Monday, March 10, 2008
The latest global warming threat inflation
Brace yourselves. The big newspapers are reporting a new study that purports to prove that we -- meaning humanity -- will need to reduce carbon emissions nearly to zero in order to avoid global catastrophe. Of course, reducing carbon emissions nearly to zero would also constitute a global catastrophe, so if these guys are right we are actually completely and unavoidably screwed.
Obviously, we need to get cracking on off-planet alternatives.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Mar 10, 11:27:00 AM:
Actually, one of the scientists cited in the article, Ken Caldeira, is often attacked by activists because he is a spokesman for the view that we can control global temperature through geo-engineering. His research focus includes reducing the amount of solar radiation coming through that atmosphere. For a primer on that, see his Google Tech Talk at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzMVfJKJK_c. The other component is removing CO2 from the atmosphere (see Klaus Lackner's work for example)which in the longer term is feasible. This allows us to talk about 'net' emissions, i.e. actual CO2 emissions do not have to go to zero.
By 
jj mollo, at
Mon Mar 10, 01:19:00 PM:
Social inertia is killing us. We always wait too long before we do the obvious things. Maybe now environmentalists who bewail the problem will take it seriously enough to actually do something. Nuclear power, energy diversity, carbon disincentives, and carbon sequestration are going to be the answers. The first and the last are going to be the biggest, and those are precisely the two that the average environmentalist opposes. I like the orbital sunscreen idea, too, but the trick is to do the cheapest and easiest resolution first. The key strategy should be to institute a system whereby we can control the critical parameters. (Environmentalists are often opposed to that concept as well.) When we find out exactly what the problems are going to be, we will then be in a position to do something about it.
By , at
Mon Mar 10, 01:33:00 PM:
You guys are missing the point.
The sky is falling, and only a hefty dose of taxation to exact our penance at the altar of the elites who know something that we don't will be the only way we can make things right.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Mar 10, 01:59:00 PM:
Suppose the environmentalists are right, that carbon dioxide really is an existential threat. Ought not they apologize for having advocated (and thereby achieved) a 30 year hiatus in the construction of nuclear power plants? Why is it that we never hear any of them say "oops, my bad" on that one?
By , at
Mon Mar 10, 03:00:00 PM:
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973c.htm
NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.
Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."
His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.
First we keep hearing that all these scientists are in the pocket of the big energy companies, but now we see that should also include all the scientists in the pocket of government funded grants.
Yeah, that BusHilter guy just keeps trying to suppress real scientific research.
By commoncents, at
Mon Mar 10, 04:22:00 PM:
Great site you have!
Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 60 of America's top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio...
http://netradionetwork.com
By jj mollo, at
Mon Mar 10, 07:27:00 PM:
James Lovelock, known for the Gaea hypothesis, called for nuclear power four years ago. He didn't exactly apologize for previous antagonism, but he strongly encouraged his fellow Greens to promote the nuclear approach and not to put their faith in utopian solutions.
There have been other environmentalists who have come to the same conclusion. Here's and article by Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, suggesting that environmentalists are wrong on three fundamental issues, one of which is nuclear power. He doesn't apologize either. He takes the position that viewpoints change when new knowledge comes to light, so we shouldn't be dogmatic.
By , at
Tue Mar 11, 12:09:00 AM:
AL GORE,JAMES HANSON and DAVID SUZUKI and other global warming cracked urns will blame a volcanic eruption on global warming i mean the idiot in GREENPEACE tried to blame the 2004 tsunami on global warming proving only a idiot would have anything to do with GREENPEACE
By , at
Tue Mar 11, 11:21:00 PM:
What we need to do is take a deep breath and calm down. There is some, but not much, evidence for anthroprogenic global warming. More like coincidence, than causality.
However, there is equally persuasive evidence that there has been no additional global warming either in the oceans or on land since 1998. The last two years have seen consecutive drops in global temperature, the drop this year has all but wiped out the net gain for the last two decades. Perhaps what we should worry about is the real killer - global cooling, crop loss, higher use of petroleum, etc.
The most important observation, that net gain in atmospheric heat does not increase high altitude clouds and rain fall means that there is as yet no evidence for run-away heating. What it really shows is that existing climate models are woefully unreliable.
