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 PhD. No IR at night means no IR energy being slowed as it heads towards space. That will be a real hard one for the AGW-Bser's to explain.

Regards,

Steve

It's amazing to me that these people expect us to believe this statement, "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." Good night! They can't even predict the weather accurately for a season, or even a week for any given area! We're supposed to believe they can predict the entire global temperature for 500 years from now will be "oh, about .8 degrees Celsius warmer"! Uh, did anyone forget to tell these goons that NOAA just reported that we are now in a several year long cooling cycle? Human caused global warming is a hoax! It's just a way to grow the government some more.

It's satisfying to know that these scaremongers will be thouroughly discredited in the near future. I have to go along with NW Steve...there's no way the small fraction that makes up CO2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to the warming that occured this past century up to 1998.
I agree PH, that doesn't sound like Pielke.

OiznuoP:
Denial is a defense mechanism, used to reduce facts that are consciously intolerable.
What don't lie are photographs which I have found of two observable facts, that even a five year old would agree with. From The Anchorage Daily News
there is an article with photographs, showing Ice loss from the Arctic. This ice has a picture of the Ice now and thirty years ago. The first shows the arctic ice 30 miles from Wainright Alaska,and today it is 300 miles away.
Another group of pictures I found Was of the Glacier O'Higgins, a mass of ice ten thousand years old. The first picture shows a small pond within the glacier, and the second shot shows a lake where the glacier once existed. This is your proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming in action. You can't deny this reality anymore.
And would it not be wise to take that growth step and begin to conserve. How about carpoolng if available. Take a train,like the good old days when America was not owned by multi-national corprorations. Why do you think our middle class is shrinking. Time to use your head, and figure out why we feel we are being screwed. And we are.
KIPP

I have the anwsers to our Global Warming Problem! I have a proven method that can reduce a buildings heating and cooling bill by up to and over 50% with a similar percent reducing Green house gas emissions after a few years of savings this method is paid for and then goes on for many more years to do much more this method is simple something for the masses to do.
I have a system that Captures emissions in cities and locks them away forever on land, under water, or inground this system pays for itself in part.
I have a innovaton for all vehicles based on a scientific fact that reduces the use of fossil fuels.
I have a continuous supply of oil for BIO FUEL harvested all year long that uses little to no fossil fuel to harvest and does not bother the Human food chain they way some of the others do.
I have another innovaton that makes the use of electricity more efficient.
Twenty years ago I used a device that captures carbon with today's Nano technology one of these devices could be used for vehicles and buildings.
I have 30 commercial truck improvements that will see better mileage.
I have two innovations for recycling one is for all of the small items and the other is for large items, commercial hardly recycles as they do not get paid to do this my solution makes it fun to recycle as well my inovations enhance the current system.
I have another system that goes after heavy oil, most of the oil wells have heavy oil in them some are full to the top there is little to no technology to get the heavy oil out of these wells, the world has two times the crude oil in heavy oil versus light sweet crude oil, as well my system produces no emissions, if I was allowed to do as I wish the worst polluter in Canada The Athabaska Tar Sands would have no polution and develop 100 times what they have today (they just cleared an area the size of Vancouver Island to get at the Bitumen.

I think the pie chart does not include natural emissions like volcanos. These emissions are much more significant that any emissions produced by man.

It is the same old scare techniques. Follow the money.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Here is a classic Pielke Jr. witticism about the quality of IPCC climate modeling.

The IPCC actually has a pretty good track record in its predictions, especially after it dramatically reduced its 1990 prediction. This record is clouded by an appearance of post-hoc curve fitting. In each of 1995, 2001, and 2007 the changes to the IPCC predictions had the net result of improving predictive performance with observations that had already been made. This is a bit like predicting today's weather at 6PM.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/a-longer-spot-check-on-global-warming/

Hi cmbclean,

Good question.

I am 100% certain that mankind's recent behavior is unsustainable, but CO2 is the least of our problems. Focusing on CO2 is sheer escapism from reality.

Nature will find a way to cull the population, either through war, famine, disease or catastrophic natural events - just like it has always done.

The scary thing is when humans start making the decisions about which races and nationalities are to survive - i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ahmenijad, etc.

The very fact that the regular suspects on this blog object makes me think that it is a good idea.

"Ken Caldeira:
If you think there are technical errors in our study, please find them and bring them to our attention"

Ken, buddy, no one in their right mind believes you can predict this.

