Sentences with phrase «done about co2»

Because of the Climategate scientists fraudulent science, and their propaganda of imminent world catastrophes if nothing was done about CO2 emissions immediately, it caused all the focus to be on a questionable, nebulous problem with an impossible political / economic solution, instead of actually focusing on real world climate and environment problems that could be solved.

David Rose, politely, courteously, agreeably shared a cup of coffee with his neighbor, nodding and consenting about how something had to be done about CO2 levels, and then quoted his coffee companion out of context and reversing the sense of his source's words in a way we know he has twice (or more) practiced on our host, and more than once on others in the past too.

Apparently Mr Hansen knows as little about the U S federal government (for which he works) as he does about CO2 being a climate driver.

Not exact matches

One person driving less, eating less factory - farmed meat, flying less, polluting less, using less air conditioning — you know things you could do — may affect little on a global CO2 scale, but maybe today, if everyone who reads this article who cares about Thoreau's legacy, who believes in self - determination, who calls him - or herself a leader, or just wants to be one, acts by his or her values...

Case 4: Global warming is NOT due to increased CO2 emissions, and we do nothing about our emissions.

The paper also does not apply to onshore CO2 storage, where scientists have raised concerns about injected CO2 causing earthquakes (ClimateWire, Nov. 5, 2013).

As technologies to capture carbon improve, some are already thinking about what we will do with all that CO2.

And then you look at a place like China, which is just now — despite it's phenomenal growth in recent decades at 9 or 10 percent per year — is just now reaching about the per capita world average on all those factors, energy consumption, wealth and CO2 emissions, and they clearly want to do more.

Volk: Well, yeah, some is going into the ocean, but as you point out, there are mysteries still there about what the land ecosystems are doing to the CO2.

Volk: Yeah and this really gets me going Steve, when I start reading in the paper that China has now surpassed the U.S. as the number one CO2 emitter, and they don't seem to be willing to do anything about it, but it's 1.2 [billion] to 1.3 billion people in China.

«Everyone agrees that something must be done to stop the rise of CO2 in the near term, and then we need to worry about excess heating of our atmosphere by energy usage in the long term,» he says.

«Those impacts don't «care» about what the CO2 concentration is.»

Until advanced coal - combustion technologies become widely available that allow CO2 to be captured and stored safely underground, the shift to coal is bad news for climate change because coal plants usually emit about twice the CO2 per kilowatt - hour of electricity that gas plants do.

The plants did just fine about 100 million years ago when CO2 levels were thirty times higher than they are today.

Because the loss of CO2 from the atmosphere is temperature sensitive (higher temperature leads to more rain and more carbonate formation) but the source of the CO2 is temperature insensitive (volcanoes do not care about the surface temperatures), the whole cycle forms a net negative feedback cycle: higher temperatures will result in cooling and lower temperatures will result in warming.

Any calculation that lumps together water vapour and CO2 is effectively doing this (and if anyone is any doubt about whether water vapour is forcing or a feedback, I'd refer them to this older post).

Actually removing the CO2 from the atmosphere is an interesting idea, but I don't really know much about it.

I could go on for hours about this but am too busy exchanging opinions with the» Slayers» so if you're interested you can get more at Professor Judith Curry's «Letter to the dragon salyers» thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers) and at Lucia Liljegrens «Do Industrial Countries Absorb CO2?»

The rest of the climate sensitivity above the about 1 degree C is tied to the obvious questions: where does the CO2 come from, and where does it go, and over what time period.

And if those who say that the recent warming doesn't say much about CO2 are right (disregarding whether they're right for the right reasons), it might be because the masking / delay is high, and they're in for a surprise.

Your point about «those who say that the recent warming has everything to do with CO2 are right» is irrelevant because they are wrong, but I don't know anyone who actually thinks that.

But what do you think about the quell fish oil named «Supercritical CO2 Triglyceride»?

It's a very serious story about man and his CO2 emitting machines and the harm they're doing to planet earth, and good casting.

Since non-domestic buildings are responsible for about 20 per cent of total UK CO2 emissions, according to leading authority on the built environment BRE, it's good PR to be seen to be doing something to improve that statistic.

The base trim doesn't get sat - nav or a powered tailgate, which seems mean, although 142g / km CO2 from the cheaper 180bhp 2.0 - litre diesel variant is about as efficient as hefty, non-hybrid SUVs get.

