Climate Craziness of the Week – have we had our fill yet?

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”

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rick

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!!!

Pull My Finger

This may be the dumbest statement yet.

J.H.

The only thing full of it….. Is them….;-)

They are not even trying anymore,

oMan

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.

Ken Hall

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!

klem

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).

Scarface

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…

sunderlandsteve

Heh heh, I suppose this is a new version of the saturated greenhouse effect theory, only in reverse. 🙂

TBear (Warm Cave in Cold-as-Snow-Sydney)

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?

Elftone

“At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full” – and then the sky will fall.
Right.

Alan D McIntire

My immediate response is, “Full of what?”

TheBigYinJames

At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full of burning climate papers and IPCC reports

Pine

The sky is like Al Gore’s stomach – they can never be full.

Russ

Is that when the polar bears will fall from the sky? HAHA

lenbilen

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?

AGW Cynic

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.

thingadonta

if its full i guess it can fall on ones head? Maybe thats what Asterix meant.

Paul

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.

Eimear

Its full right now, full of BS.

John Marshall

Is this first class primary school stuff?
No it is too stupid for that.
Get a grip on reality alarmists!!!!

Alan D McIntire says:
September 21, 2011 at 5:37 am
My immediate response is, “Full of what?”
===========
Just “full”, OK? These people are experts so don’t ask silly questions!

JohnG

These people are obviously sponsored by the renewable energy companies. 🙂

“At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full”
We should be thankful we won’t be running on “empty” anymore.
🙂

commieBob

People are noticing
Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, said the following at a conference on Tuesday:

In the United States, “the Republican faith-based right gets all sorts of power and authority from the overreaching and overstretching of the scientific left
The emphasis is mine. The quote comes from today’s KW Record.

“At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full” is stretching things beyond the elastic limit. Smart people are starting to notice.

Grant

We can convert all those windmills, fit them with giant plungers to help stuff more into the sky. Going to work on my application for stimulus funding, 500 mil ought to do it, a least a good start.

Scott Covert

The sky is full. Game over. Please reboot climate and start over.
The Team would litterally fling dog poop at a skeptic for saying something like that.

marcoinpanama

“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.
In other climate changes, a study last week found rapidly rising temperatures in the northeast Atlantic Ocean driving major shifts in fish stocks.
And scientists say they can now detect a human fingerprint on trends in global rainfall.”
Notice how the first example is admitted to be likely natural, the second is not supported as a definitive result of AGW (most likely natural) and with the third they say “And scientists say…” conflating all three examples and leaving the impression that they are all man made. Absolute junk reporting with an agenda.
The best (/sarc) solution they present is to “burn biomass and capture the CO2 and then bury it underground.” In other words, we have to burn the earth to save it. Brilliant! Use productive crop land not to grow food, but to produce crops that can be burned for the sole purpose of feeding carbon capture and burial operations. Perfect! Pure cost that starves civilization at the same time! Starving people means less CO2 production! Unless they are talking about burning the forests. Or maybe they are talking about setting up global scale alge production, but not using it for fuels, just burning it off with some kind of CO2 capture. And how much will that cost? And besides, why in fact bother to burn them at all? Just stuff them in caves deep underground, like the unused nuclear waste facility in Nevada. Oh wait, the citizens would rise up in protest that this deadly pollutant might leak out and prevent them from reaching their state carbon reduction targets! (/sarc off)
While these people are fond of talking about the unintended consequences of geo-engineering, they are uniquely blind to the unintended economic consequences of their schemes, like shutting down fossil fuel use within 20 years or creating a completely useless industry like burning plants just to capture and bury the carbon. As they say, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

Mervyn Sullivan

“At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full”
Who comes up with all this s _ _ t?
Crikey… I have only one suggestion… CHILL OUT … get a life… enjoy some George Michael!

Bernie McCune

I have to agree with “klem”, Rueters has no credibility anymore. Not just for climate issues. But . . . “the sky will be full”. WUWT? In 20 years (or maybe already?) the earth will be full of scientifically challenged people and it will not matter what is going on in the sky!!
Bernie

DirkH

Looks like overtime at the PIK propaganda mill. Meet the new generation of propagandists:
Dr. Malte Meinshausen
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/mmalte
Generation Gore.

mkelly

If a glass is full as you pour more in that amount will spill out to the surroundings. Usually a valuable rug or shirt. Where does this fellow think the overflow will go?

JJ

Notice how the sky will be ‘full’ in 20 years?
Wasn’t it ‘just about full’ (i.e. near the ‘tipping point’) just a few years ago?
Convenient how the end is always near and coming fast, but never seems to get here …
Religonists.

I need a set of them expert climate scientist credentials, but I can’t find the PO box number and address to send in my box tops and check for $25 for postage and handling. Do they give IQ tests and if you score too high you can’t be one? You know, if I were a climatologist, I’d be terribly embarrassed by folks like this putting out junk like this and claiming to be real climate scientists.
This is one of the silliest reports I’ve seen.

Greg Holmes

POTSDAM ? dam potty if you ask me.

D’oh!!

SSam

commieBob says:
September 21, 2011 at 6:26 am
“,,,, Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, said …
‘…. Republican faith-based right …. … the scientific left’ ”
So, Martin assumes republicans are faith based and assumes (claims) that the left is scientific? What, is this guy an idiot? Interesting how the cretin mixes terminology. Not right vs left, but republican vs left. Not Republican vs Democrat. Not evens conservative vs progressive socialists.
A more accurate way of stating his … “view”, would be liberal republicans vs socialist democrats since they are nothing more that different facets of the same domineering and meddling control freak mentality.

Former_Forecaster

“At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full” requiring drastic measures to keep the climate within safe limits.
So, the CO2 content would be up to, what? 400ppm? 420ppm? Wow! Increasing atmospheric CO2 from 3.8, 100ths of one percent, to 4.2, 100ths of one percent will cause Earth’s temperature to drastically increase and destroy all life. And, the ocean’s will become so acidic that corals and other creatures with calcareous shells or skeletons will cease to exist.
Just curious: How did the dinosaurs and all the other plants and beasts, including our ancestors, manage to live during the Mesozoic, when Earth’s atmospheric CO2 averaged up to 10 times higher than now? How did corals, brachipods, bivalves, ammonites, bryozoans, and everything else manage to survive in Paleozoic oceans when atmospheric CO2 was even higher?
Oh, wait. I understand…it all becomes clear. They were too ill-informed to understand they couldn’t survive in such excessive CO2. If only Michael Mann and Al Gore had been there; they could have set everything straight about the non-survivability of CO2 concentrations above 400ppm.

Kaboom

That institute keeps on shaming the once proud German tradition of science and research.

It’s not April 1st yet.

Nuke Nemesis

We need to create big vacuum cleaners to suck ‘carbon’ out of the skies and send it someplace.
Send it into the sun! Yeah, that’s the ticket! Right into the sun!
REPLY: Its been done:
Spaceballs Vacuum
Thanks, Mel Brooks – Anthony

😮 😐 😮 😐 😮 😐 :-\ :-/ 😐 Full sky empty brains.

I think the saddest thing is that when I was young, I looked up to scientists as heroes and men of integrity.

Kelvin Vaughan

I can see the Abominable Snowman on the south pole web cam!

maz2

The sky’s the limit.
…-
“Ex-President Clinton: Green movement needs money”
“By MEGHAN BARR
Associated Press”
“The ex-president’s three-day Clinton Global Initiative for VIPs with deep pockets began Tuesday with a frank discussion”.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_GLOBAL_INITIATIVE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-20-19-46-51

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

Did you know that on the internet, an area the size of the UK is now devoted to climate change?