The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 22 · Next
Author Message
keith
Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 10
Posts: 454
Credit: 9,054
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1062934 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 1:57:55 UTC

The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
by Ronald R. Cooke

The Cultural Economist

Author, "Oil, Jihad & Destiny" and "Detensive Nation"
November 30, 2009

Those who propose draconian measures to curb CO2 production need a math refresher course. Look at the projections. Assuming existing CO2 reduction policies are not changed, by 2030, human activity will account for about 3.3% of global CO2 production (NASA). By itself, the United States is projected to contribute 15.8% of world human emissions in 2030 (IEA/EIA). Therefore:

America’s projected share of total world CO2 emissions in 2030 is 3.3% x 15.8% = 0.52%.

Barack Obama has pledged that by 2030, America will have decreased its CO2 emissions by 42%. How effective will that cut be versus America’s projected emissions? Do the math.

3.3% x 15.8% x 42% = .22% of total world carbon emissions in 2030, and

15.8% x 42% = 6.64% of all human emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels.

There is, unfortunately, a critical problem with Barack’s pledge.

A reduction of that magnitude will definitely trash America’s economy.

Barack Obama assumes Americans are willing to endure the destructive misery of chronic recession in order to reduce total world CO2 emissions by a tiny little .22%, and human emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels by only 6.64%. Barack is telling the world we Americans are willing to turn off the heat , eat uncooked food, and turn off the lights 42% of the time. We will have to drive tiny little cars and trucks. The buildings we work in (or live in) will be insufferably hot in the summer and icy cold in the winter. Curtailing economic activity means more of us will be unemployed and even if we do have a job, it will not pay a living wage. (Unless of course, you happen to be a Washington insider.) More of us will be living in poverty. Health care will definitely deteriorate. In other words, by 2030 America’s economy will look just like Cuba’s economy.

Is this what we want?

I have three questions:

1. Who gave Barack permission to make this commitment?
2. Why is he pursuing a policy of economic self-destruction?
3. Are we willing to trash our economy for a tiny little change in world CO2 production?

There IS a correlation between economic growth and energy consumption. At no time in human history has there ever been a sustained increase in human wealth without a corresponding increase in the consumption of energy. We Americans can increase the efficiency of our consumption (and we are), but we can not sharply decrease our energy consumption without doing serious damage to our economy.

Do our people in Washington care that the proposed CO2 reductions will drive up the rate of unemployment, increase the rate of inflation, and force Americans to accept poverty as a way of life?

Apparently not. . One can only conclude certain persons in Congress and the Obama Administration are either math challenged, or these people have a deceptive agenda that has little to do with global warming.

Hopefully, it’s only a problem of simple math.

TEA

www.moralnation.blogspot.com

References:

Carbon cycle data. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Science Enterprise, Carbon Cycle.

The IEA’s International Energy Outlook 2009, Projects CO2 emissions at 40.4 billion metric tons in 2030. Developing nations, including China, India and the Middle east, will account for 97% of the increase in CO2 emissions from 2006 through 2030. The United States, along with the other OECD nations, will cause only 3% of the increase in CO2 emissions, assuming there is NO change to existing fossil fuels consumption policies.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030, projects United States CO2 emissions in 2030 at 6.4 million metric tons. Energy-related CO2 emissions in the AEO2009 reference case grow by 0.3 percent per year from 2007 to 2030. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the country's emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels to decrease 5.6% in 2009. Most of this decrease is due to the recession which has reduced economic activity (and GDP).

From the EIA International Energy Outlook 2009, Reference Case.

“Over the 24-year projection period, the average annual increase in non-OECD emissions from 2006 to 2030 (2.2 percent) is seven times (my emphasis) the rate projected for the OECD countries (0.3 percent). In 2030, non-OECD emissions (25.8 billion metric tons) exceed OECD emissions (14.6 billion metric tons) by 77 percent.”

“Coal is the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, and it is the fastest-growing carbon-emitting energy source in the IEO2009 reference case projection, reflecting its important role in the energy mix of non-OECD countries—especially, China and India. In 1990, China and India together accounted for 13 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions; in 2006 their combined share had risen to 25 percent, largely because of strong economic growth and increasing use of coal to provide energy for that growth. In 2030, carbon dioxide emissions from China and India combined are projected to account for 34 percent of total world emissions, with China alone responsible for 29 percent of the world total.”

“In the IEO2009 reference case, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent from 2006 to 2030.” …. “The highest growth rate among the non-OECD countries is projected for China, at 2.8 percent annually from 2006 to 2030, reflecting the country’s continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal, in the projection.”

