The one question that AGW warmists ignore

If we cut CO2 to 0 emissions by 2050 how much will that affect temperatures by 2100?

extra credit for how much did Kyoto and the carbon trading scam cost the EU and how much did it affect CO2 output.

 

Trick question! Kyoto was political theater and had nothing to do with effecting CO2 output!

 

DEFLECTION !!!

the main question was
If we cut CO2 to 0 emissions by 2050 how much will that affect temperatures by 2100?

the other was

how much did Kyoto and the carbon trading scam cost the EU and how much did it affect CO2 output.

you guys are boring the crap out of me arguing how many angles can dance on the head of a pin and playing childish one upsmanship games when the only thing that matters is what have we done in the past that worked

 

Nothing we have done in the past has worked. I'm also not sure if we have ever done anything in the past at all however. Anything meaning, really, anything, obviously political theater doesn't count.

 

Zero emissions? You seem to be the only human on the planet who is interested in zero emissions. You'd have to eliminate humanity to do that. Is that your goal?

Anyways, you're claiming victory because no one has modelled the results of your impossible fantasy. Very impressive

Oh, there's been carbon trading in the northeast USA since 2009, the RGGI. Electricity prices haven't gone up. That would be an example of what works in the real world. But since that real world example will be politically inconvenient for your political cult, you're going have to figure out how to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

No. It is the goal of those who want to use CO2 emissions as the bogey man that needs stamped out. And humans being nothing but continuous CO2 emitters, well...you can see where that leads.

I'm guessing he already has the answer because it can be calculated, or already has been, and is just waiting for some unlucky slob to walk right into the obvious, that being, there won't be much temp change because you can't relate temp change to CO2 the way the modelers have been hoping (and failing) to.

Political cult? Is that what it is now, to notice that increasing CO2 hasn't bothered temperature much during the past 15 years?

 

That is TWO questions not one

And I will answer your first question - what makes you think this has been ignored? Sorry but just because denialists have not looked for answers does not mean they do not exist



In fact there are whole sections of the IPCC devoted to answering this question, the Garnault report answered this question as did the earlier Stern review

So, how can it be ignored except by denialists??

 

I doubt I'm going to be able to penetrate cult brainwashing of this magnitude.

 

42............

 

and the answers are .1 Degree difference by 2100, assuming we cut all CO2 emissions to zero. Now any sane person knows that that will never happen so if say just cut CO2 emissions in half in one or two countries we might see a .005 Degree difference. In other words not enough to make a damn

Part 2 - The original reduction suggested by the full Kyoto protocol was 36.6% increase compared to 1990 (the x at 136.6 in 2010). The actual increase came in at 45.4%, and had there been no Kyoto, it would have increased about half a percentage point more at 45.9 %. The EU policy will cost about $20 trillion, yet will reduce temperatures by just 0.05 degrees C

Oh and Bower do you really think that posting ridiculous cartoons does anything to make your case ? Not that you have a case to make LOL. Other than idiot politicians like Obama and the little piggies feeding at the trough of taxpayer dollars, everyone now knows this is a scam. Even the IPCC is now admitting the models failures

 

Any backup for those assertions?

 

of course

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/24/effect-zero-co2-2050/
http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...ts/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-BLomborg-20130425.pdf

 

Zero net emissions can be done by replacing fossil fuel with oil from algae, and pumping extra algae oil into dry wells to offset agriculture, and other CO2 sources.

The modeling has already been done - what was the climate before man added CO2, until now. The only variable is how long will it take for the earth to assimilate the existing CO2 to pre-human levels.

 

Here's a question. I hear the term "carbon neutral" to refer to "preferred" sources of energy which are derived from, say, a plant which lives its life, absorbs some carbon, then we release that carbon. But isn't that the same thing we are doing with oil? The carbon was trapped long ago, but if you take the long view, it was absorbed in the first place. Simple conservation of mass. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Now I know a big deal is made about "sequestering" the carbon, but that's the same thing that "carbon neutral" fuels do- just for a shorter period of time. Maybe we just need to make a bunch of diamonds.

 

Note there is no source for that quote but that you have also managed to refute yourself

If it is the "question that AGW warmists ignore" how come you found an answer?

 

Ryan, what the heck, there's a fool.
Probably there's a lot of damage done that we can't get past. In addition, there's more development, always is, especially in China, in India, etc...
Time to do an honest check on resource, yes, time to think also about air and water pollution too. Time to rethink energy,
this thing we use to create all kinds of goods, and then transport them, and then on top of that, economies, healthcare,
structural unemployment.
Green, for lack of a better terminology, is doing more with less. It must combine technology with humanity, we have to get past this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) politics, and move on. Yes, we need to move on past the infighting, past the Sunni versus Shiite,
past the Israel versus the Palestinian. Past the black versus the white, the West versus the East, the huge consumers versus the extreme impoverished somehow.
It's people really, giving a damn about other people in the end. It ain't Capitalism, versus Marxism, never was...
America was only a promise, the Gift Outright, a famous poet once said...

Peace!

