Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[shadows]

It is not the global warming that in the threat we are facing to day.  All the land is a plateau where all air breathing animals can survive.  These plateaus are the flat surface of the mountains that extend from the sea floors and in some cases are seven miles high.  Some will argue that all the land is floating on a molten base. Between the land and the plateaus supporting the flat surface where the animals sustain life are layers of water, oil, gas and coal among other products.  If we continue to remove this material earth quakes will become more numerous.  North East Oklahoma has been closed because of the miming, earth quakes are becoming more of a thereat, Mexico is experiencing the shifting of the subsurface layers that are being released at an enormous rate, removing the supporting subsurface whether it be gas, oil water or minerals.  In the eons of time the planet has been in constant change still the changes have only effected the generations at the time.  Public ridicule of the speaker denies the public of being warned of impending tragedy.  Just stand up and declare either stop decreasing the supporting subsurface or starting building an ark.  This threat is in the future.         

[AquaMan]

It is not the global warming that in the threat we are facing to day.  All the land is a plateau where all air breathing animals can survive.  These plateaus are the flat surface of the mountains that extend from the sea floors and in some cases are seven miles high.  Some will argue that all the land is floating on a molten base. Between the land and the plateaus supporting the flat surface where the animals sustain life are layers of water, oil, gas and coal among other products.  If we continue to remove this material earth quakes will become more numerous.  North East Oklahoma has been closed because of the miming, earth quakes are becoming more of a thereat, Mexico is experiencing the shifting of the subsurface layers that are being released at an enormous rate, removing the supporting subsurface whether it be gas, oil water or minerals.  In the eons of time the planet has been in constant change still the changes have only effected the generations at the time.  Public ridicule of the speaker denies the public of being warned of impending tragedy.  Just stand up and declare either stop decreasing the supporting subsurface or starting building an ark.  This threat is in the future.         

I underlined that because it is always true of those who speak out. Sad but true.

Anyway, how do you explain that Arkansas and Missouri do not cave in since they are riddled with underground caverns? Or Colorado? My best bet for impending catastrophe would be Yellowstone. It is due for activity.

At some point people have to realize that we also are part of nature and determine the future of the planet. We are not aliens visiting on our way to the next planet, we are part of the process of the transformation of the planet and as such can consciously modify its changes.

[RecycleMichael]

I'm betting locusts.

[erfalf]

If you've been watching Fox News, you won't know any of this and will instead have been told that it's oh so unfair that we don't keep getting to emit more than twice the GHGs per capita that most Eurozone countries do and almost 5 times what even the Chinese do. Canada and the US are by far the largest GHG emitters on a per capita basis. Ironically, we still would get to emit more than our fair share, just not as much as we do now. Yet still people complain.

Not exactly sure the statistics, but I hear things like this all the time, and I think it is a tad misleading. Yes, nathan is right that the U.S. emits a large amount of CO2, and we consume more energy than any other county on earth. But I would hardly say that we use more than "our fair share" (I hate that term by the way).

Now I don't know about emissions figures, but regarding consumption and production these are the statistics.

The U.S. produces 10.8% of oil related product.
The U.S. consumes 17.8% (unfair right?)
The U.S. represents 23.1% of the worlds GDP

From that perspective, we actually use LESS than our "fair share".

Again, I don't have the numbers for emissions so take it for what it's worth.

[erfalf]

OK, so according to wikipedia, the 2008 numbers have the U.S. representing 18.11% of world GHG emissions. Again, this makes the U.S. look as if they are doing a pretty good job at limiting GHG output if you are comparing it to the statistics I gave above.

China was the only county that came in above the U.S. By my calculation, the U.S. emits roughly 3 times what China does, but produces (GDP) 2.5 times what China does. Not perfect, but by these measures the United States is not this gloutenous poluter that we are made out to be by people, just like nathan has done here.

