Comments on: A good year for CO2 in 2006

By: wattsupwiththat

wattsupwiththat — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 06:40:25 +0000

papertiger:

There was an experiemnt in 1909 similar to what you describe.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/december_2007/greenhouse_effect_disproved_in_1909.htm

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:59:14 +0000

That CO2 emissions decrease is good for the environment, not because CO2 is a pollutant but because all the real pollutants will be reduced in line with CO2. In the midst of a reasonable anger on media scarestories, we should not forget that burning fossile fuel is linked to various environmental and geopolitical problems, and that phasing out fossile fuel would be great for a whole range of reasons. Lets just do it in a reasonable fashion…

Then why are we going after CO2 again? Let’s go after those other reasons and forget about CO2.

Burning of fossil fuels has become cleaner and cleaner, there’s no danger in continuing to burn them. The only real dangers are monopolies and eco-hysteria.

By: SteveSadlov

SteveSadlov — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:51:26 +0000

At some point, the cheap and easy fossil fuel will start to become scarce. Couple that with the fact that the current UN estimates are that world population peaks in 2050 (and consider how much the UN has historically overestimated natural growth rates, 2050 will likely be after the peak). So, even with or without Kyoto or Bali, CO2 emissions are going to eventually be going down world wide.

Now, here is some food for deep thought. Look at the ensemble of estimated CO2 concentration records reflecting the past 500 M years. When you view it at that scale, it is apparent that we are near the probable all time low values. At best, we are a couple or three hundred PPM above all time low values. Not if but likely, when, the long term decline that has been going on now for tens of millions of years, resumes, where will it lead, and what will it do to the biosphere?

I hear that fungus really thrive on the detritus of organisms that cannot remain viable below 150 PPM of atmospheric CO2. The good news is, once the fungus liberate CO2 (and CH4) from the detritus, and, the inevitable massive erosion sets in after all those green plants die off, it will spike the CO2 level and the biosphere may rise like a phoenix from the ashes.

By: Rikard

Rikard — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:15:12 +0000

That CO2 emissions decrease is good for the environment, not because CO2 is a pollutant but because all the real pollutants will be reduced in line with CO2. In the midst of a reasonable anger on media scarestories, we should not forget that burning fossile fuel is linked to various environmental and geopolitical problems, and that phasing out fossile fuel would be great for a whole range of reasons. Lets just do it in a reasonable fashion…

By: MikeRossTky

MikeRossTky — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:48:05 +0000

CO2 is not “polution”, so the its reduction should not be considered reduction in “polution”. But I do agree with you that results that is not government driven that made the change in the environment is good.

What impressed me here is that US is always being accused by those who signed the Kyoto Protocol as “doing nothing”. The truth is that US has reduced CO2 while the economy grew. The same can not be said about most of the countries that signed Kyoto.

I’ve referenced your article at my blog site aimed to the Japanese audience. Please keep up the good work!

By: papertiger

papertiger — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:34:53 +0000

There are two identical bottles sitting on the shelf. Both are filled with air. If I were to add 100 ppm co2 to one bottle, then stick them both in the sun, would the enhanced co2 bottle’s air warm up faster? To a higher temperature?
If I left them out there until nightfall, would the co2 bottle’s contents cool more slowly?

Is this a valid test of the AGW theory?

By: Julie KS

Julie KS — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:18:43 +0000

I’m with you that we do need to be cleaner and more efficient in our energy use, and I think “panic driven ideas” are likely to cause as many problems as they solve. It’s good to know that the US’s emissions actually fell last year. Thanks for posting this. I haven’t seen anything in the news about it.

Speaking of panic, Oxfam put out this news release the other day, stating that “Natural disasters have quadrupled over the last two decades, from an average of 120 a year in the early 1980s to as many as 500 today…”, which they attribute to AGW. This is of course aimed at the Bali conference.

Quadrupled? I’ve only had time this morning to skim their paper, but they do admit in the notes that some of this could be due to improved reporting.

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change/bp108_weather_alert.html

By: Layer Seven

Layer Seven — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:06:24 +0000

CO2 can scarcely be categorized as a pollutant! Without abundant CO2, human life would disappear in short order. Crop yields are at record highs today. There is a high probability that if you investigated the measurement of carbon dioxide emission, you would find the same deficiencies (systematic dishonesty) you do in temperature metrology (and thank you very much for it!) However, it is plausible that higher energy costs should certainly be a heavily weighted suspect in reducing carbon dioxide emission in ths short term. With all we know about climate today, which is not much, I submit we do not know for sure that the reduction in carbon dioxide emission is even a desireable climatological tactic. In any case, extended voluntary reduction per se of carbon dioxide emissions in the World is an implausible event. Perhaps we should increase low cloud formation, to reduce carbon dioxide by oceanic sequestration! The human starvation would be prohibitive, however. Or do greens care?