A
AntalKalnoky
Guest
I’m not going to waste any more of my Valuable time with your senseless wall of opposite of reality Unsupportable Ad Homminems, Kimmie:HERE IS THE MATH YOU NEED to prove Kayoto / ANY Cap and Trade will mitigate any climate changes.
This will show you “Impact” results.
I will use IPCC’s own numbers. Which support man is the ONLY Driver of climate - a premise we know to be a lie.
First and foremost - Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate.
BUT say, I agree with you that CO2 drives climate AND we wanted to 'Mitigate" just 1C by reducing CO2. Here is what is required. That MAGIC number is 1,767,250.
And here is how we get that number: How much CO2 emissions are required to change the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1 part per million ppm ],
Then we’ll figure out how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Then, we’ll have our answer.
Now we have what we need. It takes 14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 1 ppm AND it takes 125 ppm to raise the global temperature 1ºC. So multiplying 14,138mmt/pmm by 125ppm /ºC gives us 1,767,250mmt /ºC.
Now, let’s apply this: Using IPCC numbers, again.
In the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill considered by Congress,
CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005.
In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt,
So 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmt CO2.
4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year.
In other words, even if the ENTIRE United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of LESS than THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a ºC per year.
A number that is scientifically meaningless.
Of course, this is assuming CO2 is Climate Changes Driver…ignoring all other Natiural drivers, As AGW does. We know that to ignoreall other Natural drivers, we are premising a lie.
Now…Why would there be such a dramatic push for us to REDUCE THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a C…UNLESS, someone was making a killing…AND using AGW trying to scare us ??
You are welcome to test my math
Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if a) Australia alone and b) the whole world cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions?
Answer a). Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2 concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2 concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in 2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…
So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years.
So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57% of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. Your estimate of a thousandth of a degree was a 20-fold exaggeration – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that, of course.
Answer b) . We do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:
2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7 ln(412-0.55)/412] < 0.004 Celsius, or less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions.
Quote:A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled.
PS: The USA isn’t the only industrial Nation that has backed away from Cap and Trade Schemes Koyoto ]
- (1) ** What Connection have you with the Global Warming is Phony Clique, Kimmie??**
- (2) The IPPSC has never been refuted, Nor The entire World of Science HARD DATA been,including pure Air Samples going back 60 Million Years (Antarctic frozen Air Bubbles) It’s good to know About Science and Data before trying to attack them.
Live in Jesus, not self-serving to Biggest Money false hype, Kimmie. This is a Catholic Forum, not a place for big economic interests sales jobs of falsehoods Antal
:tiphat
