[decimon]

Walking the Planck ping.

[xuberalles]

[samtheman]

Taking “How Many Angels Can Fit On the Head of a Pin” to the next level.

[devere]

Max Planck is rolling in his grave.

[beethovenfan]

“I’m sorry, but to prevent catastrophic global warming (which would have a bad effect on my lifestyle), I’m afraid that 100 million of you will have to leave the earth.”

[JPG]

If God didn’t want us to exhale CO2 he would have come up with some other plan...maybe N2O, hahahahaha.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Guess which continent produces the most CO2? Africa. This could be seen as racist by the diverse crowd.

[Personal Responsibility]

Let me guess: The break even point is 10% of the current population level.

[Yo-Yo]

New carbon dioxide emissions model (You'll never guess)

Before reading the article, let me try:

"It's worse than we thought^TM"

Yup. I was right.

[Hardraade]

Easy-peasy. Remove all the muslims and all the socialists, and the question is comfortably moot.

[Our man in washington]

the emissions will then have to be reduced by 56 percent by the year 2050

I wonder if this might happen anyway even without environmentalists causing a nuisance. After all, we are finding we have lot more recoverable natural gas than we thought we had five years ago. I wouldn't argue that petroleum is running out, but it is getting more expensitve to get the stuff out. Natural gas emits only about half the carbon dioxide that petroleum does.

Nuclear power isn't cost-effective now, but that may be just an engineering problem. Incremental improvements, combined with increasing costs of mining coal as we use up the easy stuff, could make nuclear power a lot more feasible.

If we could power our car fleet on natural gas and nuclear takes over a big part of electrical generation, then emissions could go down over 56 percent in this country with very little inconvenience to the consumer.

We shall see!

[Domandred]

Carbon dioxide is air for plants. Why do liberals keep wanting to kill all the trees by taking away the plant’s air? I thought liberals loved trees?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

They're trying to predict WHAAAAAT???

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

[dila813]

tree rings and whale farts

no historical carbon emissions, what are these people smoking?

Ever heard of volcanoes and forest fires?

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Meteorologists have determined exactly how much carbon dioxide humans can emit into the atmosphere while ensuring that the earth does not heat up by more than two degrees

WaitWaitWait.... The "climate scientists" been dissing the meteorologists, ever since it became clear that a majority of meteorologists have rejected the AGW hypothesis.

So.... we can expect an IPCC denouncement of this study any day now. Right?

[aruanan]

Recently, in the New York Times, as cited at ClimateDepot.com, Dr. Richard B. Alley from the IPCC claimed that doubling atmospheric CO2 would result in temperature increases of 18-20 degrees. He didn't specify C or F, so I assumed C for the following:

'The true worst case from doubled carbon dioxide is closer to 18 or 20 degrees of warming, Dr. Alley said — an addition of heat so radical that it would render the planet unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants.'

Throughout earth history the only certain relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is that, after 4 to 10 centuries of warming, the level of atmospheric CO2 increases and, after up to a thousand or more years of cooling, CO2 levels start to decrease. There have been much cooler periods than now but with many times higher CO2 levels and warmer periods with much lower CO2 (the Holocene, Roman, and Medieval optima). There are no geological precedents for CO2-induced climate change, but there are many for climate change-induced CO2 levels.

Given the logarithmic relationship of CO2 to atmospheric temperature (where the greatest effect is over the first hundred ppm, after that increasing amounts of CO2 are required to result in decreasing rises in temperature), there is no way possible to get an 18 to 20 degree increase of warming without increasing human contribution to atmospheric CO2 by an amount that would require an increase many, many times greater than all current human activity. There is no way possible to increase temperature by 18-20 degrees by doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2.

For instance, if the increase in CO2 from the cherry-picked 19th century value of 280 ppm (actually about 330 ppm) to that of the present day is responsible for less than one half degree C increase over that period of time and since the mean residence time of CO2 is about 5 years (IPCC's Susan Solomon's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding) and if all of that increase of CO2 is from human activity, then to get an increase of 18 to 20 degrees C assuming a linear not a logarithmic relationship between CO2 content and temperature, you'd have to have an increase in human CO2-emitting activity of between 36 to 40 times--meaning that, for a constant population, economic activity would have to be increased between 36 to 40 times or, for a constant level of CO2 output per person, population would have to be increased 36 to 40 times. And that's if the relationship between warming and CO2 is linear--for the logarithmic relationship, it would be many, many times that. There is no way that we're going to increase the earth's population 36 to 40 times nor increase the average yearly CO2-generating economic activity 36 to 40 times in the near or even in the distant future.