I’ll be offline most of this weekend, as I got virtually no work done for myself this week thanks to the BEST “PR before peer review shenanigans” and the compliant cadre of barking media lapdogs that followed with tails-a-wagging looking for a sound bite.
Discuss topics on science, weather climate, etc here quietly amongst yourselves. don’t make me come back here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
(Canary Island) El Hierro Volcano Update : They Are Lying To You! Volcano Active Oct. 20, 2011
Perfect baseball weather.
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?CityName=Arlington&state=TX&site=FWD&lat=32.6945&lon=-97.1275
Go Rangers!
Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy? Trying to do policy brainstorm, looking forward to suggestions.
Here is the latest from ‘vukcevic graphs workshop’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-SST.htm
Article is being assembled currently.
It truly astonishes me that as the rest of the world pulls back from carbon dioxide control, and while China and India always intended to increase their coal burning, Australia begins a carbon tax. Julia Gillard and her political friends are quite mad.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/10/21/the-great-green-energy-crack-up/
Also, applauds to Anthony for attending a seminar with Dr. Santer at Chico State University. If you haven’t seen this post, it is quite good. Check out the video to learn quite a bit from peer-reviewed material.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/dr-ben-santer-speaks-on-climate-modeling-and-everything-else/#more-49656
Thought this might cheer you up Anthony
We’ve all seen similar to this somewhere else.
Oops
Forgot the clip
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/262587/bangkok-not-waterproof
Have a good rest Anthony, and recharge your batteries. It looks like this BEST thing is going to run for a while, particularly with the way they’ve chosen to proceed with it. There’s been a lot to digest post-wise this week.
.”.compliant cadre of barking media lapdogs that followed with tails-a-wagging looking for a sound bite.”
Made me laugh out loud. You’re a pretty good writer Anthony, when you’re inspired. Very nice.
The Suicide Derby now has four contestants:
California and Australia vying for first place
England close behind,
and nuclear-abolishing Germany the latest entrant.
If EPA has its way the entire USA will join California.
India, China, and Brazil must be laughing all the way to their latest power plant or oil well.
BEST has put a gust of wind in ti the AGW sails but the hard facts havn’t changed. How many times have we had false expectations in life and learned to lower the bar until it is almost at ground level! Perhaps it is their last gasp before Durban, and the best they can do to try to avoid another debacle. I think the writing is on the wall, so take a good breath of air and get your battery charged up for what is coming next.
otter17 says:October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am
“Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy?”
Ah… You do realize that humans exhale CO2? Even ignoring that minor difficulty… Zero emissions would mean forsaking luxuries like cooking meat on a stick over a primitive fire, or agriculture (slash&burn would be all that was left, and those fires release CO2 as well).
It wouldn’t do much for “our livelihood, economy, etc”, but if you really want to eliminate all human CO2 emissions, there’s always total nuclear conflagration. Sure, the firestorms would cause an initial spike in anthropogenic CO2, but after that we wouldn’t be causing any more (you might want to mention that option to Harold camping).
Which I suppose is the hardcore greenies’ whole point.
otter17 says:
October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am
Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly
=============================================
Why?
…a 40% increase in nothing…..is still nothing
Carl Bussjaeger says:
October 22, 2011 at 10:58 am
“Ah… You do realize that humans exhale CO2? Even ignoring that minor difficulty… Zero emissions would mean forsaking luxuries like cooking meat on a stick over a primitive fire, or agriculture (slash&burn would be all that was left, and those fires release CO2 as well).”
Yes of course we “animals” exhale CO2, haha. What I meant were fossil fuel emissions. Emissions coming from the existing carbon cycle (such as breathing, fires), would be ok. What I mean, is how to get CO2 emissions to balance with the carbon cycle (eliminating the 2ppm rise in CO2 each year).
otter17 says:
October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am
“Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy? Trying to do policy brainstorm, looking forward to suggestions.”
