This is either terribly ambitious or simply intellectually dishonest ! ! !

Eliminate 100% of CO2 .......PUL_LEEZE

Does anybody else see a credibility problem here ?

Reply: what they are saying is eliminating 100% of the co2 emissions, not all the co2 in the air.

They might want to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature before plunging headlong into an effort to reduce CO2.

Q.What kind of "scientists" base such drastic action on hypotheticals?
A.Climatologists because it's all they have to work with.

If there's one thing Kyoto has taught us, it's that rolling back emissions a minor percentage is not achievable. Now someone wants to eliminate them all together.

These studies are based on significantly inflated anthropogenic forcings and substantially reduced natural ones. Who cares what they predict? It's not real world. Once climatologists begin to use realistic forcings, projections of future impacts MIGHT have meaning. Now they don't.

"Even if we eliminated carbon dioxide today we are still committed to a global temperature rise of around 0.8 degrees Celsius lasting at least 500 years,"
"It is technologically challenging, but not impossible"

I'll hold my breath as long as I can, that's about it.

If these guys would come up with some solution that actually made sense, more people might actually believe in it.

it has been said that the biggest stumbling block to progress in not ignorance, but what man thinks they no but they don't.

Every Scientist that got a gov't grant believed in Man made G.W. Then when that "majority" was formed, other's went with the flow. It is a poltical plan all right.

Unfortunately what passes as news media these days in bought and paid for by Huge Corporate or Banking intrests which makes alot of it (especially the "issues") corporate and financial Marketing, not "unbiased reporting".

"It is technologically challenging, but not impossible. The biggest challenge will be to get political consensus,"

I've always understood statements such as these to be that of glib academics making light of technical challenges they'll never have to face because either A)the general public are not sufficiently enlightened to embrace their schemes or B)what they propose is so ridiculously and obviously misguided that it doesn't even warrant reasoned consideration.

But in this case I believe it to be actually true. At least I hope it would be more difficult to convince the majority of people that we must completely eliminate CO2 emissions, than it would be to actually execute such a plan.

You're kidding right? More climate 'models'. Give me a break.

As many have said on this blog: Might as well cease all human activity in order to satisfy the Hysterics and imbecibles.

500 years of warming? Really those arrogant enough to make such predictions already believe that the consensus is in their pockets and that little dissent is going to arise from making such statements. That attitude comes from their totally ignoring any data that conflicts with their view.

Brett: Thank you so much for leaving your sources so that we may understand Science. That is reason that I like this blog so much. Kipp

I always get a laugh out of the arrogance of these people. The US is not the center of the Universe, and Russia, China and India are more than happy to absorb any industry we drive away.

It is estimated that the number of cars in China will increase by 20X over the next 20 years. The US can do whatever it wants, including committing suicide, and it will not stop every last drop of oil from being used.

There are seven billion people who need to eat, work and raise children - and couldn't care less about the delusional opinions of a bunch of pointy heads in their ivory towers.

Since when does either Pielke accept the climate models? Sounds like one of them was quoted out of context.

Zero Greenhouse Emissions is the only Solution.

REPLY: Nope. Crippiling America and Capitalism is the only solution. The only solution to a non-existent problem. The only solution for these agenda driven lunatics and politically motivated (could they make it more obvious) "scientists."

Time to write your congressman and senators, people. And tell them to say NO to this craziness!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Brett, you clarified:"what they are saying is eliminating 100% of the co2 emissions, not all the co2 in the air."

Granted that was my understanding also ....I probably should have phrased my comment more clearly LOL

My premise remains however ......How can we quantify reductions of CO2 when we can't indentify ALL sources of CO2 and relative contribution of each ? ?

It is still either naive or dishonest .....take your pick .......

PH, do you have really bad memory problems? It seem like after a while every piece of incoming information gets adjusted to conform to your pr-existing world view. FYI Pielke Jr. unsurprisingly "accepts" the models since, among other things, Pielke Sr. *is* a modeler.

