They seem to think CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for millennia. They seem to forget how much our biosphere likes CO2. They also seem to forget that if they say the problem will be around for millennia, it’s likely the [current] set of humans view the video will shrug their shoulders and say “Eh, there’ nothing I can do about it.”.
Here’s the lead-in and discussion which has been making the rounds on Facebook. Discuss.
Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source. And instead of killing each other over this technology, we decided to immediately transform the world into a carbon-free society. This wonderous source would power our homes, industries, cars and planes, and humanity’s annual rate of carbon pollution would almost instantly fall to zero. So if we kicked our carbon addiction tomorrow, what would that mean for global warming?
Fantastic, we have solved the Ice Age Glaciation problem. If it takes 100,000 years for the oceans to cool back down to that which existed before man started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, then we have already wiped out the next 100,000 years of glaciation of the current ice age:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
Kudos to mankind and keep up the good work. With an additional 100,000 years to solve the problem permanently I’m sure we’ll be OK.
Excellent!
Does PBS realize that with CO2 at a level of 280 PPM many forms of plant life were on the verge of derishing and with lower levels would disappear? Where are the people studying the effects of COt on the environment that are determining the IDEAL level of CO2 while taking ALL consequences and benefits into consideration. Everytime i see a report that CO2 benefits some aspect of man, flora or fauna all I hear is that the author is a denier and non scientist. Spent 20 years in the Navy as a Submariner where the COT level was as high as 6,000 PPM for months at a time and am now 76 years old. Only health problems through my entire life was a broken knee from falling. Never sick otherwise.
Well, the video blog title (Hot Mess) is appropriate with the obviously unspoken “BS” at the end of the phrase. It has been a long time since I’ve seen such a sophomoric presentation of a scientific subject.
I need only point out this glaring omission as to the assertion that a “magic, carbon-free energy source” would enable humanity to transition to a no-CO2-emission living standard:
“A single industry accounts for around 5 percent of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It produces a material so ubiquitous it is nearly invisible: cement. It is the primary ingredient in concrete, which in turn forms the foundations and structures of the buildings we live and work in, and the roads and bridges we drive on. Concrete is the second most consumed substance on Earth after water. On average, each year, three tons of concrete are consumed by every person on the planet.
“Concrete is used globally to build buildings, bridges, roads, runways, sidewalks, and dams. Cement is indispensable for construction activity, so it is tightly linked to the global economy. Its production is growing by 2.5 percent annually, and is expected to rise from 2.55 billion tons in 2006 to 3.7-4.4 billion tons by 2050.” — source https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-industry/
Concrete, in copious amounts, is also used to build bases for wind turbines.
“limitless energy source” We already have one, fast spectrum chloride salt thorium. No graphite moderator, burns thorium, uranium or plutonium to 100%, and transuranic nuclear waste. Can be done with current technology no development needed. We already have enough reactor and bomb waste to last 2000 years.
“We already have one, fast spectrum chloride salt thorium.”
Well, not quite . . . we only have the paper designs for molten thorium salt reactors of typical industrial power plant size. Today, most theoretical designs prefer to use fluoride salts instead of chloride salts (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor ). And there are a host of disadvantages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor details 22 separate ones) associated with molten fluoride salt thorium reactors . . . most of these are very challenging and largely unresolved.
BTW, the narrator (or whoever wrote his script) has no concept whatsoever of the scientific term “waste heat”. Having an “unlimited energy source”—even one that would be carbon-free— does not necessarily mean the Earth would cool down from humanity’s use of such.
Limit case condition, hypothetically, yes the aliens gave humanity an unlimited energy source, but it was only 10% efficient . . . that is it emitted 90 kWh of low grade waste heat for every 10 kwh of useable power (e.g., electricity or equivalent mechanical horsepower) that it provided.
And why would cooling the Earth from it’s present temperatures (if it could ever be done) be a good thing anyway?