Build LFTR reactors. The anti nuclear faction wouldn’t be happy, but in your scenario they would obviously have to accept that without LFTR’s they had to choose between
a) the end of the world
b) living in the woods without machinery, medicine and computer games.
Now explain how CO2 emissions bigger than zero would end the world; I love a good dystopian fantasy. Also, please explain how zero CO2 emissions will be enforced globally. Keep in mind that the global police force must do its policing WITHOUT emitting CO2. I know, that’s a tough one.
Humans average .5 liters of air each breath @ur momisugly 5% CO2 16 breaths/min. or 1152 liters of CO2 per day times 7 billion people gives 8.064 trillion liters of CO2/day. divide by 22.4 (liters per gram molecular weight) gives 360 million moles of CO2 At 44g per mole gives 15.84 billion Kg of CO2 per day for the human race. or 5.782 trillion Kg CO2 per year or 5.782 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted per year by humans breathing.
I am thinking if the AGW people, The preservationist environmental people, the tree hugers, bunny hugers, and the liberal socialist millionairs who support them, would limit themselves to one breath per minute, it would save 1 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions per year… I mean, do the math.
Latitude says:
October 22, 2011 at 11:20 am
“Why?
…a 40% increase in nothing…..is still nothing.”
_______________________
The increase in CO2 due to emissions is finite and measurable, not nothing. As an analogy, 40% increase in Blood Alcohol Content is not trivial.
Nevertheless, that isn’t the point. The point is to have a mitigation plan of some sort in case warming meets or exceeds projections. It is prudent to have a plan in the pocket.
Interesting quote.
“Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately become proof that they were busy.” – Charles Peters
The Moon
Anthony, enjoy your deserved R&R.
There is a lot of sepculation about comets and meterors striking the earth. To some extent ( I consider substantially) the Earth has been protected by the Moon which has intercepted many such objects. This is evidenced by the cratering of the far side of the moon. Any of those impacts could have forestalled the development of life on Earth.
As a specualtive thought, imagine an Earth-like planet where the moon orbits at a much lower distance and tidal ranges are 500 – 600 feet. Would life evolve quicker? How much evaporation would develop with huge beaches?
Come on Vuk, enough of the trailers lets have your main show 🙂
Interstellar Bill
I am insulted by your comments. Britain is way ahead of the field in its AGW stupidity. A retraction is needed sir 🙂
tonyb
Coming La Nina seems pretty deep.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/nino34SSTMon.gif
Global temperature will be in 1940s level soon. How come when “world is warming”?
otter17 says:
October 22, 2011 at 11:58 am
. As an analogy, 40% increase in Blood Alcohol Content is not trivial.
===============================================
I don’t mean this as an insult….but I’ve seen that analogy before….and it’s the stupidest analogy anyone could ever use……
5000 ppm CO2 is not toxic……….
DirkH says:
October 22, 2011 at 11:31 am
“Now explain how CO2 emissions bigger than zero would end the world; I love a good dystopian fantasy. Also, please explain how zero CO2 emissions will be enforced globally. Keep in mind that the global police force must do its policing WITHOUT emitting CO2. I know, that’s a tough one.”
________
I’m not sure of all the answers, which is why I posed the question. For example, I’m not sure exactly how much emissions the carbon cycle can absorb. Let’s just say zero emissions or close to that. There are varying degrees of potential damage to the environment, economy, livelihood, etc that can arise due to a change in climate that outpaces the economy or environment’s capability to adapt. I see it kind of as a risk management and general trend analysis problem, like the military does. Check out this Pentagon report from Feb. 2010, see pages 84 through 88 in particular for potential threats.
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf
As far as ensuring globally binding CO2 emissions targets? That is also a tough question, for sure. Again, that is why I asked my question in the first place. I would imagine some form of treaty structure and atmospheric monitoring of CO2 would be able to determine if emission targets are being met. I would hope police wouldn’t have to go around.
Hi tony
JC ordered a bit of polishing, now on page14/20.