The US plans to pledge a 17% cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050.

http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/cooke/2009/1130.html

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1406
Credit: 793,366
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1062943 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 2:43:52 UTC
Last modified: 3 Jan 2011, 2:44:38 UTC

Oh God... Not this stuff again...

And before anyone jumps all over me, just.... don't.

You don't know what I believe, or what I am in favor of...

Also, no matter which 'side' you are on, you have been at best mislead, and at worst, lied to.

I will post more on this later. Don't have time at the moment.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8364
Credit: 4,102,151
RAC: 1,116
United Kingdom
Message 1062954 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 3:29:51 UTC - in response to Message 1062934.
Last modified: 3 Jan 2011, 3:32:19 UTC

The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
by Ronald R. Cooke

The Cultural Economist

Author, "Oil, Jihad & Destiny" and "Detensive Nation"
November 30, 2009

Those who propose draconian measures to curb CO2 production need a math refresher course. Look at the projections. Assuming existing CO2 reduction policies are not changed, by 2030, human activity will account for about 3.3% of global CO2 production (NASA). By itself, the United States is projected to contribute 15.8% of world human emissions in 2030 (IEA/EIA). Therefore:

America’s projected share of total world CO2 emissions in 2030 is 3.3% x 15.8% = 0.52%. ...


Oh dear... Not that old stupid game of numbers again... I know just the person on these forums who plays that game very well...


The measured hard fact of the steadily increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should alert you to the numbers game. Also the fact that the increase closely follows Mankind's industrial revolution as fuelled by fossil fuels releasing CO2. There's even a corresponding measured drop in O2 in our atmosphere.

We are after all talking about thousands of millions of TONs of CO2 being industrially generated by Man each year, and increasing. Our atmosphere is very finite, hence the pollution being ever more noticeable...

We aren't going to asphyxiate any time soon. However, we'll have long ago over-cooked our planet before then.

It's our only planet...
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

keith
Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 10
Posts: 454
Credit: 9,054
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1062960 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 3:40:39 UTC - in response to Message 1062954.

Yes, don't let numbers and facts get in the way of a good fairy tale!


BTW, can anyone tell me why Climate Change Conferences are always held in Geneva, Cancun, Rio de Janiero and other vacation havens and not Detroit, Camden and Mogadishu?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNMJOhl79XM

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1406
Credit: 793,366
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1062990 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 6:25:32 UTC - in response to Message 1062943.

Okay, I got the time now.

First, the climate is changing. This cannot be denied. In fact, the ONE constant about climate is its continual change. Ever since there has been such a thing as climate here on Earth, it has been in a state of flux. Well before there were humans on the planet, not just since.

Second, there is a simple yes/no question. "Is climate change necessarily a bad thing?"

Third, another simple yes/no question. "Does the actions of humanity perturb the natural process of climate change?"


Q2 | Q3 | Result
No | No | Case 1.
No | Yes | Case 2.
Yes | No | Case 3.
Yes | Yes | Case 4.


Case 1: We aren't doing it, and need to study ways to adapt in the off chance we get a change that is net-unfavorable. Other than that, not a problem. This is the classic 'denier' scenario.
Case 2: Again, we don't have much of a problem unless a change happens that is net-unfavorable. Then we need to study ways to adapt to it. Perhaps, if we can spare the money for it, maybe we could pursue some ways to mitigate our contribution to the change.
Case 3: Not much to do except curse the darkness here. And learn to adapt.
Case 4: This is the classic Al Gore (et. al) scenario. We are causing unnatural change, and by definition, it is bad. EVERYBODY PANIC!

Okay, these are the four possible scenarios. Looking at these scenarios, and also at past climatic records, it is possible to eliminate three of them right off the bat. Case 1, Case 3, and Case 4 can be eliminated right off the bat. Yes, this includes both the so-called denier position and the Al Gore position. Both bogus and both unsupportable scientifically.

Point 4: It is obvious to anyone that has studied the past climate of earth that humanity has had (and is still having) profound effects. There are many ways that humanity alters climate other than the possibility that emitting CO2 might warm things up a bit. Things like deforestation. This has led, for instance to extreme shifts in the climate of entire regions. This eliminates case 1 and case 3. There are huge problems being currently caused by humanity that don't require the fossil-fuel CO2 boogie-man.