"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,"

And no one in their right mind believes they will live long enough to see this or if it's even possible to accomplish in 100's of years:

"If you wanted to prevent further warming through emissions reductions, you would need to eliminate nearly all emissions. That is a fact."

What you are saying is that we can't do anything realistically, feasibly, or practically to prevent global warming, that carbon taxes are a joke, that all the other cures are a joke.

Well. well... AGW's try and explain this non-trendy data... (argument being that we skeptics always cherry pick data)
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_plot.html
Also look at the COLE data (for Emiliano who maintained cherry picking as well, months ago)
http://wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html the constant cold in North america NH, Central and South america SH is alarming. (Readily admit normal heating returned to parts of Asia) Note vast increase in NOrthern hemisphere Ice and SH ice going bonkers above!
Cryosphere today (after corrections)
Still, we skeptics should not use this data to say the warming trend is over so that we cannot be put in the same basket as the AGW's (who always jump at a rise) LOL!
Very proud skeptic.

Hi Kipp,

No need to speculate about Arctic ice now vs. 30 years ago-

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=02&fy=1979&sm=03&sd=02&sy=2008

There is more ice now in Baffin Bay and the Bering Strait than there was on this day in 1979 - the first year of the satellite records.

Ken Calderia:

I may be mistaken, but I don't see where anyone on the blog has accused you of making 'policy prescriptions', nor have they accused you of 'technical errors', nor, in fact, have they 'denied your conclusions'.

What it appears is that your readers were taken aback by the absurdity of attempting to eliminate all greenhouse emissions.

Maybe the first 'policy prescription' I would suggest is that we somehow create an enforceable 'world policy' concerning emissions since there are countries over in the Far East, Third World, South America, and other developing nations who don't give a damn about your 'study'.

Since you appear to know enough to know this will be 'technologically challenging', why not come out with a few suggestions. Seems a like a little bit of avoidance there.

Something I have wanted to hear for a looong time: Just how accurate are these 'models' of yours? How can you be challenged when your 'model' spits out 'data' that is not subject to verification because it is inherent to the future when most of us and likely you will be dead. Please give us your statement pertaining to this accuracy.

Remember Y2K? Hundreds of millions, no billions of dollars spent, racing against time when trains would collide, planes fall out of the sky, governments, businesses, and the like shutting down, tons of data lost, all because of a 'programming error' where computers could not identify 00. Those who failed to convert their systems in time breathed a sigh of relief when still rose on the east the say after....nothing happened. People never agreed whether the absence of catastrophe was the result of the preparation undertaken or whether the significance of the problem had been overstated.

So what facts do we have to refute your statements? None really since your 'models' are supposedly the last word. Fits quite nicely when one can be the Judge, the Prosecutor, and the Jury. Like any program though, the ability of 'models' in assessing data is only as accurate as the humans who programed them.

One last thing, why is warming a bad thing? On a climate scale is this warming unprecedented?

Gee, we'll all just hold our breaths, huh? How come you ignore the latest data that the temperature has dropped this year, wiping out all your "warming"? Be a real scientist and look at the data, even if it doesn't agree with your conclusion.

Reply: Who are you responding to?

Mr. Caldeira:
How about if we begin with the emissivity==absorptivity of CO2 at STP and was measured by Hottel in 1942, and verified many times since, at 9*10^-4 or 1000 times smaller than asphalt. That value doesn't change were atmospheric CO2 quadrupled.
Back-radiation is not measurable, the high troposphere is not hotter than the air immediately above the earth.
The heat capacity of the oceans is 2000 times that of the atmosphere, and yet are not measureably heated by it except by conduction.

We can go on to every point of your work, but what is particularly silly about your proposal is that you and I are CO2 emitters.

Ken Caldeira,

You are starting from the assumption that CO2 is the driving force in "Climate Change" upwards. That is very much in dispute despite the IPCC "consensus", ie., rammed down the throats of every dissenting voice on the panels. The main pie chart should have also shown "human emissions" as a percentage of all emissions. This appears to be a further attempt at scare tactics to support either an agenda or funding - or just media coverage? You have said 500 years to get rid of the CO2, others have said 100 years and yet others 10 years at the most - did you simply opt for the scariest figure or is there a scientific rationale?

