USA’s top Climate Change Expert Lied

[DodgyAgent]

Where's my Millenium Falcon!

Send me £10,000,000 for the deposit:

Bank of Nigeria
account number 0000000001
Sort code 11 11 11

Your Falcon will arrive "recorded delivery" on April 1st 2014

[pjclarke]

It should not be hard for scientists to work how to execute the solution.

Especially with all the billions we're told goes into the gravy train, odd that nobody else has thought about what we figured out on a wet Friday morning.

Hmmmm, or just maybe photosynthesis is not a magic bullet? Maybe it is pretty much carbon-neutral? A tree, for example, is a net absorber while it is alive, but the stored carbon degrades back to CO2 when it dies and rots, or is burnt. This is why Freeman Dyson's magic trees require genetic modifcation to (somehow) make them carbon fixers.

Historically, the carbon budget was balanced. Carbon flowed between the three main short term stores, the biosphere, the atmosphere and the oceans and the long term stores - carboniferous rocks and fossil fuels pretty much in equilibrium. What we've done is short-circuit the cycle by digging up the coal and oil and chucking the CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact something like a half of the excess has been absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic, and to a lesser extent by increased production in the biosphere. But we'd need a helluva lot more plants of a species not yet known to science to make a difference ...

[BlasterBates]

Especially with all the billions we're told goes into the gravy train, odd that nobody else has thought about what we figured out on a wet Friday morning.

Hmmmm, or just maybe photosynthesis is not a magic bullet? Maybe it is pretty much carbon-neutral? A tree, for example, is a net absorber while it is alive, but the stored carbon degrades back to CO2 when it dies and rots, or is burnt. This is why Freeman Dyson's magic trees require genetic modifcation to (somehow) make them carbon fixers.

Historically, the carbon budget was balanced. Carbon flowed between the three main short term stores, the biosphere, the atmosphere and the oceans and the long term stores - carboniferous rocks and fossil fuels pretty much in equilibrium. What we've done is short-circuit the cycle by digging up the coal and oil and chucking the CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact something like a half of the excess has been absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic, and to a lesser extent by increased production in the biosphere. But we'd need a helluva lot more plants of a species not yet known to science to make a difference ...

Since you came on this forum several years ago, the temperatures have dropped slightly (albeit very slightly), the global sea ice has expanded , there hasn't been single hurricane that made landfall in the US, and the perma-drought in Australia has disappeared, and it now regularly snows in Winter all over the Northern Hemisphere.

Somehow I'm not afraid.

[pjclarke]

And since you came on this forum several years ago, the Arctic sea ice cap at minimum has diminished by around 10%, we've had hurricanes Katrina and Sandy and the Phillipines typhoon, Australia experienced its 'Angry Summer' - after the warmest 12 month period on record ending in September this year, snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere has increased as Judith Curry et al predicted would happen as the Arctic ice disappears, the 2012/2013 drought in the US cost them $150bn, or 1% of GDP and November, globally was the warmest November on record.

FTFY. I don't want anyone to be afraid, even 'better informed' is a stretch ...

[EternalOptimist]

well, you might not want anyone to be afraid

but these people thought it was a good idea to frighten the children

[DodgyAgent]

Especially with all the billions we're told goes into the gravy train, odd that nobody else has thought about what we figured out on a wet Friday morning.

Hmmmm, or just maybe photosynthesis is not a magic bullet? Maybe it is pretty much carbon-neutral? A tree, for example, is a net absorber while it is alive, but the stored carbon degrades back to CO2 when it dies and rots, or is burnt. This is why Freeman Dyson's magic trees require genetic modifcation to (somehow) make them carbon fixers.

Historically, the carbon budget was balanced. Carbon flowed between the three main short term stores, the biosphere, the atmosphere and the oceans and the long term stores - carboniferous rocks and fossil fuels pretty much in equilibrium. What we've done is short-circuit the cycle by digging up the coal and oil and chucking the CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact something like a half of the excess has been absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic, and to a lesser extent by increased production in the biosphere. But we'd need a helluva lot more plants of a species not yet known to science to make a difference ...

If you want to be exact, the total biomass on earth is estimated to be 2000 billion tons of carbon equivalent.

All the carbon in this biomass was once in the atmosphere and was drawn out due to photosynthesis and stored in living organisms, plant and animal.

Today fire wood and the fossil coal and petroleum are being extracted and burnt, releasing the Carbon back into the atmosphere.

World Coal production is 6,743 Million tons per annum.
Crude Petroleum production is 30,660 Million barrels per annum
Burning these results leads to a release of about 9 Billion tons of Carbon.

Thus gross anthropogenic CO2 emissions are just 9% of absorption by Photosynthesis. (9 billion / 105 billion tons C)

So we need to increase the photosynthesis activity at least tenfold.

Unfortunately for people like you scientists are now quantifying what is needed to solve the problem, so scaremongers such as yourself are now having your "statistics" put into context. When you say things like "But we'd need a helluva lot more plants of a species not yet known to science to make a difference" you are actually saying "there no technology solution so people do as we tell you if you do not want to die from CC"

As I have said the last thing you people want is a solution.

[DodgyAgent]

well, you might not want anyone to be afraid

but these people thought it was a good idea to frighten the children

Fear is their oxygen. It is what manipulates us into giving our hard earned income over to the global warming agenda. fera is what convinces us that paying thousands of scientists to analyse the problem is worthwhile. They have managed to instil fear by linking every piece of violent climatic activity to "man made" climate change even though there is no proof. The problem they now have is that once science has worked out the scale of the problem and the chemical reactions that need to take place to reverse or correct the damage these people are of no use to society.

It is a bit like a computer system that goes wrong. The management panic, the IT head demands more money to solve the problem without having any idea of what needs to done. The analyst comes in and finds the problem, produces the specification of the corrective procedures, quantifies the cost and the problem is under control. In the meantime they sack the head of IT as all he was doing was spreading panic about the problem

[Old Greg]

well, you might not want anyone to be afraid

but these people thought it was a good idea to frighten the children

You thought it was a good idea to say that Hamsen claimed it would be 20 degrees hotter by 2025.

[EternalOptimist]

You thought it was a good idea to say that Hamsen claimed it would be 20 degrees hotter by 2025.

i did. he did

[DodgyAgent]

Is this PJ Clarke's boss?

World Enemy No. 1 _ Maurice Strong? | Asylum Watch