A Climate Idea Comes of Age: Zero Emissions

ABC News ^ | December 10, 2014 | By KARL RITTER

[Mike Darancette]

So what dictator will impose “no GHG emissions by 2050”? Who will force Russia, China and the USA to conform? Who will decide which people are expendable?

[dr_lew]

The burning of oil and coal represents a huge, secular ( i.e. nonfluctuating ) input of CO2 to the atmosphere. There’s no way around it. So yes, I’m agreeing with you!

[conservativeimage]

[Stanwood_Dave]

Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”

See: http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body-blow-to-german-global-warming-movement-major-media-outlets-unload-on-co2-lies/

See also: Time to jail the climate scamsters

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/time-to-jail-the-climate-scamsters/

SYDNEY, Australia – It’s official. What I was howled down and banned for telling the recent U.N. climate conference in Doha is true. There has been no global warming for 17 years.

Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who heads the U.N.’s accident-prone climate panel, the IPCC, recently admitted this fact here in Australia.

The Hadley/CRU temperature record shows no warming for 18 or 19 years. RSS satellites show none for 23 years. Not one computer model predicted that.

From: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA

Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/science-becoming-religion/

Science Becoming Religion

Global Warming Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by "trapping" infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.

Human-caused catastrophic global warming exposed as big lie

http://www.cdapress.com/columns/my_turn/article_d4acf007-b176-50dd-ac6c-0dbf2e0a61c3.html

COEUR d'ALENE {Idaho} -World-famous aircraft designer and North Idaho resident Burt Rutan looked at climate data and found deception - even fraud - behind the assertions of global-warming alarmists intent on implementing a world-wide climate fix that could bring about economic chaos.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20LGJeZHx

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years

Study of semi-fossilised trees gives accurate climate reading back to 138BC

World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now By Science Reporter

PUBLISHED: 07:22 EST, 11 July 2012 | UPDATED: 17:51 EST, 11 July 2012

How did the Romans grow grapes in northern England? Perhaps because it was warmer than we thought.

A study suggests the Britain of 2,000 years ago experienced a lengthy period of hotter summers than today.

German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century.

The best for last!!

http://newandamazing.shadowsofadistantmoon.com/?p=515 A Novel Theory of Global Warning On Venus

2nd paragraph "BUT WAIT … Is there another explanation for why Venus is hot … an explanation that claims to completely debunk the CO2 based theory of global warning. Why yes NAAoids everywhere … there is." {Quick answer: Irrefutable Math, to wit: Stefan-Boltzmann law}

“Ok,” the dark elves say, “how in the blazes did you ever come up with the 17.6% number. That was just winging it right?”

“No my friends, it is based on immutable laws of heat transfer … to wit.”

Venus is 67.25 million miles from the sun. Earth is 93 million miles from the sun. Since the intensity of the Sun’s radiation decreases according to the square of the ratio of the distance between two objects, we can calculate the radiative power per unit of area for Venus as (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times (on average) the power per unit area that Earth receives. To turn this into a temperature projection we must use the Stefan-Boltzmann law (Link-2) that states that the temperature of two objects in space varies as to the 4th root of the radiation hitting the surface. Thus, if we take the fourth root of 1.91, we will get the factor that we should apply to Earth’s temperature to predict Venus’s temperature based on THE DISTANCE FROM THE SUN ALONE. The 4th root of 1.91 turns out to be 1.176. This formula only works on absolute temperature (Kelvin) and not Centigrade or Fahrenheit. Thus, if Earth’s temperature at 1000 millibars is 288 K, then Venus’s temperature should be 339 K.

So what we have here are two worlds whose temperatures at comparable millibars readings are nearly identical, varying by 5% or less in every case and by well less than 1% at Earth’s surface millibars reading.

“But how could that be?” ask the dark elves. “Venus has way more CO2 than earth. How can that have no impact?”

“You are right … the Venus atmosphere is 96% CO2, while Earth’s is only 0.04% CO2. Venus in fact has 2400 times as much CO2 as Earth and yet it seemingly makes NO DIFFERENCE at comparable millibars temperature readings. CO2 thus can be said to be a total non-factor in determining the planets temperature. All you really need to know is how far you are away from the sun. The other factors … greenhouse gases, albedo, cloud density, etc. have minimal effects (if true, probably due to a saturation effect such that beyond a certain amount of greenhouse gases, the heat retention effect is limited.)”

I know. I know. This is a radical theory because it completely discredits climate science as it is currently taught. But it uses such basic physics and produces such astounding results, it cannot be dismissed easily. NAA thinks this is a really fun idea to consider and hats off to Harry Dale Huffman. It is a very creative approach to a major science topic in the news today.

[dalereed]

I’ll drive gas guzzlers until the day I die!!!

i wouldn’t have an electric ir dual fuel tonka toy if it was free.

[palmer]

Venus has way more CO2 than earth. How can that have no impact?

That's no surprise since the photon capture effect is well saturated for CO2 on Venus. The same principle applies on the earth where the added effect of each equal increment of CO2 matters less and less.

