Some cautious good news on climate, maybe! China has reduced its emissions of greenhouse gases by a big whole lot, according to Greenpeace -- about an 8 percent reduction in coal use in the first four months of 2015 compared to 2014. And because China is on the enormous side, as countries and economies go, those Chinese reductions in carbon dioxide equal to more than the total output of C02 in the UK for the same period. So yay, slight reduction in greenhouse gases for a limited period! It all helps.
Random observation to the folks (and I'm not going to go look to see who you were) that got into the spelling-Nazi-no-sense-of-humor-don't-upvote-yourself-whatever subthread. This is what happens on Huffy, or Yahoo.
Arguing with other commenters because you disagree with their point is one thing, but attacking them for spelling or grammar, or sense of humor, or self-upvoting, or other non-content-related matters is a waste of energy. As is responding to such attacks.
Yeah, but all that carbon was recently in the atmosphere, so it's not really going to change much. It's the carbon that's been out of the atmosphere for a few million years, that we're now putting back into the atmosphere, that's screwing things up.
I see what you are saying, but while the carbon in a given animal was captured fairly recently, the amount of carbon in the pool of humanity tends to remain stable over long periods of time unless there is a dramatic shift in the overall number of living humans. Assuming an 80 kg human, 18.5 % carbon by mass, cremating that person would produce 58 kg of CO2. That means the population of North America alone stores enough carbon to produce more than 30 billion kg of CO2. So depending upon how bloodthirsty the NRA gets, we could put a lot of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.It is kind of silly discussion overall, but the idea is that no matter how fast a carbon pool turns over, if the average size of the pool remains the same still functions like a long buried pool of carbon.Side point, if we want to reduce global warming we have to find a way to either use sunlight directly, or a way to resynthesize hydrocarbon fuels using some form of photosynthesis. There really is no way around that point - we either have to get energy without burning hydrocarbons, or we have to return the carbon from CO2 to hydrocarbons.
And many are conceived via car-boning.
Not necessarily. I've always liked Multiple Personality Disorder.
Random observation to the folks (and I'm not going to go look to see who you were) that got into the spelling-Nazi-no-sense-of-humor-don't-upvote-yourself-whatever subthread. This is what happens on Huffy, or Yahoo.
Arguing with other commenters because you disagree with their point is one thing, but attacking them for spelling or grammar, or sense of humor, or self-upvoting, or other non-content-related matters is a waste of energy. As is responding to such attacks.
It's no wonder Wonket doesn't allow comments.
Yeah, but all that carbon was recently in the atmosphere, so it's not really going to change much. It's the carbon that's been out of the atmosphere for a few million years, that we're now putting back into the atmosphere, that's screwing things up.
ISWYDT. <applause>
Nah. It's easy to explain.
Dear American People:Fuck you. Fuck you. And fuck you in particular.Fuck the whole bunch of you. Except Disney.
kthxbye
So... now it's the Chartreuse Peril?
Bobbert, I think you mispelled . . . ;-)
I see what you are saying, but while the carbon in a given animal was captured fairly recently, the amount of carbon in the pool of humanity tends to remain stable over long periods of time unless there is a dramatic shift in the overall number of living humans. Assuming an 80 kg human, 18.5 % carbon by mass, cremating that person would produce 58 kg of CO2. That means the population of North America alone stores enough carbon to produce more than 30 billion kg of CO2. So depending upon how bloodthirsty the NRA gets, we could put a lot of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.It is kind of silly discussion overall, but the idea is that no matter how fast a carbon pool turns over, if the average size of the pool remains the same still functions like a long buried pool of carbon.Side point, if we want to reduce global warming we have to find a way to either use sunlight directly, or a way to resynthesize hydrocarbon fuels using some form of photosynthesis. There really is no way around that point - we either have to get energy without burning hydrocarbons, or we have to return the carbon from CO2 to hydrocarbons.
The conservatives have chimed in with a solution: Sell more cigarettes to the Chinese.
"Robbert"?
Says you.
Yes, I agree, that was very well played, sir!
*polite golf clap*
Martini?
HOLD ON THERE! Burning people who are shot releases lead into the atmosphere! You need an EPA license for that!
wonkettini being spelling and grammar national socialist partiers and general self-aggrandizement givers? I'm shocked, I mean....yawn....
that is one reason Obama wants the TPP to become real
I don't get your point. Obama resumed the negotiations that G.W. Bush had begun on the TPP back in fall of 2009.
All this talk about China is just a red herring, I suspect.~