In my above post, I mistakenly used the phrase “useable power” when referring to kWh of ENERGY, which of course is power integrated over time. Not only that, but I used the far-less-common spelling for “usable”. Finally, the last sentence should have been a separate paragraph.
Your honor, in my defense I offer that when I posted I had just finishing watching all of the incredibly moronic, PBS-sponsored, YouTube video “What if Carbon Emissions Stopped Tomorrow?”. I rest my case.
I love the way he deliberately conflates co2 and all other forms of pollution. As I understand it, most of the 3rd world health issues stem from wood and dung burning, not from fossil fuels.
“Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source. ”
How about aliens say they will beam light to to any solar collector which has say 100 square meters or larger area which is pointed in direction of the sun. So if have 10 meter by 10 meter square of solar collectors or larger area, then they will beam light to it and will send the type of light which the collector gets the most efficiency of the wavelength it collects. Or solar panel has efficiency of 10 to 20% because absorbs only certain wavelengths of sunlight best- so they will beam this wavelength of light to the solar panels.
So when the sun is out it doubles the the output of a solar panel’s electrical energy and at night provides same amount energy as a solar panel would get if sun was at zenith.
And roughly be sending about 300 watts per square meter of this light in form of a laser beam, and if there are clouds will increase the amount of energy so it always receives as much energy as it would if sun was at zenith and the day was clear.
So if have more the 100 square meter of solar panel at some location, they will generate about 5 times more electrical power and always be generating electrical power as if, the sun was at zenith.
So instead getting at most about 6 hours of 24 hours a day of sunlight, you get 24 hours of the equivalent sunlight plus the amount of energy you normally get without aliens beaming power to it. Or then solar energy would actually then be a viable source of energy- and don’t need to store the electrical power. And if elevate panels and enclose the area, one doesn’t get much night time light pollution.
It’s not really magical technology, but one can assume that the aliens have the advantage of having cheap access to space. Or we roughly have the technology, but lack cheap access to space.
Nor do aliens need to land anywhere on Earth to provide this magic.
What are “CARBON EMISSIONS?” Oh that’s right, the lying bastard MSM’s way of continuing the hype. Idiots all.
“Addiction”? You mean to food, warm houses, and being able travel more than a mile from home?
Which undoubtedly these “planet saviors” are indulging in to the max with no concern whatsoever.
So lets start with the coal fired power plants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRQ7S92_lo
And just WHY should “we” spend (er, waste) all this unneeded time, money, energy, resources, effort and manpower sequestering the CO2 released from coal-fired and gas-fired power plants, cement plants, pulp and paper mills, and steel mills?
The aliens, assuming they are intelligent and pragmatic, would bring us …ta da…. wall to wall nuclear.
Our local liberal radio station sometimes has programs that present a pretty balanced view on a problem. PBS shows rarely present facts. Every scenario “Joe” presented was an opinion, not fact. Hard to take seriously when the only justification is “everybody is saying so”.
OMFG……I think I want to smash my brains out by repeatedly beating my head against a rock…..
Any brains that remain in my head would still be a greater amount then that in the heads of the pointless drones who might mindlessly listen to this utterly pointless drivel 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Mercy! I watched the whole thing. I kept waiting to hear a true statement–but if there was one, I missed it. How is it possible to get away with such fraudery and not be laughed out of town? Very sad.
Very uneducated public is how.
In the UK it is done by the BBC who are threatened by neither ridicule nor bankruptcy and who know that they can completely ignore their legal charter-requirements in many areas. Governments repeatedly won’t bring them to heel, which encourages them further until they might be quietly encouraged to button their lip. But as far as I am aware, this has only happened to any significant extent on their coverage of events relating to Israel. On global warming they effectively have a free hand. The BBC should be privatized.
It seems that similar problems of public service broadcasting capture occur in other English-speaking nations. Which one will be first to grasp the nettle and acknowledge that these organizations were the product of different times with different ‘public needs’, different political realities, and different technologies?