todays march 3rd family circus cartoon had two kids in the middle of snowpile with the quote "i wish old man winter would take a summer vacation"...couldnt been a more appropriate observation from a cartoonist about the "AGW scam plan"...in my opinion, it would have been funnier if he would have had the kids at a real AGW "circus" show and snow had collapsed the big tent...in it, the two ringmaster's, al gore and dr anonymous from NASA, were screaming in a megaphone "the show must go on!!!"...have a nice day dudes and dudettes

But the last twelve month's saw the global temps fall off a cliff! Global Warming is not a problem. It is not happening...the way we are told it is...Lets see how Global Cooling proceeds now the next twelve month's...Will the SH winter be colder still? More Snow in Buenas Aires? More Snow in South Africa? Greater Antarctic Sea Ice Maxima than 2007-2008? La Nina cdontinues? Cooling of Indian Ocean continues? We shall see won't we.

http://science.nasa.gov./newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Unlike the surface based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the earths lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades.....

you guys have probably already seen this....

The study may be correct, but how practical in implementation? I am guessing that the graph indicates all the sectors that would have to immediately cease to operate in order for all greenhouse gas emissions to be eliminated completely. The implementation of solutions to stop the emissions immediately appears to be much much worse than the problem. Not going to happen.

If you read *Science*, Feb 8, 2008, which has a big section on cities and potential environmental problems, you may come to the conclusion that *jep, Kansas USA* (post above) probably has the only sure fire solution to stop global warming.

Excerpts from *Science*, *Already, according to the United Nations, cities are responsible for 75% of global energy consumption and 80% of green house gas emissions.*

*Whereas in 1900 a mere 10% of the global population were urban dwellers, that percentage now exceeds 50% and will rise even more in the next 50 years. More than 95% of the net increase in the global population will be in cities of the developing world, which will approach the 80% urbanization level of most industrialized nations today.*

*The unprecedented rates of urban population growth over the past century have occurred on

*Urban areas are both responsible for, and respond to, changes in biogeochemical cycles. The concentration of transportation and industry in urban centers means that cities are point sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which affect Earth's climate, as well as trace gases such as NO, NO2, O3, SO2, HNO3, and various organic acids.*

* The 20 largest U.S. cities each year contribute more CO2 to the global atmosphere than the total land area of the continental United States can absorb.*

* The best-documented example of anthropogenic climate modification is the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

Sooooo, I think we need to get rid of the cities. I don't care much for cities anyway.
Just getting rid of my truck is apparently not going to make much difference. Carbon taxes and cap and trade are not going to do any good either.
We must learn to adapt, and implement sensible solutions (first do no harm). I think we need to stop having so many children too, but most people don't like hearing that.

Ken said,"If you wanted to prevent further warming through emissions reductions, you would need to eliminate nearly all emissions."

First, I see no pressing need to reduce the warming (if it is actually happening now.) A warmer earth has in the past been a more pleasant place. Since the world population is growing perhaps it would be wise to be able to grow more food to feed all the additional mouths.
Second, It is not technologically feasible to stop all emissions even if we wanted to. You would have to shut down the economies of every modern society on earth. It aint gonna happen. Political realities alone guarantee it won't. It is mere Gorish fear mongering.

Prof. Caldeira, I would be very interested in reading your paper. However the only reference to your work I could find on a web search was an abstract on Science AAAS. The sight would not allow entry without a registration which required acceptence of e-mail messages which I am not interested in recieving. Do you have a pdf link to provide that would allow people here to see your paper ?

China's "Great Leap Forward" led to starvation, and the death of millions.

This proposed "Great Leap Of Lemmings" would lead to the starvation of billions.

I suppose it is a solution to over-population. Is that what they are after?

Our modern world does consume lots of energy, and does produce CO2. But it keeps us all alive. And, looking at January's numbers, the world is not "running a fever," but rather is less than .1 degree above normal.

If the system isn't broken don't fix it.

I think that many people are missing the point.

We have the technology already to do this.
We have a choice to do this or not. No one is forcing us to do anything or telling us to jump off a bridge.

Do you think Exxon cares one bit if we pay $4.00 per gallon or $6.00 or $10.00 per gallon for gasoline? No. They'll be happy to make it as long as we use it. If there are cleaner alternatives, why not use them?

I agree that 100% reduction in emissions now is not possible without major disruptions to the world economy. But we have the technology NOW that could reduce emissions over time, if implemented correctly. Why not install emission capture devices on coal fired power plants? Is that bad?

Does anyone think that if we keep consuming resources like we are now, that earth will get better when there are 10 billion people on the planet? We need to look at solutions instead of dismissing them.

There is a natural CO2 cycle. Earth emits CO2 - volcanoes, oceans, plant decay, etc. Earth absorbs CO2 - plants, oceans, etc. Man is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, more than can be absorbed naturally. What happens to that CO2? Where does it go and how much is too much?

I don't suggest stopping all CO2 emissions or killing off a bunch of humans. We just need to have an open mind and look at the solutions that we already have. That's not scare mongering, it's being practical.

Ken Caldeira:
You said: "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."

In order to properly analyze your study and its purported findings, we would need to know the following:
1. What assumptions were made about solar activity?
2. What assumptions were made about ocean temperatures?
3. What assumptions were made about volcanic activity?
4. What assumptions were made about earth's orbit?
5. What evidence do you have that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming? If you get this one right then you will surely win the Nobel Prize for science!

Finally, are you willing to release your computer model program and code to someone like Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit for review? If not sir, then you are the bloviator.

Don't expect the people on this blog to simply take your word for the efficacy of your study. Share with us the methods you used to reach the conclusions your study claims.

After all, we have seen numerous climate models and have yet to see one that is accurate. Why should we believe you? It's not up to us to disprove your claims, it's up to you to prove them!

Sorry, I don't want to belabor the point, but the Y2K programming issue was a problem, probably a little over-hyped. What isn't hyped by the media? As a programmer working in the late 90's, I worked for a consulting company that the main focus of our work was fixing the Y2K problem. I worked a lot of hours re-programming software. We hired a lot of people and a lot of programmers were employed during that time frame. But that company no longer exists. And now I do web stuff.

Anyway, I think the public didn't hear about catastrophes from the Y2K date problem, because it was a known definable problem that could be fixed and generally was fixed, unlike Global Warming which still has't been defined enough to *fix* it or even IF we can *fix* it.

Gary B

Why not install emission capture devices on coal fired power plants?

50% increase in power costs. This cascades through every product which depends on power. What do you think 50% inflation would do to the economy? Do you think China would be willing to follow suit?

There is nothing wrong with seeking environmental solutions. Have you read Bjorn Lomborg? He points out that we can tackle the world's environmental problems much more cheaply than a futile attempt to reduce CO2 levels, and that AGW obsession is actually keeping us from doing the right thing.

Mark, Why do you have to insert your liberal political bias in your posts? Just give your opinion without it. This blog is for climate discussions, not politics.

Ken Caldiera,

Where might we find this study to read? The article lacking without how's and why's. First and foremost I am curious as to whether the values for CO2 in your model(s) are simply a guess like all the others or did you and your team actually figure out how much IR is being redirected back towards Earth from CO2 by actually conducting tests?

I did find a study with your name on it from Feb 20, 2006 that says our oceans are becoming more acidic. In fact the study boldly proclaims that a drop from 8.2 to 7.7 is expected in the next hundred years. Are you aware that over the last 250 years the pH in the oceans has dropped by .075 from 8.149 to 8.074? If this prophecy is true you should have been praying all this time rather than wasting everyone's time.

Take a moment to read up on Piltdown Man and see how presupposing the cause of an effect can lead you down a very wrong path. You and your gang of AGW-Bser's are doing great harm to science, why should I continue to allow MY money to be taken from me in order to make sure people who live off of grants can continue to do so without producing anything?

I am very interested in reading this latest study of yours on Armageddon and will offer upfront to debate you on it's merits without having read it first because I know for a fact that you have no clue if the values given to CO2 in your model(s) are even remotely correct.

Do you also beleive in Dark Matter/Energy? How much money have we wasted on looking for a particle that supposedly does not interact with "real" matter but has mass?

How much money has been wasted on climate models and "science" that do not work mainly because fluid and thermodymanics is very complicated on global scales and CO2's value is a guess? Do you care?

Are you aware of any studies conducted in arid climates that show a reduction in cooling over time to support the notion that CO2 is CAUSING the .6 K increase in temps over the last 150 years that just so happened to follow a cooling period? Has the thought ever occurred to you that a warm period that was followed by a cool period might have a warm period to follow it? Let's not forget about the cool period, that came before the Medieval Warm period, that followed a warm period.

I hope when someone with more smarts and time than me shows that CO2 cannot possibly be the culprit that you and your ilk loose your jobs and have to beg the people you stole from for food and shelter.

Sadly I have worked on Gov't contracts and know that projects and programs that loose favor are simply renamed until they can figure out how to justify spending the same money.

At a minimum it would be nice to see all your names on a Monument to commemorate the largest and most costly scientific fraud of all time. For now just keep wasting money since you are not capable of actually producing something with it.

Were you conscripted for this junk or did you sign up for it?

Regards,

Steve

Gary B:

Lots of emission capture devices have been placed on power plants here in the US.

Do you recall the acid rain hysteria of the 80's? That's why they were put on. Granted they don't remove CO2, they do remove lots of other things. A good idea but also probably more constraining than what they need to be. Thanks to it, my electricity costs nearly 3 times what it did in the past.

Ken:

Thanks for writing. Want to take me up on my bet? All you gotta do is predict the average national temp one year in advance to .1 degree C. Oh, and define how to measure that temp.

Just think of the fame and fortune you would get if you could do that. Why you'd be a gajillionaire and you'd put ACCUWEATHER and Brett out of business. I mean if you had an accurate temp prediction that far in advance, who wouldn't use your service?

Nah, I didn't think you would. Besides you know better than I that it can't be done.

But sure predicting temps in 500 years is a piece of cake.

Kipp,

Your sky-is-falling rhetoric getting old. You say those pictures do not lie, you say that their are air tight proof of AGW.

#1 in this age of technology, pictures can lie, so let us assume those pictures are not doctored. I have not seen them, but I can imagine them quite nicely. Ok I am imagining them, and no where does it show a human being the cause of any of this melting... hmm picutres do not lie, but Kipp Alpert does.

Photography is your trade, so why do you not offer some discourse on how you can look at those pictures as undeniable proof that humans are the cause of AGW. Go ahead, I am challenging you here, explain how you can compare where a glacier is in a picture and attirbute that to human caused warming.

Then I challenge you to prove that all those pictures show is melting, or a receding glacier or whatever.

I bet you can do only of those challenges.

Of course by your logic, melting ice = AGW, am I right? Ok so then logically ice devolopment = AGWisacrockofcrap

Patrick,

Got any pictures showing more ice in a later picture???

The KE in the Gulfstream far exceeds the energy needed to power the USA electrical demands and will run evey car in the USA if they were electrical cars. My "TUNNEL" idea taps into this natural resource and will do just what this article contends. Computer modeling will prove it.

Mark, Why do you have to insert your liberal political bias in your posts? Just give your opinion without it. This blog is for climate discussions, not politics.

Pot, kettle, black?

Steve Rowland,

You might want to update your knowledge with the latest information available. Referencing articles from 1997 makes you look foolish.

There was a serious problem with the satellite measurements that was discovered several years ago. After correcting the problem, it was noted that the data is quite similar to the surface record.

Yes, I know what what the McCarthyists are going to say: NASA is Communist and only fixed the satellites to brainwash the public, thus making it easier to implement their grand strategy of turning our country Communist! YAWN. The act is getting old.

Referencing articles from 1997 makes you look foolish.

Hi Mark,

Good point. All of the data prior to 1998 is clearly irrelevant, and the world has cooled nearly one degree since then.

Patrick H - A 50% increase in power costs is debatable. Do you have a link showing that? I couldn't find any. Instead of dismissing this idea, why can't we put our collective heads together and find a solution? This is the United States for crying out loud! We find solutions no matter how much it costs. What do you propose that we do? Nothing? If WE don't do something, then the governments of the world WILL do something and we won't like it - IE: Carbon taxes.

Think of this - if you put your head in a plastic bag, after a while you would die. Why? The longer you stay in the plastic bag, the less O2 you have to breathe and the more CO2 there is in the bag. Hmmm, what would happen if we do the same to earth? What happens if we emit more CO2 than can be naturally absorbed? How much CO2 is bad for life? 500ppm? 750ppm? Do we want to find out?

The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere stayed steady between 180ppm and 300ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. What could be so wrong with trying to stabilize CO2 now? We have the technology.

Patrick Cyclonebuster - Then computer model your tunnels, build your tunnels and collect your Nobel Prize!!

Mark:

Indeed it did. I stand corrected. Curious that we pay hundreds of billions to get weather satellites in orbit that have 'errors' in measurement which when 'corrected' coincide with the AGW position. Notwithstanding the case I cannot find anything on this and would like to do so. No matter what is entered, the same web site comes up. If it is NASA govt why is is still up?

I HAVE THE SOLUTION!!