Point 5: One just cannot lump all possible climate change up into one wad, and call it bad. As I have said, for the last few billion years, ever since there has BEEN a climate here on earth, it has been changing. Well before there even was a hominid, much less a modern human, it has been changing. Well before modern humans had the technology to spew untold tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, it was changing, and then WE had a hand in it. There is nothing special about the climate today, yesterday, last year, or hundreds or thousands of years ago. We have always adapted. About 1000 years ago, there was the Medieval Climate Optimum. The climate in (at least) the Atlantic ocean area in the northern hemisphere changed and became considerably warmer than today. Valuable crops could be grown much further north than previous. New places became able to be inhabited that previously were unable due to frigid arctic climates. I would definitely call this a net good. Of course, it was followed later by what is known as the Little Ice Age. Again, this was before meaningful CO2 had been emitted, though humanity were beginning to make use of fossil fuels. The average temperature dropped several degrees. Crop growing was negatively effected. Habitability of some regions dropped a lot. We are coming off the tail end of the Little Ice Age. The average global temperatures are just NOW beginning to approximate the average over the last 2000 years. Of course we have been warming up. Humanity had precious little to do with either the MCO or the LIA. However, we did adapt. And not all climate changes had bad consequences. So... There went Case 4 as disproved. Leaving only Case 2.

Point 6: Case 2: Humanity undoubtedly has at least some small affect on climate change due to our actions, but climate change is not necessarily a bad thing. This is the only logically and scientifically supportable position.

Point 7: You have heard much propaganda recently from both the Al Gore camp and their opponents. It is perhaps unfortunate that Al Gore and his ilk decided to frame the subject solely in terms of CO2 emissions. This decision gave much fuel (yes, pun intended) to opponents with vested interests in opposing cuts to CO2 emissions as a 'fix' to the 'problem'. You have heard the propaganda from the Al Gore camp (over and over again) that 'the science on CO2/GHG is settled'. Horse hockey. A scientific claim must be falsifiable in order to even begin the process of being 'settled'. That means repeated, controlled experiments. That is not possible to do with the climate. All they have are dubious computer models of the system based on imperfectly understood processes, some amount of recorded data wherein it is not possible to differentiate between natural change and change due to human/fossil-fuel emitted CO2, and lots of conjecture, educated guesses, and gut feelings. They *think* they are right, but cannot (yet, at this stage) *know* that they are right. What we have from them is opinion, not fact.

Now, what do I think? What is my opinion (which carries just as much weight as that of anyone else on the planet)? I DON'T KNOW. Maybe they are right about the CO2 thing, maybe not.

However, this whole CO2 fiasco does a good job of obscuring other issues facing humanity. There are other reasons to stop burning fossil fuels for energy. Reasons with reasons both in sound, settled science and in economics. This is why I said it was unfortunate that Al Gore and others decided to frame the debate with the CO2 question. They stirred up the great grandmother of all flame-wars, and consequently not much is getting done. And that is sad.

The truth is that it just doesn't matter whether or not the GHG/CO2/climate change thing is true or not. It just doesn't matter. We need to do what we need to do, and this entire debate is just delaying things.
____________
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

“Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus

Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2201
Credit: 5,511,115
RAC: 4,806
Canada
Message 1062992 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 6:47:59 UTC - in response to Message 1062934.


Barack is telling the world we Americans are willing to turn off the heat , eat uncooked food, and turn off the lights 42% of the time. We will have to drive tiny little cars and trucks. The buildings we work in (or live in) will be insufferably hot in the summer and icy cold in the winter. Curtailing economic activity means more of us will be unemployed and even if we do have a job, it will not pay a living wage. (Unless of course, you happen to be a Washington insider.) More of us will be living in poverty. Health care will definitely deteriorate. In other words, by 2030 America’s economy will look just like Cuba’s economy.


In reality, this has been our destiny since globalization became the new way to beat the working class down.





____________
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
~Thomas Jefferson

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1063002 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 10:13:49 UTC

It is sad so few see the potential economic, and environmental boom that can be had by embracing, developing, and pushing forward renewable energy.

It would allow the middle east to move to exports of lithium and sand for silicon, save oceans and wetlands, stop poisoning ourselves and our ground waters.

The only reason to continue and promote fossil fuels is because that is how we have done it.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.



____________

Janice

keith
Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 10
Posts: 454
Credit: 9,054
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063018 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 12:49:43 UTC - in response to Message 1063002.


I've introduced numbers here. All I'm getting is touchy-feely back.

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1063021 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 13:14:44 UTC - in response to Message 1063018.

another cut and paste troll.