[xp38]

Gaia on the other hand has other plans

[trebb]

See my post. Man’s activities have increased CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm, far more than the rise would have been naturally from natural warming.

And how was that determined? CO2 has been higher and lower than the parameters mentioned - way before we had the manpower to affect anything. Is there scientific proof of what you state or is it just some touchy-feely statistics that someone made up to try to appease both sides while asserting that Man is causing the rise?

[palmer]

And how was that determined? CO2 has been higher and lower than the parameters mentioned - way before we had the manpower to affect anything

True but the rises and falls were rather slow, mostly from geological processes. When the ocean warms one degree C, it will release 5-10 ppm of CO2, that was enough to have a little positive feedback coming out of ice ages. But it is important to keep in mind that the ice ages had very low levels of CO2 so smaller rises made more of a difference.

some touchy-feely statistics that someone made up to try to appease both sides while asserting that Man is causing the rise?

The rise from 280 to 400 (and rising at 2-3ppm a year) is one of the most solid scientific measurements in the entire debate. It was replicated around the world decades ago and has not been seriously challenged. The question of whether a rise in CO2 is good is also relatively settled: the earth had entered a period of CO2 starvation, varying from 150 ppm in the depths of the ice ages to the low 300's in the warmest interglacials. Basically at 150 ppm or less, plants start to die, and then the animals die. The ideal levels of CO2 are at least 1000 which is what many greenhouse growers use.

During my investigation of how to build greenhouses the books emphasize how important it is to ventilate to get enough CO2. I would also note that a few "scientific" studies of CO2 made many years ago showed widely varying levels. Unfortunately people did not understand that local levels can vary widely with time of day especially with plant respiration (some plants will release it at night). So if you read some "science" about how levels were 400ppm in the recent past, you should assume that has been debunked.

[trebb]

The rise from 280 to 400 (and rising at 2-3ppm a year) is one of the most solid scientific measurements in the entire debate. It was replicated around the world decades ago and has not been seriously challenged. The question of whether a rise in CO2 is good is also relatively settled: the earth had entered a period of CO2 starvation, varying from 150 ppm in the depths of the ice ages to the low 300's in the warmest interglacials. Basically at 150 ppm or less, plants start to die, and then the animals die. The ideal levels of CO2 are at least 1000 which is what many greenhouse growers use.

I realize that it is not refutable that the levels are rising - the question is how we can be sure that Man is the culprit in either the rise or the rate of rise. We know that levels were different, but do we really know what past rise rates were as the earth did it's thing in the days before Man became a factor? Some may have been incredibly slow, but what says others weren't at similar/greater rates than what we observe today?

I also grasp that local conditions cause anomalies that are different than regional/global curves - more like a curve with lots of static on it, but the overall effects are more important than encapsulated areas. L.A. smog isn't indicative of a global smog problem, but it does have some effect before nature can cleanse itself; something it is very good at.

Not trying to refute what you say - you made a cogent reply and seem to have knowledge that is supplemented by actual study vs. the generalities folks like me are so used to dealing with.

[palmer]

Some may have been incredibly slow, but what says others weren't at similar/greater rates than what we observe today?

That is entirely possible. The problem with the ice cores (and even more so the sediment cores) is that they smooth and smear readings over as much as centuries. So with, for example, Antarctic cores we can't know if there was a rise of 2-3 ppm per year for a century and similar fall. But there are two issues with that. First is that the cause is missing. Large volcanoes put out 10's of Mt and having hundreds of large volcanoes would produce that 2-3 ppm rise. But we would also see ash and other evidence in the cores and that is missing.

The other issue is that the Greenland cores have annual resolution. There is a caveat which is that CO2 diffuses in ice so the resolution is still not great. But for the last 20,000 or so years we can pretty safely say there was no 2-3 ppm rise like we see now, only 100x slower rises and falls.

[trebb]

Thanks again for the response - puts things into perspective.

[PigRigger]

Hi Palmer -

Thanks for the sane discussion points... I to am a firm believer that man is contributing to the rise of CO2.... and I too have always asked the following:

- How does anyway truly know the impact of man’s contribution?

- Regardless the reason.... is it really a problem given naturally occurring CO2 levels in the past, when higher, led to the leaps in mankind’s progress?

- In studying geological glaciation cycles it is apparent we are coming to the end of an inter-glacial warming period. Generally, the bottom falls out rather quickly (from warm to cold) geologically speaking... so is it really a bad thing that if this period extends further (if CO2 in itself is not contributing to the trigger to cool.. see below)?

- Many believe CO2 levels are a trailing indicator of increased warmth... (I tend to agree... given my background in geology).... Some speculate that we will actually advance the timing of any future cooling because the earth will warm more quickly than normal, thus setting the cooling trigger off more quickly.... so, do we even understand the impact?

- Where has anyone proved we can halt the earth’s warming?

In the end, I think we would be better served preparign for the effects of the earth’s warming.... rather than in futility... try to stop it...