Posted on 03/10/2008 10:02:26 AM PDT by SiVisPacemParaBellum
The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.
Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide. Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.
"The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about."
Emissions continue to rise... (see link for the entire article)
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
That one might be right up cogitator's alley.
Already explained earlier in the thread. Never mind.
Unreal.
Personally, with the winter we've had, I'd take some warming about now. If I never saw snow again, I could still die happy.
We’d have to stop all forest fires caused by lightning. Just outlaw them. That ought to do the trick.
I guess that means they'll have to quit smoking whatever it is they're smoking, too.
Except methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. I guess the guy forgot about that.
I wonder what this guys plans are for the strongest greenhouse gas of them all- H2O?
He’s going after small potatoes there with just focusing on CO2.
Just continue the work that Hitler and Stalin started. While we're at it, give Pol Pot the Nobel prize. But shouldn't we exterminate all of the animals before we finish off the people?
They tried that on South Park once. It lead to a rash of spontaneous human combustion. Townsfolk were bursting into flames right and left.
HAHA! Spontaneous combustion. With my husband, I could see that being possible.
There is still snow in my yard on 10 March...
>”This would require us to all stop breathing.”<
-No, only enviro-weenies must stop.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley....
FWIW, they can TRY to keep me from warming my a$$ this or any other winter, but they will fail.
(Mrs. Dirtbiker has already decreed that HER house will not be cold, and if Mrs. Dirtbiker ain't happy, nobody is happy....)
> “The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore?” asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
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.