Since climatologists must have made some dramatic findings in predictive modeling to easily and accurately predict climate 500 years from now, let's just apply these new concepts to the stock market. Model the stock market, pick all the winners, and use the investments to fund this big project that is expensive but not technologically impossible. Our great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren will thank us not only for the temperature being only 0.8 C warmer, but also for the vast inheritances we can pass down through the generations!

Veets:
Why should I sit here and prove that reality exists, and denial is a defense mechanism.Read the IPCC report 2007.
KIPP

Accuweather continues to post these outdated ridiculous stories in the face of common wisdom which cannot be supressed despite their hopes. FACT: We have just experianced one of the coldest years on record in both hemispheres. Reply: No, that is not true. FACT: the ice sheets are growing in both poles. And on and on and on. Man may be responsible for as much as 3% or as low as .3% of CO2 emmisions on earth. CO2 emmisions may be responsible for as much as 15% of whatever warming or cooling is occuring at any one time. This has been so for many thousands of years. CO2 emmisions react to temperature not vice-versa. Where is your report on the meeting in New York this week of many scientists who question the rush to judgement by Gore and his followers? (Reply: I guess you do not read this blog that much, since I have had a couple of posts already about the ICCC meeting in New York.) It must be disheartening to go home each day knowing that your theories are collapsing like a sand castle on the beach awaiting high tide. If I were you people at Accuweather, I'd be looking for the best way to "backpedal" and join those who are going to bring this sham down. The world government will not get our money without a fight! That's all this is about. Paul

Is there anybody who can provide a link to this mans paper .... PLEASE ????? I've looked and I cannot find one.

Patrick Henry,

You said,

I am 100% certain that mankind's recent behavior is unsustainable, but CO2 is the least of our problems. Focusing on CO2 is sheer escapism from reality.

Nature will find a way to cull the population, either through war, famine, disease or catastrophic natural events - just like it has always done.

I guess this is the time I'm more optimistic than you. I am not 100% sure that our population will be culled. Human intelligence is a force that the earth has probably (I only say probably to hedge my bets; I should say almost certainly) never seen before. If we have enough time, our technology may allow to, as Kurzweil says, transcend our biology. We would no longer be subject to things like floods or diseases or volcanos. The carrying capacity of the earth would no longer apply to us. But it will be a race: will we destroy ourselves first, or become post-human first?

I've read some info on sunspots that explains how the sun can effect the climate besides green house gasses.And I find it hard to believe the temperature has ALLways been rising,from what I've herd, It was just as hot in the 1930s-40s. But the engines in cars in the 1950s may have been cleaner but alot more people had cars.

KIPP SAYS:

Denial is a defense mechanism, used to reduce facts that are consciously intolerable.
What don't lie are photographs which I have found of two observable facts, that even a five year old would agree with. From The Anchorage Daily News
there is an article with photographs, showing Ice loss from the Arctic. This ice has a picture of the Ice now and thirty years ago. The first shows the arctic ice 30 miles from Wainright Alaska,and today it is 300 miles away.
Another group of pictures I found Was of the Glacier O'Higgins, a mass of ice ten thousand years old. The first picture shows a small pond within the glacier, and the second shot shows a lake where the glacier once existed. This is your proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming in action. You can't deny this reality anymore.
And would it not be wise to take that growth step and begin to conserve. How about carpoolng if available. Take a train,like the good old days when America was not owned by multi-national corprorations (that provide jobs for qualified people). Why do you think our middle class is shrinking. (Because they are getting wealthier!). Time to use your head, and figure out why we feel we are being screwed. And we are.

REPLY: And it's time for you to use your eyes, paly.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/02/arctic_sea_ice_update_1.html#comments

You are correct! We are being screwed! Or at least we will be once our new "President" is in office thanks to the media! And yes, ladies and germs. It is possible to make your point without going off on a large tangent!....;-D....

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

Hi Anonymous,

Optimism is a great thing, and no doubt the existence of nuclear weapons has so far prevented WWIII. This is because "The Russians love their children too." (Sting)

The problem is that all this AGW hysteria is driving the world towards nuclear proliferation - breeder reactors in particular. Some apocalyptic governments of the Middle East will use their soon to be developed nuclear weapons, because they do not highly value their own lives or the lives of their children.

We need to quit worrying about fantasy and nonsense, and start thinking about how to deal with the real threats facing us. Sadly, the current election cycle makes me realize that many Americans prefer comfortable escapism to coherent thought.