"You see, it always finds a way back to politics."

Brett, this seems to be a very naive comment. It's pretty much definitional that large-scale social decisions involve politics. Do you imagine that it could be otherwise?

Guys, I agree that zero emissions now is impossible, but why be so critical of the solutions that have already been offered or to the solutions offered by these scientists?

Electric cars are already possible - (Chevy Volt). What about solar, wind and water to generate electricity for the electric cars? We have the technology already.

How about carbon sequestration at coal fired power plants? - Meaning that every coal fired power plant captures it's emitted CO2 and sequesters it below ground - technology that we already have.

Why not cleaner alternative fuels such as bio diesel - made from waste oil?

We already have more fuel efficient gas powered or hybrid gas/electric powered automobiles - the electricity for a hybrid is made by the hybrid vehicle during braking and stored in batteries.

We have the technology for all of this. Yes, it is expensive, but I would rather pay for it through a higher electric bill or higher gasoline prices than by paying a "penalty" carbon tax. This is all technology that can be implemented now. Doesn't it make sense to use the technology that we have now?

During the period of maximum forest extension, (6000 BC) the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5 to 7.0C warmer than modern.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WPN-45BCR6K-M&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9504121aa5ba4d90684bd3b49e4d3ce0

I did a Google news search on "climate change conference" Predictably, the first five hits were-

Tobacco and oil pay for climate conference

Heating up the Global Warming Debate, If There Still Is One

Al Gore Makes Impassioned Plea to TEDsters

Climate crisis getting short shrift in US president race: Gore

"Global Warming Is Real"

UN warns of climate change danger in Mideast

Obama & Clinton: Who's More Likely to Confront Global Warming?

Middle East: Agriculture likely to suffer from climate change, says UN

I missed the headline last year - IPCC funded by big government and carbon traders

There is no historical data that supports the premise that human activity has any significant effect on global average temperature. The observation of glaciers melting may look dramatic on TV but does not show that human activity is the cause. There is, however, substantial evidence (besides the precipitous drop in average global temperature in Jan 2008) that atmospheric carbon dioxide level does not significantly influence global average temperature. You can check out the global warming issue yourself. Credible websites are included in my post at http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/to-those-who-will-fight/

LOL

Does anything else really need to be said?

I'll tell them something though, if they can correctly predict the average temperature across North America on March 3, 2009 at 3:00 pm EST, I'll first buy them lunch and then sign on to the concept 100%. Oh it has to be within .1 degree C.

If they miss it, they can buy my lunch and then shut their collective pieholes.

I think it's time for the consensus of climatologists to start putting up or shutting up with some real hard data numbers that are verifiable. If their models are so darn great,as they always tell us, it should be a breeze to shoot them out for 6 months to a year and put out a number.

Oh, wait, what, you want to know how to get a verifiable continental temperature measurment? Yeah, me too. Just think how tough it is to extend that problem to the WHOLE planet.

More nonsense.......notice in this report, there is nothing about how much gas is dispersed into the atmosphere by the earth itself? Supposedly, there is more greenhouse gas emitted from the surface and below of the planet than anything man makes. So how do they plan to stop that? It's impossible!!! They keep messing around with this. The idea is to make the richer countries pay for the third world countries. They don't have to do anything. They get a pass. Find out another thing......who do these alleged scientists work for? Who's signing their checks and grants?

Patrick Henry et al,

I know you feel strongly that AGW is hype, but let's engage in a thought experiment for a minute.

I am a strong believer in the power of technology to cure problems, especially with the exponential rate of technological progress. Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near states in that book (page 11)

"To express this another way, we won't experience one hundred years of technological advance in the twenty-first century; we will witness on the order of twenty thosand years of progress (again, when measured by today's [author's italics] rate of progress), or about one thousand times greator than what was achieved in the twentieth century."

