Comments:Study says carbon dioxide levels rising faster than anticipated

duh--74.76.105.95 03:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The news that CO2 emissions re accelerating faster tan expected is disturbing. It seems that one of the positive feedback effects - a decrease in absorption by the oceans as temperatures rise - is coming into play. Scary.

But other sources suggest that the increase in average global temperature, which was rapid in the 1990s, has levelled off since 1998. So what is going on here? Maybe the warming effect of GHG emissions is being off-set by the cooling effect of particulate emissions as China and India industrialise. This mirrors the opposite effect in the 1990s caused by the drop in industrial production in the Former Soviet Union and the switch to gas / deindustrialisation in the West.

If this effect is correct, then strenous efforts to switch carbon intensive economies to cleaner fuels would result in less particulate emission. The extra CO2 already in the atmoshere could then cause an acceleration in temperature without any mitigating effect from particulates. Doom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcart1534 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Foolishness
What millions of people don't know is that CHINA, not the USA, is ACTUALLY the biggest producer of greenhouse gases. Because of Al Gore, everyone thinks it is all from the US, but they are wrong. Contralya 05:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Point being? It's ok to do bad things, because others do worse things?


 * No. People think it is almost entirely the US's fault, it isn't. People think that the US is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, it isn't. The Kyoto protocol doesn't cover China. Contralya 11:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Kyoto Protocol doesn't cover the USA either, since Bush won't submit it to Congress for ratification. Why be so defensive? This article doesn't even mention the USA. The point is to raise awareness about this global problem. Wikisoup 19:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Raising awareness about this global problem" is a liberal/democrat POV. If that's the point of the article, then what about WN:NPOV?  --69.114.159.217 20:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC) w:User:Thinboy00
 * Studying concentrations of CO2 is scientific, not political, thanks. Wikisoup 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Contralya, it depends on the statistics you use. Personally I believe this is much more accurate for finger pointing List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita. Although in my opinion, it is really a global problem and finger pointing never solved a thing. And from my personal experience, "people" don't blame it on the US, that's why the Kyoto protocol has so many signatories. 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, China does make up about a fifth of the world's population. Seriously, how is it that 300 million people can emit so much greenhouse gas as to rival the emissions of a country with a 1.3 billion people?

Shouldn't there be two molecules of Oxygen in the article title (subscript) rather than Oxygen squared (superscript)? Shane.Bell 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is full of shit.


 * I am not saying that the U.S. doesn't have a carbon emissions problem. I am saying that I hate how people foolishly think the USA is the biggest polluter and think china's contribution to greenhouse gases is 'minor' compared to the USA (as stated IN the article). Contralya 19:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And wikisoup, the Kyoto protocol doesn't cover USA because it didn't sign the agreement. It doesn't cover China because the agreement doesn't include it. Contralya 19:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On that point we can agree. Wikisoup 20:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it really news?
I've heard about this weeks ago. Mutton333 21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)