Can we all think outside the box a little bit and stop being so closed minded?

Why wouldn't we want a cleaner earth?

Imagine the planet with twice as many people. 13 billion or so.

Imagine twice as many automobiles as today.

Imagine, if you will, using earth's natural resources at an rapidly accelerating rate because there are twice as many people and more cars, homes, CD players, etc.

Then, after imagining those things, imagine doing nothing. Because it costs too much or because________insert reason here. I can't imagine doing that to my kids. But that is just me.

What is so bad about conserving natural resources and cleaning up the environment? It's not about left wing or right wing, Democrat or Republican, American or the rest of the world. It's about common sense.

Darren - yes I remember that. But, I would think that higher electricity rates would also be caused by the costs of coal, oil and natural gas rising 200% over the past 30 years. We have the technology to scrub CO2 from emissions. Look at the space program - they do it on a daily basis, otherwise all of the astronauts would die. I'm saying it's not impossible. Remember Apollo 13?

Hey Oiz - why so cynical? Are you sad that GW Bush can't make himself supreme leader and stay president for another 8 or 12 years? Just curious. No offense.

Kipp,

Your post basically said nothing. Did you read the entire IPCC report? Or did you skim over parts.

I thought you were a skeptic, thats what you said...

Does the IPCC have an agenda at all? Just curious. How are their credentials? All climate science related?

What info are they using? Where did this info come from?

What, if anything, do thse signatures on the IPCC Report have to gain from what they write?

If what they say is true, why are there past cycles showing the temperature going up and down?

Do you not believe that climate is cyclical?

If you do believe that climate is cyclical (which if you don't, you may as well stop talking) how much of your "warming" is attributed to that, and how much is attributed to humans?

What about Natural GW Steve's questions that BT could not answer?

You might want to update your knowledge with the latest information available. Referencing articles from 1997 makes you look foolish.

Yes Steve, and 5 years from now, don't dare reference an article in 2008, because that one will be out of fashion too.

Mark,

Perhaps you and Joan Rivers can team up to critique all the AGW naysayer's. "Oooohhh, look at that one, he's sooooo 1997, doesn't he know we adjusted massaged data twice in the last week alone!" "Wooooo, call the AGW police, we've got a live one!" :)

Ever wonder if the world would continue without fashion, ever wonder if it would without AGW-Bser's?

Ken,

You just pop in to whine or did your efforts to get your PhD not prepare you to defend your ability to waste money? Where can we see the full study? If you take CO2 completely out of the model do you get the same results?

Does your ego not allow you to debate because your theory is not well tested and you are likely to be wrong?

Regards,

Steve

Guys,

That last anonymous posting was me. Sorry about that.

What about Natural GW Steve's questions that BT could not answer?

I and others answered his questions about how atmospheric CO2 warms the surface of the earth numerous times -- and received nothing but tirades, rants, and insults in response.

Gosh if it were only so simple to warm the earth by breathing....or by NASCAR....

So, everyone in the south and northeast and Canada who don't want to get blasted by Margusity's proclaimed "BIG DADDY" storm Friday and Saturday breath fast and hard right now!!!

Only we can prevent blizzards!

OOP...Sorry BT just got carried away by the cause. I guess.

Say, let me know if we make a dent in it will ya?

BT,

Care to link the post where you answered even just one of my questions?

As I recall, I conceded that N2 and O2 were transparent to the IR that CO2 absorbs.

You quit the debate.

Perhaps you can cut & paste your answers?

Here goes?

How are N2 and O2 warmed in our atmosphere?

How can a trace gas that absorbs 3 narrow bands of IR at wavelengths emitted at below 300 K produce the effect that is being attributed to it? .6 K

My offer to debate you in front of your family and friends is still good. I'll invite mine too. Perhaps we can invite Ken Caldeira too if he's not too busy wasting money on bunk studies.

Regards,

Steve

Gary B, here's a link to carbon sequestration costs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
As far as the head-in-the-bag theory, our bodies would adapt to do the same work using less O2 or possibly more fauna would increase the O2 level in the atmosphere to keep the rough balance. I for one would like this to come true to see the evolutionary process in action.

Oops, I meant flora would increase the O2, not fauna!

If we eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere won't that have an effect on plant life. Since plants need CO2 for photosynthesis. And how do they plan to stop the volcanic activity since volcanos produce more green house gases than mankind will produce in their role on this planet.