atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#1434: That's impossible.

"To avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, world carbon emissions will have to drop to near zero by 2050..."

Let's go over this again.

According to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the annual carbon budget of the atmosphere is 206 billion tons. Of that, 6 billion tons--about 3%--is from man-made sources.

So even if humans stopped emitting all the carbon dioxide they emit, from various activities, the atmospheric carbon budget would still be two hundred billion tons.

In order to drop "world carbon emissions" to "near zero" we would have to destroy the entire freaking ecosystem.

And we're not capable of doing that. Even if we wanted to.

Oh, of course these morons mean "world human carbon emissions" but if they mean man-made, they ought to say "man-made". The problem is, "man-made" only accounts for 3% of the total, and if you conveniently leave off the qualifier it makes it sound as if carbon emissions are all the result of human activity without actually saying something that someone could call you on.

The nutjobs also insist that we have to "go negative"--absorb more carbon dioxide than we emit--after 2050. Why? How much carbon is "enough"? How much is "too much"? Global temperatures have been much colder than they are now, with atmospheric carbon concentrations much higher than they are now--and the ice core data shows an 800-year lag between temperature and its effect on carbon dioxide. Not the other way around: carbon dioxide levels lag temperature by 800 years.

Their entire thesis has been demonstrated to be incorrect, yet they continue to beat the drum because otherwise there won't be any more money or power given to them.

I'll say it again: we don't know why Earth's temperature changes over time. We have some ideas, but the only ones that are allowed to be considered by the science establishment are the ones that say "it's proven that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global warming", something which is patently false.

Not to put too fine a point on it, by the way, it's also impossible for world human carbon emissions to drop to zero. Politically impossible, if nothing else, because how will you make China and India stop their emissions? Or will you force America and Europe to sequester carbon at the rate at which China and India emit it?

Meanwhile the global temperature anomaly has gone through the floor, dropping 0.775° in the past 14 months--despite the fact that the atmosphere has not lost any carbon dioxide. Which anthropogenic global warming theory can account for this? Which computer model predicted it?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that one.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.