In any case, it was claimed above (Dan @ 162) that China wouldn't do anything about CO2.

This is about the temperature didn't seem to increase / change in last 10 ~ 15 years in relative to increase in CO2.

The biggest take home point for me is that those who want to do nothing about CO2 emissions have been using the methods in Joe's book FOR DECADES to take us to the cleaners!

I know that for us treehuggers the bigger vehicles are things that we don't even want to think about, but as long as they sell, they're a low - hanging fruit for CO2 reductions, since turning a big giant sedan or SUV into a plug - in will provide a bigger reduction in emissions in absolute numbers.

[Response: If there ever was a reason to be concerned about an ice age coming (I don't think so), then the current CO2 level (380 ppm) is clearly more than enough to prevent it.

If we didn't know about the CO2 - climate connection from physics, then no observation of a warming trend, however accurate, would by itself tell us that anthropogenic global warming is «real,» or (more importantly) that it is going to persist and probably increase.

But take a moment to think about what a doubling power series really means — it took me a while to get my head around this, and I think most people don't appreciate the magnitude of such growth — but the effect is that every 30 year period results in as much CO2 as the ENTIRE PREVIOUS HISTORY (since the exponential growth began).

CO2 doesn't recognize borders, but this study seems to be all about them.

If you check the comments in the above piece where I try to confront him, you can quickly notice that he simply makes up an imaginary 10 % uncertainty about CO2 transportation (to make it appear that we don't really know whether oceans are a source or a sink of CO2!)

Changing the balance of our atmosphere in a different direction seems almost as scary as doing nothing about the CO2.

How could they answer that when no one even knows how much of the warming is due to CO2 or methane and when there is absolutely no way to account for all of the various feedbacks (notably, of course, including the ones that they haven't thought of or don't know about)?

Even if the atmosphere doesn't turn out to be more sensitive to CO2 than feared, my plan A would include a major shift to accelerator - driven thorium electrical power plants worldwide, and replacement of gasoline - powered transportation with electrical or hydrogen or some technology I don't yet know about.

He never talks about an IR photon hitting a CO2 molecule, and what occurs when that happens — if this is the mechanism that causes heating, how does it do it?

[Response: I suspect another common confusion here: the abrupt glacial climate events (you mention the Younger Dryas, but there's also the Dansgaard - Oeschger events and Heinrich events) are probably not big changes in global mean temperature, and therefore do not need to be forced by any global mean forcing like CO2, nor tell us anything about the climate sensitivity to such a global forcing.

Are you really, really serious about allowing the build - up of CO2 to a level not seen since Antarctica first acquired its ice sheet, just on your belief, or suspicion, or hunch, contrary to what those that have actually studied these things think they know, that this «control knob» might not be doing much; just because scientists have not managed to prove, to your satisfaction, that consequences like the above are certain, rather than just very well possible?

Oh, and we've increased CO2 by 100 ppm already (it doesn't quite have the punch of the other 100 ppm because of logarithmic effects, yadda yadda, but the court can be assured we're going to warm up by about an ice age by 2100).

What does he think the world is likely to do, what CO2 concentrations would that take us to in 2100, and what kind of impacts does he expect that would bring about?

This implies that most CO2 is removed from the atmosphere within about 4 years, but it isn't, it is mostly just replaced by CO2 from natural sources, which doesn't change atmospheric concentrations.

Okay; now do some math and CO2 levels are increasing about 0.37 % every year.

Did any scientists say «don't worry about the global dimming alarmists, the CO2 we are pumping will take care of the problem»?

It appears that we would hit the magic number of 560 ppm when our species releases slightly more into CO2 the atmosphere than does mother nature, I make it about 21.5 GT per year from human sources and 21GT natural to hit 550 ppm.

My estimate is that the extra effort, on top of what it would have done on its own, is probably about 200 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

You can get about 50 times the energy out of solar cells covering the same area as a bio-reactor tank that depends on photosynthesis, so I don't think the idea that fertilizing bio-fuels with the CO2 from coal combustion makes sense.

While retaining a technical question about aviation law, the half - hour excerpt from the 75 - minute discussion did not include Mr. Branson's comments about what he said was his most important public priority — working for peace in conflict zones — and his long, and provocative, statements on carbon dioxide and climate, including his thoughts on geo - engineering, his big prize for removing CO2 from the air and the climate treaty.