Proof by Verbosity
The practice of burying you with so much information and misinformation that
you cannot possibly respond to it all is called proof by verbosity, or argumentum verbosium.


________________________________________

The only question is, why you are here keith? I mean, you set up a boinc account, and accumulated enough credits to post, and dove right to the political forums, showing little interest in the project. Currently you have
no units in progress at all. So that tells me you knew where you were going, and why, and that you have a purpose to be here. Other than to find E.T.

The answer to me is simple. You are trying to control the discussion in the direction you wish, because you or more likely those you are working for (paid for or not) fear a reasonable exchange of ideas.

I am sure there is some twisted reasoning behind the numbers you cut and pasted. I also knows per capital the USA uses far more than its "fair share", on a total or per capita basis of the CO2 polution, and destruction of atmospheric oxygen content.

There is no need to directly respond to each one of your off the wall ill founded or downright fraudulent statements. Especially since they for the most part not even your statements, just what you have copied from others of a similar ilk, HIGHLY suspect in source, content, and scientific accuracy.

So the questions that remain are
1: how much are they paying you? ; OR
2: do you really have nothing better to do with your time?


____________

Janice

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1063031 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 13:54:29 UTC - in response to Message 1063021.

Perhaps you should run this garbage by the scientists running the CPDN project. you'd be laughed the beaten off of the forums. we have screwed up the atmosphere. Simple plain and deadly. Even their least devastating, predictions show an overall increase of global temperatures of 3-5 degrees by the end of this century. And considering the multitude of data they've ran through its a certainty that things aren't going to cool down any time soon as we've got world leaders that can't see beyond the end of their noses
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 38,546,883
RAC: 30,379
Message 1063034 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 14:04:05 UTC - in response to Message 1063002.
Last modified: 20 Mar 2014, 23:54:10 UTC

-----

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1063035 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 14:07:07 UTC - in response to Message 1063034.

It is sad so few see the potential economic, and environmental boom that can be had by embracing, developing, and pushing forward renewable energy.

It would allow the middle east to move to exports of lithium and sand for silicon, save oceans and wetlands, stop poisoning ourselves and our ground waters.

The only reason to continue and promote fossil fuels is because that is how we have done it.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.




So gathering up and concentrating the toxic element lithium for human use would be a good thing?

And what happens when someone like you recognizes we are now encroaching on the natural habitat of some sand flee?

Insanity: doing the same thing...


Lithium in batteries does get recycled. And yes to lead away from fossil fuels definately a good thing.
____________

Janice

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8364
Credit: 4,102,151
RAC: 1,116
United Kingdom
Message 1063043 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 14:43:30 UTC - in response to Message 1062990.
Last modified: 3 Jan 2011, 14:47:33 UTC

Okay, I got the time now.


Unfortunately, most people haven't, and this topic is not something that can be explained or described in just one or two soundbites...

Good comments there, at least for part of the viewpoints...


First, the climate is changing. ...

Case 1: We aren't doing it, and need to study ways to adapt in the off chance we get a change that is net-unfavorable. Other than that, not a problem. This is the classic 'denier' scenario.

Case 2: Again, we don't have much of a problem unless a change happens that is net-unfavorable. Then we need to study ways to adapt to it. Perhaps, if we can spare the money for it, maybe we could pursue some ways to mitigate our contribution to the change.

Case 3: Not much to do except curse the darkness here. And learn to adapt.

Case 4: This is the classic Al Gore (et. al) scenario. We are causing unnatural change, and by definition, it is bad. EVERYBODY PANIC!


The problem with the climate changes being seen now are the very rapid rate of change compared to 'geological' timescales (of thousands of years) that are normally assumed. We are seeing significant climate changes happen over the span of just a few years... And all recently. Hence why we see all manner of weather records that span 200 years or more suddenly all being broken almost each year recently. For steady weather patterns, all the 'record breaking' should only happen early in the record keeping.

Is the very rapid rate of change 'unnatural'? Looking at the last few thousand years, it looks so. You have to go back 650 000 years or so to see anything similar... Except back then, we weren't around and there were cataclysmic changes that changed the face of the Earth forever...


Climate change may well be beneficial for some areas. For example, I'm sure Canada, Russia, Mongolia and China are all hopeful for that. However, the same climate change will be very disruptive and destructive to the rest of the world. Mass migrations of all life will be forced. Many will die.

For example, some areas of China will suffer years of sever flooding to be then followed by continual drought as the glaciers of the Himalayas melt and are then gone.


