Posted on 12/22/2014 1:57:05 PM PST by PROCON
(CNSNews.com) -White House Science Advisor John Holdren says the global goal is to have world-wide carbon dioxide emissions “close to zero by 2100.”
As part of the White House “Open For Questions” video posted last week Holdren was asked: “Do you know the rate of reduction in carbon emissions the world would have to achieve in order to prevent an unstoppable process of methane release from the Arctic areas?”
“No one knows for sure how much warming would be enough to produce this result, but it's thought to be considerably less likely to happen if the ultimate warming is less than 2 degrees Celsius, that is 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above the pre-industrial value, than
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
May the global elites go first.
These lefty lunatics who champion this lunacy should do what’s right and set an example by comitting suicide.
I don’t give a damn what his credentials. This is an effing moron.
I like that. LOL.
Someone take this “science advisor’s dissertation and beat him senseless with it. What an ignorant buffoon.
The “Carbon Cycle” has been known about for centuries.
What this supposed Science Advisor is suggesting is impossible.
A perfect example was in the test of BioDome in AZ.
In a closed system, the decomposing matter in the soil emits CO2.
The cement industry produces about 5% of world CO2. Are we to live in wattle and daub structures?
Yeah.
In their minds, they are so enlightened that they must not deny their brilliance to the world.
It is a form of personality disorder.
Yes, But that's not what the guy is talking about. He talking about reducing net emissions to zero so that CO2 concentrations don't keep climbing.
Not very practical, but not insane.
New York State Bans Fracking After Health Report
New York to ban fracking; environmentalists cheer
Liberals Already Labeling Jeb Bush A ‘Climate Denier’
Keystone pipeline will be job No. 1 for GOP-run Senate
Keystone first item on GOP Senate agenda
Report: EPA CO2 Rule Is ‘Fundamentally Flawed’
Global Warming on Free Republic
Yes, But that’s not what the guy is talking about. He talking about reducing net emissions to zero so that CO2 concentrations don’t keep climbing.
Not very practical, but not insane.
___________________________________________________________
But doesn’t that mean you’d have to start killing off people at some point, as the population increased.?
Oh, that’s right. He wrote a paper about that.
We would all be better off if we could stop Holdren’s emissions.
The former is not significant compared to manmade emissions. The latter is significant but tends to balance with forest regrowth elsewhere or in other seasons. While the natural carbon cycle is huge, the annual net carbon contributions are not large compared to man's net contribution.
That's what it would be without mankind. Instead it is 4/10,000.
Your second statement is correct. Somewhere below 2/10,000 plants start dying off. We are in a geological era of very low CO2 and anything we add is helpful.
No. It is in theory possible to maintain the present world population, admittedly at a pretty low economic level, while adding zero net emissions to the environment. All it really requires is eliminating the use of fossil fuels.
Actually, if there was truly massive implementation of nuclear power or orbital solar power, we might even be able to continue to advance economically.
Now I’m not recommending this approach, and there would undoubtedly be huge negative side-effects, but it is theoretically possible.
Here’s the deal: The ecosystem contains X carbon in soil, plants, ocean, atmosphere, etc. It goes in and out of the air over time much as water does. But as with water the concentration changes only minimally.
Fossil fuels consist largely of carbon in plant matter that used to be part of this carbon cycle, but was locked away from it many moons ago. When we burn fossil fuels, we add “new” carbon to the ecosystem, causing the concentration in the air to gradually climb.
What the effects of this will be are not nearly as self-evident as the greenies claim, but it WILL have effects if it reaches high enough concentrations. What exactly constitutes “high enough,” nobody really knows.
And it is simply not something a computer model can settle, because we don’t know all the factors, much less exactly how they will interact. I believe this is all knowable, but we are at present far, far away from that knowledge.
I suspect a century from now scientists will study the great Global Warming Scare as a case study for poor science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.