[Hoss]

OK, so according to wikipedia, the 2008 numbers have the U.S. representing 18.11% of world GHG emissions. Again, this makes the U.S. look as if they are doing a pretty good job at limiting GHG output if you are comparing it to the statistics I gave above.

China was the only county that came in above the U.S. By my calculation, the U.S. emits roughly 3 times what China does, but produces (GDP) 2.5 times what China does. Not perfect, but by these measures the United States is not this gloutenous poluter that we are made out to be by people, just like nathan has done here.

so, we emit 18 percent of the world's GHG, but are only 4 percent of the Earth's population?  And that's not skewed?

So what as it regards to our GDP.  Per capita we're still kicking that donkey as it regards to emissions.  When you base it per capita.

You make it sound like since we product so much more we get a pass on polluting the hell out of the Earth.  Seriously?

[nathanm]

Given our deindustrialization, I don't think that GDP is a terribly useful benchmark for our GHG emissions.

As far as a "fair share" goes, this is one of those things where "fair share" actually makes perfect sense. There is a finite amount of net GHG emissions that our planet can tolerate without causing massive disruption, whether due to sea level rise or shifts in precipitation patterns or any number of other problems. One person or country emitting a ton GHGs necessarily means that another country or person cannot. (obviously, it is physically possible, if unwise)

Perhaps you want to argue that we as Americans deserve the right to emit more carbon than a Portuguese or Brazilian. I can't think of many solid reasons for that, but I haven't given that line of reasoning a lot of thought.

[erfalf]

so, we emit 18 percent of the world's GHG, but are only 4 percent of the Earth's population?  And that's not skewed?

So what as it regards to our GDP.  Per capita we're still kicking that donkey as it regards to emissions.  When you base it per capita.

You make it sound like since we product so much more we get a pass on polluting the hell out of the Earth.  Seriously?

United States - 5,461,041 CO2 by 14,526,550 GDP = .375933
China - 7,031,916 CO2 by 5,878,257 GDP = 1.196259

So by this metric China polutes 3.18 times more than the U.S. Again by this metric only, it would be crazy to take this as the sole measure of polution. I am just trying to get people to look at this from a different perspective.

I could turn your statement around and say that because a good chunck of the rest of the world still live in mud huts we get punished for producing? Seriously?

[erfalf]

Given our deindustrialization, I don't think that GDP is a terribly useful benchmark for our GHG emissions.

I still think it is a far more useful benchmark than per capita. I mean just think of the variations in living conditions and productivity all over the world.

All things/decisions have a cost. Industrialization costs us polution. But what did it give the world? Just my opinion, but I think the benefits far out weigh the costs on this one.

I am not saying that we should just polute willy nilly. I'm not an idiot. But I just think people need to look at things from a different perspective and realize that virtually every other country would like a weeker United States. I for one am not in agreement.

[Hoss]

I still think it is a far more useful benchmark than per capita. I mean just think of the variations in living conditions and productivity all over the world.

All things/decisions have a cost. Industrialization costs us polution. But what did it give the world? Just my opinion, but I think the benefits far out weigh the costs on this one.

I am not saying that we should just polute willy nilly. I'm not an idiot. But I just think people need to look at things spin this from a different perspective and realize that virtually every other country would like a weeker United States. I for one am not in agreement.

FIFY

[RecycleMichael]

I'm not an idiot.

citation please.

[Hoss]

citation please.

Ha!

[Red Arrow]

We are not aliens visiting on our way to the next planet,

Do you have proof?

[AquaMan]

Do you have proof?

I have a higher estimation of aliens that what we have done to the planet would suggest. My son kids me that he is going to achieve a degree to allow him to be referred to as an  "Ancient Alien Theorist". Well, better than lifestyle coach i guess.

[erfalf]

citation please.

Could probably give you statistics that go either way. But again, this is a trend with people that adhere to AGW. Attack the messenger, not the message. Way to stay above the fray though.