We are already seeing human migration actions now, and that's only due to a very slight shift in rainfall patterns, and that's only for a very small shift in global average temperature...

Aside: The "medieval 'little' ice age" was a very minor climate shift only for the northern hemisphere. Even so, some people were moved to sail across their entire known world... People populating the shores of Greenland briefly flourished and then quickly perished.


Now, what do I think? What is my opinion (which carries just as much weight as that of anyone else on the planet)? I DON'T KNOW. Maybe they are right about the CO2 thing, maybe not.

However, this whole CO2 fiasco does a good job of obscuring other issues facing humanity. There are other reasons to stop burning fossil fuels for energy. Reasons with reasons both in sound, settled science and in economics. This is why I said it was unfortunate that Al Gore and others decided to frame the debate with the CO2 question. They stirred up the great grandmother of all flame-wars, and consequently not much is getting done. And that is sad.

The truth is that it just doesn't matter whether or not the GHG/CO2/climate change thing is true or not. It just doesn't matter. We need to do what we need to do, and this entire debate is just delaying things.


There's certainly a lot of professional FUD polluting the debate that has also brought in a lot of armchair freaks to confuse things further. The tobacco industry caused confusion and delay for a few decades to delay the inevitable smoking bans. Big Oil and the power industry appear to be doing the same now. Also, politics is a slow moving beast...


The question is whether our climate will be polluted faster than the glacial pace of politics can do something to keep our planet and civilisation running.

Ooops! Better remind people that by 'glacial pace' I'm meaning very slow, as opposed to some of the rapid melts seen on some glaciers...


To my view, there's the far bigger issue that the continued industrial expansion on our planet is unsustainable. The question then becomes how destructive becomes the collapse and crunch...

It's our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8364
Credit: 4,102,151
RAC: 1,116
United Kingdom
Message 1063046 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 14:52:49 UTC - in response to Message 1063002.

It is sad so few see the potential economic, and environmental boom that can be had by embracing, developing, and pushing forward renewable energy.

It would allow the middle east to move to exports of lithium and sand for silicon, save oceans and wetlands, stop poisoning ourselves and our ground waters.

The only reason to continue and promote fossil fuels is because that is how we have done it.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.


Quite so.

Oil is too valuable yet too cheap, and too polluting to just burn it.

There's good development and business opportunities to do things more cleanly. It needn't cost anything more either.


What is criminal is that Big Oil and the associated big energy companies are polluting our atmosphere for free, endangering us all for their own advantage...

(And no, we can't just turn off the oil supply overnight, but we can do something in a planned expedient way to stop further pollution.)

It's our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8364
Credit: 4,102,151
RAC: 1,116
United Kingdom
Message 1063047 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 14:59:00 UTC - in response to Message 1063018.

I've introduced numbers here. All I'm getting is touchy-feely back.


Then quote some meaningful numbers backed up with hard evidence.

Your numbers play the old game of adding up all the carbon on planet earth and then saying we're an infinitesimally small fraction and so of no consequence and so no blame and so lets do 'business as usual'.


The real numbers add up to thousands of millions of tons of pollution each year, and increasing. So far, that adds up to over twice what the biosphere and the oceans can absorb. We see the result of that with the increasing concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere and the increasing acidification of our oceans (both readily measured).

We make average volcanic output look insignificant!


Strange your numbers are from an economist. Paid for by economic giants?

It's our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8364
Credit: 4,102,151
RAC: 1,116
United Kingdom
Message 1063048 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 15:03:40 UTC - in response to Message 1063031.
Last modified: 3 Jan 2011, 15:04:26 UTC

Perhaps you should run this garbage by the scientists running the CPDN project. you'd be laughed the beaten off of the forums. we have screwed up the atmosphere. Simple plain and deadly. Even their least devastating, predictions show an overall increase of global temperatures of 3-5 degrees by the end of this century. And considering the multitude of data they've ran through its a certainty that things aren't going to cool down any time soon as we've got world leaders that can't see beyond the end of their noses


This is where the Bush-coined "Global Warming" gives a false fuzzy warm feeling... Forced Global Change would be a better description.

Unfortunately, there's no easy glib description to explain all the mechanisms that play together that respond to the change in CO2 concentration. Most scenarios have the planet warm very slightly, the weather gets more extreme and ever more erratic until a new stability is found. By then, the climate is very different.

Another (less frequent) scenario as a response to global warming is that the weather patterns are tipped over so badly that the earth is plunged into world-wide glaciation... The snowball earth scenario.


