From Reuters: The sky will soon be full, view it while you can.
“At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full”
Analysis: Extreme steps needed to meet climate target
At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full, meaning every extra tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted would have to be removed to stay within safer climate limits, one lead author says.
…
Other experts say it isn’t clear how far specific changes are the result of emissions or simply natural effects.
“There’s no final decision,” said the Potsdam Institute’s Vladimir Petoukhov.
For example, last week it emerged that Arctic sea ice this summer melted to a record low extent, or a close second. Natural weather effects partly explained the previous record in 2007, scientists say, and may help explain this year’s, said Petoukhov.
h/t to Tom Nelson
“At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The atmosphere is good, right?
And extra co2 is means extra atmosphere! Let’s get that atmosphere stretched out as far as we can! Then we have more room for flying airplanes!!!
This may be the dumbest statement yet.
The only thing full of it….. Is them….;-)
They are not even trying anymore,
I expect to see chunks of CO2 precipitate out of the clear blue sky in only a few years’ time. Should be quite lovely. I will watch from my houseboat floating above the former coastline.
These people should pitch this as an idea for a disaster movie.
So, ignoring the fact that there is not enough carbon based fuel in the world to “fill the sky”, and the fact that at time in ancient pre-history that CO2 concentrations have been many times greater than today, …. Where the hell does one even begin to get the faintest notion of the merest possibility that the sky could ever be “full” of CO2?
WTF?
Crazyness indeed!
Not surprising coming from Reuters, in my opinion one of the most openly climate alarmist news services in the world.
Its interesting when one digs around and uncovers who owns Reuters and what other climate related companies the owners posses. It explains a few things.
Reuters has no credibility in my eyes.
Artful vagueness of this level deserves a prize: Splendid though they are, the IgNobels need a competitor in the field of EcoTrash.
Perhaps visitors to this site could vote (or contribute to its funding).
Will it snow solid CO2 then?
My guess would be that you need a lot of global cooling to achieve that, but maybe that’s what they are hinting at 🙂
Coolists became warmists, becoming coolists again…
Heh heh, I suppose this is a new version of the saturated greenhouse effect theory, only in reverse. 🙂
The Bear thought the skies were already full of Chickens with the surname `Little’.
So where will the `missing space’, yet to be filled, come from?
Maybe Trenberth has the answer?
I’m interpreting “full” to mean :
“has reached an arbitrary value that is deemed to be dangerous by the authors, even though the uncertainty bounds on the modelling process used allow almost any observational data however good or bad to be “within predicted limits”. And further that reaching this threshold mandates expensive and far-reaching countermeasures even though no valid technical appreciation or cost benefit analysis has been performed”
Is that about right?
“At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full” – and then the sky will fall.
Right.
My immediate response is, “Full of what?”
At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full of burning climate papers and IPCC reports
The sky is like Al Gore’s stomach – they can never be full.
Is that when the polar bears will fall from the sky? HAHA
What do they mean by “The sky would be full”? Are there empty spaces now?
Since clouds are 17 times more important than a doubling of CO2 levels (yesterday’s peer reviewed paper) there would be less than 0.3 degree C temperature rise for every doubling of CO2 levels. An optimum level of CO2 would be about 1180ppm. This has a moderate temperature rise, but allows vegatation to grow at an average of 70% faster than present growth rates, which would alleviate hunger on the planet. Why is that not a good thing?
There will be so much carbon dioxide that we will all suffocate. To prevent the creation of the C02, we should all stop breathing.
That is the only sensible solution.
if its full i guess it can fall on ones head? Maybe thats what Asterix meant.
When I was much younger and at a summer camp where I spent time working with the cyclotron at the Chalk River particle accelerator, a local reporter came to talk to us students. The next day when I came in, everyone was laughing themselves silly at my expense.
The journalist’s story had me quoted as saying something like ‘at any moment a neutron could fly out of the accelerator and hit me in the head’. But what else could one expect from a journalist’s interpretation of some young kid’s attempt to explain how a particle accelerator works?
I mention this because it’s a very silly statement, although less silly than ‘the sky will be full’. Another great moment in the history of climate science.
O tempora, o mores.
Come on, guys! They are trying to relate to the common (assumed stupid) man.
Statements like, “The atmosphere is sick and needs an enema.” The sky is sick and needs an exfoliation.” “The world is sick and needs a high colonic.” “The Earth has gangrene and needs to have a leg (aka, humans) cut off.” all appeal to the people at levels they can understand. “The Earth has acne.” is not very alarming.
Telling them that a trace gas that is critical plant food is going to kill us by creating less temperature rise than putting on a shirt just does not get their attention. It’s really hard to get excited about an ant crossing the road: (1) You can’t see (detect). (2) You do not worry about ants, they are pretty much self-replacing. (3) You would not swerve your car any way as saving an ant is inconsequential and just puts undue stress on the car, perhaps causing an accident.
Its full right now, full of BS.
Is this first class primary school stuff?
No it is too stupid for that.
Get a grip on reality alarmists!!!!