Look atthese great headlines and subheadlines: Earth's status beyond dire
Best case? Try to ease worst fallout of warming
Alan Zarembo / Los Angeles Times
Everybody in the United States could trade their cars for bicycles.
The Chinese could close all their factories.
Europe could give up electricity and return to the age of the lantern.
But all those steps together would not come close to stopping global warming.
Ok, so it won't help so lets quit worrying about it unless these "expert" truly propose taking these drastic measures, and attendant consequences.
A landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released last week warned that there is so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that even if concentrations could be held at current levels, the effects would continue for centuries.
There is hope. The report notes that a concerted world effort could stave off the more dire consequences of global warming, such as widespread flooding, drought and extreme weather.
To reach the ultimate goal, however, of eliminating the threat of global warming would require radical action.
Stabilizing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide -- the primary contributor to global warming -- would require reducing CO2 emissions 70 percent to 80 percent, said Richard Somerville, a theoretical meteorologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego.
Such a reduction would bring emissions into equilibrium with the planet's natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The last time the planet was in balance was more than 150 years ago, before the widespread use of coal and steam engines.
What would it take to bring that kind of reduction?
"All truck, all trains, all airplanes, cars, motorcycles and boats in the United States -- that's 7.3 percent of global emissions," said Gregg Marland, a fossil fuel pollution expert at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
Scrapping all fossil fuel-powered electricity plants worldwide and replacing them with windmills, solar panels and nuclear power plants would make a serious dent in the problem -- "a 39 percent reduction globally," Marland said.
Of course, that calculation doesn't include all the fossil fuels that would have to be burned to build the green facilities, he said.
Given the scale of the problem, experts said there is no realistic way to lower the concentration of atmospheric carbon.
In fact, Robert Socolow, a carbon mitigation expert at Princeton University, said that even if the entire world stopped burning fossil fuels, it would take several hundred years for carbon levels to approach those found before the Industrial Revolution.
So the Global Warming theorists's goal from this seems to be getting CO2 emissions down to below the Industrial revolution period - i.e. to eliminate Industrialization and have us go back to pre-industrialized society and all of its wonderful associations such as disease, lousy standards of living and peasants living in hovels.
No. Thanks.
Such hysterics and proposed costs far outweigh any benefit to stop the very marginal increase in the earth's temperature that is caused by man-made CO2.
Never mind that the Global warming theory still can't explain and account for the Medieval Warming period or the little ice age, both of which occurred before the industrial era, when they go over the top predicting doom and the only solution is wholesale de-industrialization, you can see their real goals, and the anti-human and anti-western aim of their theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment