Never not spring break, Earth in 2014 hotter than ever

[Cackalacky]

Fantastic. Your presentation here was excellent. I was hoping you had real world training because if that was off the cuff as just another smart IE contributor I would have been floored.

This was a large part of my studies way back in the pre-Swervedriver days. I won't get technical but even without knowing all the variables (like long-term cyclical sun activity) if people think mankind's industrial and agricultural processes are not having an effect on the earth's biosphere, they are as silly as flat-earther's. I'm on the conservative side of the spectrum on more issues than not but come on folks this is a no brainer.

And if MMCC IS a myth, no harm - no foul. If it's not and nothing is done it will eventually be, no life - no more.

.

Appreciate the kind words. Unfortunately it takes more effort to debunk misinformation than it does to educate and I have little patience or tact for the FoxNews Hot Takes on this topic.

 

[Circa]

Imagine all the carbon emissions we can cut if we no longer allow people to call into Paul Finebaum's show.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yRhq-yO1KN8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[phgreek]

Not to give out a detailed CV but I have two degrees. Marine and Environmental Biology and Civil And Environmental Engineering. I also have 15 years of work experience in the origin, transmission, and fate and of hazardous materials/ engineering. I have 270 hours of geology, environmental chemistry, organic chemistry, quantitative chemistry, environmental geology, meteorology, climatology, modeling and measurement, oceanography, water resources, hydrology, and also global environmental polical science courses. Additionally, Calculus statistics, and differential equations and multiple physics courses. FWIW.

As far as conservatives... Can't say I am not a conservative.
As far as liberals... Sure. Not in the majority though.

I might bug ya some time regarding chelators in industrial wastewater...billable of course

 

[Cackalacky]

I might bug ya some time regarding chelators in industrial wastewater...billable of course

Got to be billable. Lol. Nothing like having a consultant take your watch and tell you what time it is.

 

[Irish YJ]

Does anybody here have a degree in meteorology or climatology?

Do any conservatives here believe in man made climate change?

Do any liberals here believe MMCC is a myth?


These are serious questions.

.

I'm a conservative. Anyone who doesn't think man impacts the climate is .......
I think the normal person, whatever political space you occupy, finds it hard to wade through all of the fact and data, and so-called fact and data. A lot of good stuff out there, but also a lot of rubbish. Figuring out which is which is tough at times without spending hours researching.

Anybody but me worried about cow farts?

 

[phgreek]

I'm a conservative. Anyone who doesn't think man impacts the climate is .......
I think the normal person, whatever political space you occupy, finds it hard to wade through all of the fact and data, and so-called fact and data. A lot of good stuff out there, but also a lot of rubbish. Figuring out which is which is tough at times without spending hours researching.

Anybody but me worried about cow farts?

Ya know...My first Air Force customer used to use that line quite a bit. Made me laugh...

But Methane is ranked as a pretty bad GHG...and there are a billion or so cattle etc. I'd say if you are worried about CO2, then you'd be freakin over Methane, and cows ARE a pretty big source of Methane.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'm a conservative. Anyone who doesn't think man impacts the climate is .......
I think the normal person, whatever political space you occupy, finds it hard to wade through all of the fact and data, and so-called fact and data. A lot of good stuff out there, but also a lot of rubbish. Figuring out which is which is tough at times without spending hours researching.

Anybody but me worried about cow farts?

That's actually the space of the climate denier. They spew a lot of anecdote and opinion for an extended period. Soon enough, the scientific data seems to be just another opinion instead of scientific data.

The scientists don't disagree on this topic.

 

[Cackalacky]

Anybody but me worried about cow farts?

Yes and no. Methane is far more efficient as a greenhouse gas compared to CO2 but it's residence time in the atmosphere is far less. Methane lasts about a decade. CO2 has a full residence time of up to 800 years. Also when methane degrades, it degrades into CO2.

~60% of global methane emissions are anthropogenic and the atmosphere of concentrations are increasing. It is also plays a role in the positive feedback loop causing heat to be trapped in the atmosphere.

 

[Irish YJ]

That's actually the space of the climate denier. They spew a lot of anecdote and opinion for an extended period. Soon enough, the scientific data seems to be just another opinion instead of scientific data.

The scientists don't disagree on this topic.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not saying the above isn't BS, but to say scientist don't disagree...... I'd say scientist interpret things differently. Some stretch things to back their hypothesis, some cherry pick. I think all scientist agree global warming is a fact, it's just to the degree they argue about.

 

[marv81s]

i have a question for all the alarmist, what is the temperature supposed to be?

 

[phgreek]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not saying the above isn't BS, but to say scientist don't disagree...... I'd say scientist interpret things differently. Some stretch things to back their hypothesis, some cherry pick. I think all scientist agree global warming is a fact, it's just to the degree they argue about.

I see Happer is on your list...He too is quite a bit concerned about how funding works...

 

[phgreek]

i have a question for all the alarmist, what is the temperature supposed to be?

models would tell you that, but your question is awesome. Made me laugh because it alludes to the food fight that would erupt trying to answer that ...FUNNY!

 

[Cackalacky]

I am definitely a blowhard on this subject matter. Most definitely. Its not my first rodeo either. In fact the arguments against are so predictable that its extensively catalogued here:
How to talk to a Climate Skeptic
We can real talk if people want. My personal feeling is that, whatever evidence is presented that it will do little good as no one will read my shit anyway. I have previously submitted several posts packed with goodies and references and citations and figures and it has not furthered the discussion here. But I do not apologize for calling people out on spreading misinformation and passing it off as fact.

i have a question for all the alarmist, what is the temperature supposed to be?

See the link above for answers to other general questions but your specific question falls in with this typical response:

Objection: The earth has had much warmer climates in the past. What’s so special about the current climate? Anyway, it seems like a generally warmer world will be better.

Answer: I don’t know if there is a meaningful way to define an “optimum” average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it’s even better with no ice caps anywhere.

It doesn’t matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.

Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.

This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before — that sounds reassuring, right?

Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes — up or down or sideways — are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. That, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing.

I have other posts above showing how stable our climate has been for more than 3 million years so extant organisms today have evolved due to that, some occupying special niches and forming the basis of food chains. As stated in the quote, rapid changes that do not allow adaptation are catostrophic. Fo ranimals that could adapt it would not be a big deal. For humans with our lack of mobility and dependency on agriculture, we are gonna be hard pressed to adapt given our current malaise with the situation.

 

[marv81s]

There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill and the satellite was set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records

Any temperature claim of “hottest year” based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous “hottest years”. This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the “hottest year” is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. “Hottest year” claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’

Claiming 2014 is the “hottest year” on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming ‘pause’ is continuing.”


Even former NASA global warming chief scientist James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded in 2011 that the “hottest year” rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” Hansen admitted on January 13.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, had this to say about 2014 being the ‘hottest year’: “The ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures,” Curry wrote on January 16.

Curry predicts another decade of a global warming ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. “I’ve made my projection – global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade,” she explained

I'm not willing to kill industries and jack up energy prices based on junk science that downplays causes that could be natural and that we have no control over and/or manipulated data to drive an agenda.

 

[ACamp1900]

There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill and the satellite was set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records

Any temperature claim of “hottest year” based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous “hottest years”. This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the “hottest year” is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. “Hottest year” claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’

Claiming 2014 is the “hottest year” on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming ‘pause’ is continuing.”


Even former NASA global warming chief scientist James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded in 2011 that the “hottest year” rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” Hansen admitted on January 13.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, had this to say about 2014 being the ‘hottest year’: “The ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures,” Curry wrote on January 16.

Curry predicts another decade of a global warming ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. “I’ve made my projection – global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade,” she explained

I'm not willing to kill industries and jack up energy prices based on junk science that downplays causes that could be natural and that we have no control over and/or manipulated data to drive an agenda.

Super racist....

 

[Bluto]

Super racist....

No just kind of offbase. I'll leave it to Cakacky. Lol. Adaptation to this problem while possibly "destroying" some industries provides ample opportunity to entrepreneurs to make a lot of money addressing the issue. Isn't that what dynamic capitalist economies are all about? Change?

 

[Cackalacky]

There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill and the satellite was set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records

Any temperature claim of “hottest year” based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous “hottest years”. This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the “hottest year” is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. “Hottest year” claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’

Claiming 2014 is the “hottest year” on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming ‘pause’ is continuing.”


Even former NASA global warming chief scientist James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded in 2011 that the “hottest year” rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” Hansen admitted on January 13.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, had this to say about 2014 being the ‘hottest year’: “The ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures,” Curry wrote on January 16.

Curry predicts another decade of a global warming ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. “I’ve made my projection – global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade,” she explained

I'm not willing to kill industries and jack up energy prices based on junk science that downplays causes that could be natural and that we have no control over and/or manipulated data to drive an agenda.

The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.
Climate Myth...
Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
"Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis - a test that the hypothesis fails." (Bob Carter)
John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).

Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

Temperature trends of the troposphere now match well with the surface based trend.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.
There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.

At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.

All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
There are still some discrepancies between satellite measured temperatures in the tropics and those measured by radiosondes. Most researchers believe this difference is likely due to instrument errors.

The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely.
Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere
Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space.

So there will always be data that does not fully agree but they all point to the same thing. Further it is important to improve on the models which is exactly what happened in your claim. Further it is important to note that the discussion with scientists now is not about warming. It is already so well understood that they are now concentrating on how to make far more accurate prediction models.
The data was not SET UP to match but rather corrected due to known flaws. The adjusted data matched much better after the corrections. This is not a conspiracy. This is how science self corrects. It is not a flaw or agenda but a valuable strength.

And this is not about destroying industries or any other nefarious context/conspiracy you seem to imply. We can either get on board with the rest of the worldor as usual close our eyes and hope for the best while we play with pretend Monopoly money.

FTR I am not making the claim that 2014 is the hottest year on record. It is irrelevant at this point and is really only a Politcal headline hot take.

Was this racist ACamp?

 

[Cackalacky]

Further.... Although I agreed with some of her assessment of IPCC report, particularly focusing on uncertainties and other areas of research, her assessments and her blog are under increased scrutiny though particularly for her furthering of debunked myths and basically being a talking head for the "skeptics". Curry and. McIntyre resist ipcc model accuracy

 

[Goldedommer44]

Wow, will all this data coming out about global warming and this this Wizard dude refuses to see the writing on the wall is incredible!!!

 

[Goldedommer44]

And I would say there is a WHOLE lot more money to be had by saying Global Warming is not happeing then that it is. It is kind of like Cigarettes. The scientist said for years that it was causing cancer but the tobacco companies found and paid their own scientist to say that it didn't. I would think the Fossil fuel industry can find and pay there own scientists way more then the people who say it is happening.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Really interesting article

... Hundreds of billions of planets translate into a lot of chances for evolving intelligent, technologically sophisticated species. So why don’t we see evidence for E.T.s everywhere?

The physicist Enrico Fermi first formulated this question, now called the Fermi paradox, in 1950. But in the intervening decades, humanity has recognized that our own climb up the ladder of technological sophistication comes with a heavy price. From climate change to resource depletion, our evolution into a globe-spanning industrial culture is forcing us through the narrow bottleneck of a sustainability crisis. In the wake of this realization, new and sobering answers to Fermi’s question now seem possible.

Maybe we’re not the only ones to hit a sustainability bottleneck. Maybe not everyone — maybe no one — makes it to the other side...

 

[Black Irish]

Big question for the believers of MMCC. If humans are largely responsible for creating this crisis, are we willing and able to pay the price in order to reserve the damage done? If things are as dire as many say, can we even do anything about it? Or is the (metaphorical) fire burning too fast and too hot to be put out?

So,do you either accept that we are all f*cked, but know that we can not do anything about it, or don't accept that we are f*cked, and still not be able to do anything about it.

Time to colonize the moon. I call dibs on the spot with the 'Murican flag.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Big question for the believers of MMCC. If humans are largely responsible for creating this crisis, are we willing and able to pay the price in order to reserve the damage done? If things are as dire as many say, can we even do anything about it? Or is the (metaphorical) fire burning too fast and too hot to be put out?

So,do you either accept that we are all f*cked, but know that we can not do anything about it, or don't accept that we are f*cked, and still not be able to do anything about it.

Time to colonize the moon. I call dibs on the spot with the 'Murican flag.

I mean, this is (in my opinion) where there's a ton of productive ground for debate, and it's personally why I find it so frustrating that the blanket denial of MMCC is still a thing.

As for what we should do about? People write books about the subject, so this is going to be super limited.

1: Reverse the trend of suburbanization in the US. Move more Americans into cities, build more integrated neighborhoods that allow people to live and work and shop in the same walkable space. Nothing is worse for the environment than the idea that every American should have their own house.

2: Increase investment in sustainable energy. This is not only an investment in the planet's future, but also an investment that can get us out of the middle east and provide future generations with power they can use.

3: Make peace with some changes.

 

[phork]

I mean, this is (in my opinion) where there's a ton of productive ground for debate, and it's personally why I find it so frustrating that the blanket denial of MMCC is still a thing.

As for what we should do about? People write books about the subject, so this is going to be super limited.

1: Reverse the trend of suburbanization in the US. Move more Americans into cities, build more integrated neighborhoods that allow people to live and work and shop in the same walkable space. Nothing is worse for the environment than the idea that every American should have their own house.

There is nothing wrong with the American dream. School, Work, Retire with your own home paid in full. The fundamental shift comes in defining a home. Is a home a 3 bedroom condo or apartment in the city core? Or a house in a suburb with a green lawn and white picket fence? Frankly I hate my grass and shovelling snow in the winter so I am all for option A. However in major urban centers cost is a huge factor. I can't imagine getting out of school, getting married and having something ridiculous like a $500k+ Mortgage.

2: Increase investment in sustainable energy. This is not only an investment in the planet's future, but also an investment that can get us out of the middle east and provide future generations with power they can use.

Yah we are doing that in Canada and getting super jack hammered on hydro rates. In fact we now sell our surplus to the US, in some cases paying you to take it. You have to remember that with all of this there is a cost. A cost that is not going to be paid with minimum wage jobs since all the good paying manufacturing have left the country. All this stuff goes up exponentially. Peoples wages tend to remain stagnant.

 

[IrishinSyria]

There is nothing wrong with the American dream. School, Work, Retire with your own home paid in full. The fundamental shift comes in defining a home. Is a home a 3 bedroom condo or apartment in the city core? Or a house in a suburb with a green lawn and white picket fence? Frankly I hate my grass and shovelling snow in the winter so I am all for option A. However in major urban centers cost is a huge factor. I can't imagine getting out of school, getting married and having something ridiculous like a $500k+ Mortgage.

100% agree with you on this. I think if zoning restrictions and public transportation were designed with the goal of encouraging city-style living, a lot of the price issues could be solved. Most cities have vast swaths of area that's relatively cheap, but nobody wants to live in it.

 

[Cackalacky]

Big question for the believers of MMCC. If humans are largely responsible for creating this crisis, are we willing and able to pay the price in order to reserve the damage done? If things are as dire as many say, can we even do anything about it? Or is the (metaphorical) fire burning too fast and too hot to be put out?

So,do you either accept that we are all f*cked, but know that we can not do anything about it, or don't accept that we are f*cked, and still not be able to do anything about it.

Time to colonize the moon. I call dibs on the spot with the 'Murican flag.

Thank you for asking this question. I thank you because the entirety of this thread so far has been debunking the most common myths and typical misinformation that makes having any discussion on solutions impossible. While the rest of the world is moving on without us, we Americans in our typical stubbornness refuse to see the forest for the trees because, yes it is "inconvenient".

I will attempt to submit some answers when I get a chance. As to the question as to if we are screwed all ready....I remeber a post from OMM a while back and his opinion was far from rosy, FWIW.

 

[BobbyMac]

Thank you for asking this question. I thank you because the entirety of this thread so far has been debunking the most common myths and typical misinformation that makes having any discussion on solutions impossible. While the rest of the world is moving on without us, we Americans in our typical stubbornness refuse to see the forest for the trees because, yes it is "inconvenient".

I will attempt to submit some answers when I get a chance. As to the question as to if we are screwed all ready....I remeber a post from OMM a while back and his opinion was far from rosy, FWIW.

Couldn't let this one slide. America produces just 2/3 of the CO2 that China does and that will drop to 1/2 in the next decade. Little is being done by those who can't afford the retooling of their existing industrial infrastructure.

.

.

 

[Cackalacky]

Couldn't let this one slide. America produces just 2/3 of the CO2 that China does and that will drop to 1/2 in the next decade. Little is being done by those who can't afford the retooling of their existing industrial parkinfrastructure.

.

.

China is on pace to add 20+ nuclear plants to augment their already 20+ operating plants. At full peril to millions of people they are siphoning off and storing the meltwaters from the Himalayaslays as energy sources for the hydrolelectric plants.They are moving faster than us right now because they are litterally choking their population in the cities. They are about to (claiming) invest $250 billion in addressing CO2 emissions. Interesting thing though, no authoritarian government has been successful at openly attacking environmental issues and China is being closely watched by the other industrialized countries. Russia failed at this too as one of the biggest gripes with its former member countries was environmental pollution. There is a good chance that pressures from the growing middle class along with economic interests can force a more democratic type of government into play if the commit to as much as they say.

Even then though they have so much contamination from their air pollution they might literally choke out the whole country.

I should have said developed countries which is what I meant. My point being we are falling over ourselves here trying to implement solar, wind, geothermal, and thorium plants, meanwhile European countries are already producing more solar and wind energy than they can store and their new economic future is being driven by tech to enhance capacitance.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Couldn't let this one slide. America produces just 2/3 of the CO2 that China does and that will drop to 1/2 in the next decade. Little is being done by those who can't afford the retooling of their existing industrial parkinfrastructure.

.

.

The developing world is a big problem as far as global emissions go. But when you consider that the US is 1/3rd the size of China, producing 2/3rds of the CO2 isn't such a defensible position.

 

[phork]

Atleast the ozone is recovering! GO OZONE!