tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1478627399440086977.post3933610370496190022..comments2023-11-21T04:49:01.702-05:00Comments on A Dog Named Kyoto: Crunching the IPCC's numbersA Dog Named Kyotohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10859158097418832063noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1478627399440086977.post-21238663067530880262007-04-28T22:08:00.000-04:002007-04-28T22:08:00.000-04:00MOST interesting stuff. Two vaguely related points...MOST interesting stuff. <BR/><BR/>Two vaguely related points....<BR/>1)Playing the Devil's advocate... Quoting."From 1990 to 2003 emissions increased from 21,230 to 25,030 megatonnes or 292 megatonnes per year. From 2003 to 2006 emissions increased from 25,030 to 29,330megatonnes or 1435 megatonnes per year. <BR/>This represents an increase in the rate of emissions of 491%..."<BR/><BR/>What am I missing here? What is the explanation for this huge change in emissions in the 03-06 period? Better reporting by China and India? Surely not increased in industrial emissions in developed countries? Yes? No? Maybe? Some complex combo of factors? <BR/><BR/>2) One thing I've noticed on my dozen trips to Northern China in the past 9 years is the huge amount of emissions from biomass...eg. corn stalks burned in brick fireboxes for example. I also think that a lot of coal that is burned is not officially tracked by anyone. I've seen people haul off loads of coal and there is no one keeping score. Maybe it has been recorded somewhere. My wild guess is that a lot of coal in China is not tracked. <BR/><BR/>There are 750,000,000 peasant farm folks in China and just wonder if anyone is counting their emissions. WAGS? Wild-assed guesstimates or simply ignored? I wonder. <BR/><BR/>Cheers!<BR/><BR/>ClivePontiac 1940https://www.blogger.com/profile/16475430127478700273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1478627399440086977.post-83828236608467299712007-04-28T17:19:00.000-04:002007-04-28T17:19:00.000-04:00Kudos for the overall analysis but a quibble with ...Kudos for the overall analysis but a quibble with a portion of it.<BR/><BR/>Anthro CO2 emission rates may rise by a high percentage (eg the 491% cited) over a given period, but the increase in total atmospheric CO2 concentrations needs to take into account the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere at the start and the end of that period, as well as natural sources/sinks of CO2 during that period. There is no direct connection between changes in rates of CO2 emissions from one source and the total concentration. Apples and oranges.<BR/><BR/>The two unassailable points, based on public domain information, are that the rate of temperature increase in the early 20th century matches the rate in a period of the late 20th century, and that satellite temperatures show a record quite different than that used by alarmists to assault us with stories of doom.<BR/><BR/>To the alarmists I ask, if anthro CO2 is the cause of temperature change, why doesn't its pattern match the pattern of temperature change?Zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07454330013436283393noreply@blogger.com