Not something that can be explained in a soundbite!

It's our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1406
Credit: 793,366
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063073 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 16:55:12 UTC - in response to Message 1063043.

Hi Martin,

I am glad you liked at least part of my post. However, I am left with the feeling that you totally misunderstand the entire point of my post.

Let me restate my point in more brevity.

1. The entire human-caused-CO2/other GHG-climate change argument ('the CO2 thing') is a bad thing. It has provoked the great-grandmother of all flame-wars, and is diverting our attention from more vital, more scientifically supported aspects of the situation.
2. The 'science' behind the argument in #1 can not be truly settled at our current level of understanding. All these climate scientists can do is offer opinions on the CO2 thing.
3. While the CO2 thing may or may not be true, it has the effect of obscuring other ways in which humanity is drastically affecting the climate. Deforestation induced desertification, for instance. By the same token, it obscures solutions, focusing everything on just 'CO2'.
4. There are other reasons to stop burning fossil fuels as fuel. Reasons grounded both in economics and in science that is 'settled' (unlike the CO2 thing). Compelling reasons. I've seen a couple of them mentioned here. If desired, I could go into them, but I do not yet see the absolute need to do so.

So, what I advocate involves virtually the same remedial actions as what, for instance, Al Gore is advocating. However, it avoids all the.... flame-war crap of the CO2 thing.

You want the oil/gas/coal (OGC) industry to get behind an action? You gotta show them how it would be in their own economic best interest. The CO2 thing is too full of holes at our present level of understanding to effectively do so.

Given the correct motivation, the OGC industry would be leading the charge towards no OGC being used as fuel. As things stand now, they are going to have to be forced, kicking and screaming, in that direction.

OGC is just too valuable to burn.

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1063085 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 17:47:38 UTC - in response to Message 1063073.

Kong, on #2 and #3 I have to say this is simply not correct. The scientific community has confirmed this is (beyond a reasonable doubt) happening. The politicians of course responded with a hissy fit and fought about the results, and continue the fighting. This is because they do not LIKE the scientific findings. It is so much easier to just say "no. Because I said so."

The only obscuring is political, not scientific.
____________

Janice

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1406
Credit: 793,366
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063094 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 18:21:38 UTC - in response to Message 1063085.

Kong, on #2 and #3 I have to say this is simply not correct. The scientific community has confirmed this is (beyond a reasonable doubt) happening. The politicians of course responded with a hissy fit and fought about the results, and continue the fighting. This is because they do not LIKE the scientific findings. It is so much easier to just say "no. Because I said so."

The only obscuring is political, not scientific.


Re: #2, you, soft^spirit, are dead wrong. You have bought the lie, and therefore are part of the problem.

The problem I refer to is the enormous waste of debate over the 'CO2 thing'. What we have on the CO2 thing is not settled science. It can't be settled at this time due to a lack of understanding of many of the processes involved. What we DO have is the opinions of many (maybe even most) climate scientists. Maybe they are right, maybe they aren't. I don't know. Majority of opinion, however, does NOT equate to 'settled science'.

One camp, the 'Goreists', claim it is settled science when it just isn't. The other camp (termed the 'deniers' by the Goreists) uses this to attack the basic premise. All this debate is polarizing ever greater numbers of people into the opposing camps in this wasteful, meaningless debate.

Please now, pay attention...

There are plenty of reasons to do the exact same dang thing the 'Goreists' advocate. Reasons that do not involve the dubious 'CO2 thing'. Reasons that are grounded in science that *IS* settled, as well as in economics.

We need to put the silly debate over the 'CO2 thing' to rest and get on with doing what we NEED to do. The CO2-thing debate is distracting us from the task at hand. OGC (the so-called 'fossil fuels') should no longer be wasted by burning them as fuel. They are just too valuable for other uses.

The fighting between the Goreists and the Deniers is religious in overtone, and is becoming worse than the fighting between the Jews and the Moslems in the middle east. Nothing CAN get done as long as this holy war is going on. The crap needs to END.

What possible interest do you have in this holy war continuing?
____________
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

“Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1063098 - Posted: 3 Jan 2011, 18:46:19 UTC - in response to Message 1063094.

Just like the "birthers" this argument will never end. Smoking is bad for you is not "settled science" either I suppose?

Anyway. At least you agree we need to move on past fossil fuels. That is much better than most. And seriously, there is money to be made in it!!

If we can just get over inertia.
____________

Janice

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

Copyright © 2014 University of California