nuclear tower that has no stream/assumed not needed/used has no snow on it? Why no snow? I think this "monster picture" is either a fake or should be nominated for a Press Award if it real. There are a lot of other little details that a electric plant engineer could point out. Makes you think about propaganda?

[J_Thomas12]

Asking people to conserve when they don't save money conserving will not work. The laws are set up so they don't save money in the short run by conserving.

Asking people to use less fossil fuel does not work. To the extent that it does work, the result is to reduce the price of fossil fuel for the people who keep using it; they will burn as much as gets produced.

So unless we get an alternative energy source that's so cheap the fossil fuels become uneconomic to use, we will use them until it costs more than we can afford to produce them. Climate change may reduce our resources until we just can't afford to keep mining, for example.

Since we cannot get people to do what is necessary to reduce the causes for quick climate change, all that is left is to look for ways to live with it. We need research to develop new varieties of our crops. Wheat designed for a variety of climates, because we don't know what we'll be facing. Look for cheap ways to build insulated homes fast, because we might need to become more mobile. Especially put research into alternate energy, and into reclamation after nuclear accidents.

There's every reason to think that if we play our cards right humanity can survive this.

[j_mcdonald-2009]

Introduce a revenue-neutral tax designed so that average producers of CO2 will see zero effect, but over-users will pay and under-users will get a rebate.

That provides an incentive for everyone to cut back, especially the most wasteful.

Start with a small tax that increases steadily and people have time to plan ahead with major decisions such as buying cars or houses, building factories, planting forests, etc.