10 March 2008
Near Zero Carbon Output
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: What's News; World Affairs; World Economy .
The timing on this report seems a little unwise with record snows in the Midwest, almost unheard of snow this winter in the middle east, and the coldest winter in 100 years in China. Global warming is cyclical as ice core samples show. If they insist on destroying our civilization by bringing carbon output to near zero, I think they should also impose the same destruction on the little green aliens living on the other planets in the solar system where there is also a similar warming trend.
Many years ago I watched a televised meeting of international scientists and prominent scholars discuss what they felt should be their focus in world at the present time. Various ideas were put forth and discussed. Addressing the famine in Africa was the most common topic. At the end of about two hours, the gentleman conducting the meeting rose and gave what was supposed to be a summation of their general consensus for action. He did not mention the African famine. The man said that the group had done a wonderful job and had jointly decided that addressing overpopulation was to be their focus. Overpopulation had not been mentioned in the meeting.
What the following article clearly implies but refuses to directly address, is the fact that there must be a drastic reduction in population for their goals to be met. One also must ask how those who remain will maintain a viable quality of life since carbon emissions will be near zero.
Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say
Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff WriterMonday, March 10, 2008
The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.
Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further…
For now, at least, a goal of zero emissions appears well beyond the reach of politicians here and abroad. U.S. leaders are just beginning to grapple with setting any mandatory limit on greenhouse gases. The Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050; the two Democratic senators running for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton N.Y. and Barack Obama (Ill.), back an 80 percent cut. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain Ariz., supports a 60 percent reduction by mid-century.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is shepherding climate legislation through the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new findings “make it clear we must act now to address global warming.”
“It won’t be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling,” she said. “It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves.”…
European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, in Washington last week for meetings with administration officials, said he and his colleagues are operating on the assumption that developed nations must cut emissions 60 to to 80 percent by mid-century, with an overall global reduction of 50 percent. “If that is not enough, common sense is that we would not let the planet be destroyed,” he said…
“People aren’t reducing emissions at all, let alone debating whether 88 percent or 99 percent is sufficient,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies…
When it comes to deciding how drastically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, O’Neill said, “in the end, this is a value judgment, it’s not a scientific question.” The idea of shifting to a carbon-free society, he added, “appears to be technically feasible. The question is whether it’s politically feasible or economically feasible.”
10 Comments so far...
Cameron Says:
10 March 2008 at 6:06 pm.
This is just a political bully club. It makes me crazy.
S.J. Says:
10 March 2008 at 7:43 pm.
Cameron you are totally correct on this. There is so much science that proves it wrong or at least cyclical and a lot of scientists are now saying we could be heading for a cooling. What a farce.
SGS Says:
10 March 2008 at 8:47 pm.
The weather of this world is among the most complex system ever observed. There are so many factors we do not know yet. It is like trying to define the building based on one brick you were able to measure. You do not know much beyond the surface what the purpose of this building is, how it is structured, leaving alone its internal functions, like plumbering, electricity, and more.
The climate models used so far has worked with only two or three factors. It is great to know the so-called global warming experts could have that much of confidence in their results!
SGS Says:
10 March 2008 at 8:57 pm.
“The idea of shifting to a carbon-free society appears to be technically feasible.” This is an idiotic remark. First, we have no clue, not even scienific clue, on how to scrub carbons. In fact, those so-called carbon off-set companies plant a few trees there and here, but they have no technology to even begin removing the carbon out of air. The second problem is that carbon is everywhere! Almost every single living organism (including ourselves) are highly composed of carbon. As such, we will leave carbon everywhere we go. The total amount of carbon we discard in air in a whole year is no where near the amount of carbon being released in the air by the ocean plantken in a SINGLE day, leaving alone the great rainforest like Amazon in a couple of days, and cattles with their flatulence over somewhat longer period.
Even the billionarie Richard Branson of Virgin fame is offering the so-called X-prize for the technology to scrub the carbon from air. He is offering $25 millions for the first one to do it. So far, there is very few takers in his contest! That is “feasible” for you!
T. Fan Says:
10 March 2008 at 10:09 pm.
SGS, sounds like you really know this stuff. That is cool information. All I know is that if they wanted to have people lower carbon to about zero we wouldn’t just be back in the stone age because we couldn’t even have fire. Very crazy.
Cavetrollhead Says:
10 March 2008 at 10:43 pm.
SGS and T. Fan. I find it ironic that the carbon content at the time of the dinosaurs was much higher than now and life thrived. In fact until man started burning carbon fuels, I believe carbon was going down and down.
My hypothesis for why life didn’t get going much on mars is that the scanty amount of available carbon was buried before things got going. Man may be doing nature a favor by recycling carbon into the atmosphere. Might be part of God’s plan.
One other point is that gymnosperms use as much carbon dioxide as we have been able to give them. Gymnosperms evolved earlier than flowering plants (angiosperms) gymnosperms (cone bearers like pines, juniper, cypress) were around when the atmospheric carbon was very high. If we want to reduce atmospheric carbon, planting gymnosperms would be the way to go. IN fact the evidence is that gymnosperms are growing faster than before the burning of fossil fuels.
I have sources on that info (my college botany book) but I don’t know how to get it to you. if you are interested I can post a quote from that book.
Cavetrollhead Says:
10 March 2008 at 10:47 pm.
The global warming crowd is killing Africans, who without anti fossil fuel pressures would be able to have widespread generation of power from fossil fuels. This power could provide the continent with refrigeration among other things. It is a crying shame.
Think of how the worlds economy has changed since it started utilizing fossil fuels. But poor Africa developing late in the game, can’t join in the prosperity.
Joy Bischoff Says:
10 March 2008 at 10:58 pm.
I am very impressed with you guys. I have learned a lot from you and am more convinced that this scam is hurting the world. Thank you.
Ghost Says:
10 March 2008 at 11:27 pm.
“Human-caused global warming” has now officially been re-named “climate change” to explain the inconvenient truth that the winter of 2007-8 was the coldest in a century, in spite of all those tons of “greenhouse gas” being spewed into the air from all the new factories in China and India. Worldwide temps dropped 0.6 of a degree C in one year. That may not sound like a lot, but it’s more than all the ballyhooed warming in the preceding century.”
They will probably use global warming to explain the cooling this year. They won’t give up because they can’t let go of the control.
free makeup samples Says:
19 March 2008 at 12:03 pm.
[…] for Parents http://www.newdream.org/kids/brochure.php Babies Firstfreebiefrenzy.blogspot.comNear Zero Carbon OutputNear Zero Carbon Output Posted by Joy Bischoff under: What’s News World Affairs World Economy. The […]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.