 

If it was that easy I'd say right on but it's not. You refer, I think, to what's been described a the tipping point. When the ice packs melt away eventually you free up a lot of plant carbons into the atmosphere. Then, the CO2 in parts per million grows all by itself at alarming rates/ you lose albedo or the reflection coefficient of the suns rays diminishes warming the planet at a much faster rate.
You could take the fossil fuel and push it back into the Earth, but while it is technologically possible, it is extremely costly --- and not likely. Some say Nuclear is a better way - most scientist today say that, but it needs to be a lot more safer than the technology currently being used. But really, the first step that's needed is a will to do something on a grand scale.
We need to rethink energy and resource. Some say it's like the vision of inhabiting Mars - only it could be a million times easier here on this planet if we all pull together.

 

You are exactly right. But discussing the history of the planet, and how we are currently in an ice world configuration, versus the configuration the planet has been in for much more of its history (hot world configuration) triggers an overwhelming fear of change in those who want to tell humanity what to do to "save" the planet. The planet has seen it all before, and then some, the hubris of man in thinking it needs "saved" is the actual problem.

 

He went looking for one, and isn't blind. The warmists dare not explain to their constituents that even if they cease all activity including breathing that they still can't stop CO2 increases...it becomes obvious then what the agenda is. CO2 is just a means to an end, and some of us object to being herded to that end by academics who aren't even capable of getting their models to correctly predict temperature.

 

fully sourced in reply 12 Bower

As for the second part the assumption that it is an experiment and irreversible is simply a "strawman" and uses the "from adverse consequences" implying that if we don't do something immediately that dire consequences will unfold while not suggesting any reasonable actions. In plainer terms the "scare granny tactic" Completely fallacious in that as I pointed out that even the most drastic solution which would be for man to stop emitting all COl it will have no noticeable effect on temperatures for over a century. I am being most generous here considering that even the IPCC has admitted the modeling programs used to predict those dire consequences have failed and none of he catastrophes predicted in the 1990's have occurred.

now go see if you can find another silly cartoon, they amuse me more than your "debating"

 

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/24/effect-zero-co2-2050/

That source shows an 0.8C temp drop. Where did you come up with your 0.1 nuttery? Or, that's right, you dishonestly left out the part about the additional 0.7C increase that would happen at current trends.

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...ts/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-BLomborg-20130425.pdf

That's congressional testimony from a kook with a long history of getting everything wrong. It shows nothing, other than how right-wing kooks in congress invite right-wing kooks to testify.

 

.1 temp drop by 2100, .3 by2150, .5 drop by 2150 and .8 degree temp drop by 2200. That is assuming zero carbon emissions by 2050. How do you plan on accomplishing that ? Wiping out human civilization entirely or do you have a magic energy source that can rpovide reliable energy 24 and 7 in any geographic location?
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/wigleyfig3.jpg

and that is assuming that suddenly the climate models start to work because so far this century they have been off terribly which is a fact even the IPCC is admitting

it shows that you have no argument other than attacking the source about Kyoto

lets see the assertion was The original reduction suggested by the full Kyoto protocol was 36.6% increase compared to 1990 (the x at 136.6 in 2010). The actual increase came in at 45.4%, and had there been no Kyoto, it would have increased about half a percentage point more at 45.9 %. The EU policy will cost about $20 trillion, yet will reduce temperatures by just 0.05 degrees C

which came from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2009.ems, IEA 2012: World Energy Outlook 2012, http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/

and

Kyoto impact estimated from Bohringer, C., & Vogt, C. (2003). Economic and environmental impacts of the of the Kyoto Protocol. Canadian Journal of Economics–Revue Canadienne d’Economique, 36(2),475–94.



now do you have anything to add to the conversations other than more ranting, ad homs, and attack the source or does that pretty wrap up your debate repertoire ?

 

That's your strawman, so no one else but you needs to address it.

Crying about how mean I am never works as a tactic to get me to lay off. It just encourages me, proving I'm on the right track. I carve another notch every time it happens.

Why did you pretend a political hack testifying in front of congress was scientific evidence?

Why did you misrepresent an 0.8C change as 0.1C?

Why have you ignored real world carbon trading successes like the RGGI, or the older very successful SO2 emissions trading programs?

Why the endless disjointed babbing about Kyoto that no one can understand?

In summary, try addressing the actual issues for once, instead of simply repeating all your previous nonsense.

 

.1 decrease by 2100, if it was warming according to the IPCC models forecasts which it is not , but that's another thread. Now either you cant read a chart or are in deep denial or both. Even a 12 year old could read this simple chart, what's your problem?



on the rest of it I posted several links, keep denying, your credibility is at zero.

 

Your chart says 0.9C increase by 2050, 0.8C increase by 2100. But it doesn't show the 2100 case for different emissions scenarios, which is what would be necessary for a meaningful comparison.

An honest and intelligent person would have compared projected 2100 temperatures under varying emission scenarios. You didn't even try, choosing a meaningless comparison instead to come up with a meaningless claim. Deliberate deception on your part, or just simple incompetence?