However, when I sit and think about it, I worry sometimes if maybe we have just moved to fast. Through the explotation of the earth's resources over the last two centuries, a certain proportion of the human species has been been given an immeasurably better life (I am one of them). But WHAT IF, we have used too many resources at too high a rate, for the ecosystem to handle? As an analogy, imagine running a marathon and starting off sprinting as fast as you can go. For the first few hundred meters you will leave your competitors in the dust and be well in the lead. But you can't keep that pace up. In not too long, you will be forced to stop by the limitations of your body.

Now keep in mind, that I don't necessarily expect us to run out of time, but I do worry that it is possible. I wonder, what do you guys think? Have you ever seriously considered the possibility that the earth simply cannot support human civilization as it now stands for more than a century or so?

I think we can eliminate our fossil fuel emissions one day, but it won't be in our lifetime. As such, we should reduce CO2 emissions as much as possible, and adapt to a warmer world.

Since the oceans absorb roughly half of our CO2 emissions, I think if the world reduces emissions by at least 50%, CO2 levels should stabilize a bit.

Meanwhile, our resident McCarthyists will continue to say everyone and everything is a Communist.

"It is technologically challenging, but not impossible."

Remember 'Soylent Green', 'Logan's Run'? That's on deck next folks. Everybody over the age of 30, you've had your fun, now beat it!

If you would read our study, you would find that we make no policy prescriptions.

If you think there are technical errors in our study, please find them and bring them to our attention. Simply denying our conclusions without showing where we made specific errors is simply engaging in bloviation.

If you wanted to prevent further warming through emissions reductions, you would need to eliminate nearly all emissions. That is a fact. Given this fact, you can argue about what is the right thing to do, because that is about weighing competing values.

I did say that eliminating emissions would be technologically challenging but not impossible. I believe this to be true. I made no statement about whether it would be wise, economically prudent, etc.

Let's try to differentiate between facts and values. If you want to challenge what I believe to be a fact, you must present facts and coherent arguments to counter me. If you want to challenge my values, then by all means spout off at will.

Nothing like raising the bar. Logic dictates, that if it is impossible to lower global temperatures without totally removing antrhopegenic CO2, then Kyoto is a waste of time. These authors may have just nullified the entire basis of the IPCC. They basically said we're doomed, totally doomed. For there is not a shred of a chance that the world can ever reach a consensus of totally stopping human generated CO2.

My guess is, the IPCC will ignore this "study". I wwonder if the folks at Real Climate will post this?

And has anybody considered the fact that temperatures may actually decrease even dramatically from now on?

Here's the ultimate solution:

First, we build a huge computer system that randomly picks "volunteers". These lucky "volunteers" will get the chance to sacrifice themselves so that future generations of humanity will get a chance to survive. Sacrifice is compulsory for everyone picked to "volunteer", of course.

These "volunteers" will help reduce emissions by culling the population of humans to sustainable levels.

Second, we build factories to process the "volunteers" into food which can be used to help feed everyone else. This will reduce emissions further because we won't need a many farms, farm animals or farm machinery (all emit high amounts of greenhouse gas).

The factories must be green, of course, and must use sustainable technologies. As the population gets reduced, we can do away with modern farming practices, too.

Everyone wins, especially the people who create the criteria on how the computer will pick "volunteers".

Some especially important people will be exempt from the process and will not be allowed to "volunteer".

Here's a thought. Before using any of these models to make any more predictions. Let's spend a little money to create some IR detectors that are 1 meter square to be placed in an arid areas at night at various heights above the ground and let's see exactly how many W/m^2 are being generated by the CO2 redirecting 50% of the 3 narrow bands of IR that CO2 absorbs.

My guess would be that at ground level you will see a very small amount of energy and as you rise by say a few meters at a time, you will see zero IR at heights above 9 meters.

If anyone has any influence at a university, this would be a great way to start a Masters or Ph