If they intend to remain in the business of facilitating the dissemination of allegedly truthful and helpful news/information for public benefit, then Governments should focus on ensuring non-monopolistic practices by large tech firms in IT. Certainly, as we now see Google/Youtube, Facebook, Twitter etc regularly colluding in political censorship, the only thing the UK government and the EU demonstrate is a profound ignorance and lack of understanding of the issues by both elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats/judges. This more than sad, it is worrying.
Our addiction to carbon? It’s 18.5% of the human body. We are a carbon-based life form, as is all life on Earth. Hence, organic chemistry. And do you think solar panels and wind turbines can be made without burning fossil fuels? The very basis of Man’s ascent from the animals, fire, consists of converting C and O2 into CO2. Or is that too much truth for you?
I’m impressed at how many of you lasted longer than a minute or so of this egregious garbage.
I failed THAT level of stamina for bullshit after a minute. 😀
I have not heard such a compact series of lies in just five minutes.
Idiots regurgitating what other one sided idiots say without looking at data.
Problem is that no one thinks anymore, just believe what is told.
The world is flat, sun revolves around earth, burn the witches, take the BS for gospel.
Little pissed my tax dollars pay for that tripe. Worse that people will believe.
PBS doing the usually lazy SF- vague new magic tech Clean only for Co2. Limit less but unreliable and expensive. Possibly uncontrollable. Anything from uselesss solar to portal to the sun. Portal destroys Earth. very clean
Why do men who make $50,000 repairing elevators have to subsidize PBS? Seems inequitable. They could make better use of their money than TV producers.
“Carbon-free society” huh? I guess that means no diamonds, too? Maybe they could start by tightening up their language. Or do they really mean “Carbon dioxide-free society”? But that can’t possibly be a good thing, either. What would plants breathe?
It’s all so sloppy.
New study…
Lowering Co2 will lead to tastier burgers, wetter water, drier towels, redder apples, stickier glue, bigger diamonds, less venomous snakes, shinier table tops, faster computers, furrier cats and funnier monkeys.
Higher Co2 will lead to the opposite of course.
There’s just no argument.
That horrible video is just so wrong on so many points* that it cries out for a challenge. The problem is, how do you mount a challenge?
Well, the video is naked advertising. There are advertising standards and for some instances there are punishments for violation of standards.
I am not familiar with the USA situation, so can someone genuinely familiar with the topic be so kind as to comment on the false advertising redress that might be possible?
Thanks Geoff.
*For example, it is wrong to claim that CO2 would hang around in the air for thousands of years after a sudden stop to inputs. The atom bomb tests showed a very short half life, a few years, for radioactive carbon plausibly mostly in CO2 form. Some warmists claim that reactions of CO2 with silicate rocks are very slow and that they can take thousands of years to be complete. However, there are ways to take CO2 from the air that are very quick, like vegetation uptake. Nature will chjoose the quick route for the heavy lifting. Yes, the slow route via silicate rocks can still go on, but by comparison the weight of CO2 at a given time is so tiny that it is a rounding error.
Joe is one of those hapless humans who would acquiesce to the demands of the Aliens from The Twilight Zone episode titled , “To Serve Mankind”.
01:40 into this video: “And while(?) all this extra heat mixes slowly in the deep oceans, the oceans will continue to expand, raising sea levels for centuries.” So Mr. PhD Joe Hanson thinks that, after the cessation of burning of fossil fuels, hot surface waters will mix with deep waters and overall there will be expansion and sea level rise.
Hmmm. So the hot surface water (which has been where “90% if the extra heat of the last 50 years has gone”, according to him) is somehow not itself less dense and does not become more dense in giving up its heat which is expanding the deep waters, exactly countering this projected sea level rise?
“If we ended all human emissions of CO2, which only accounts for about 5 percent of the total CO2 emissions each year, absolutely nothing would happen to the climate…but we should sign our lives over to One World Government and let them dictate to us how to live our lives anyway, because if we don’t we’ll all die”.
Or something.