Powered by TypePad

« Not In This Democracy... | Main | Holding On For A Hero »

August 22, 2015




A grand illusion.

The social cost of carbon is negative; it is a benefit. A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. The greening is miraculous, presently feeding an extra billion people.


Excellent Grand illusion. PRO-LIFE.


Um, don't trees do that already? (Take carbon from the air and covert it to fine building material).


This suggests a more toxic solution to a non existent problem, no.


First, it is completely bogus science and engineering. The shear amount of production that would be necessary to take all the evil carbon would be astronomical. 10 percent of the Sarhara? Absurd. The input for these calculations must be so narrow as to be useless.

Second, the market need for such carbon fiber is based on the flimsiest of economic assumption--really none at all. Just how could this be. I imagine that the world would npt used up the same area of six inch steel 1/10 the size of the Sahara in 10 years. SO it is economically illiterate too.

Third, hat are the "carbon effect" of thi production, storage and logistics?

Fourth, what are the carbon effects of what these fibers will be used for, both in terms of fabrication and ultimate use?

So it is not even pseudo science or bad engineering; they just gussy up their ideas with climate change shibboleths and sloganeering in order to market them.

There is no scientific proof that carbon is causing any climate change at all None.

They might as well be saying that their work will keep the sky from turning paisley.


Squaredance, I'm sorry, but the SCIENCE and ECONOMICS are settled.

This bubble of catastrophic belief is a madness of the herd.

AnthroCO2 probably has a warming effect, so far indistinguishable from natural change. The effect is that small, and as I say, is beneficial.


Oh, and a great deal of government (tax) $. Kind of like tesla?

You see?

Hi, bg.


What these sorts of calculations always leave out is the energy balance. Of course they will claim to use solar power, but you still can't get around thermodynamics.


No energy needed. Solyndra will provide GREEN SOLAR PANELS. This is a win win!!!


She blinded me!!!!!


A TENTH of the Sahara desert? That's enough area to fit a very significant chunk of all human construction. So we'll have to build everything in the world, all over again.

1/10 of the Sahara = 8 Ohios. Ohio can hold all the buildings, parking lots, roads, etc, ("impervious surface area") in the lower 48.


"voltage is applied across two electrodes"

The OTHER 9/10 of the Sahara will have to be paved with solar cells....

Old Lurker

Don't know why, but I still get Popular Science.

The issue that just arrived features a "science" article based on the studies of that Nobel Winning Scientist, the Pope.

For God's sake.

So to speak.

Old Lurker

"but you still can't get around thermodynamics"

DrJ, that is exactly the line my doctor used when I asked why I can't seem to lose weight anymore...

Won't get this in the news.

The sun and the biome conspire to almost irreversibly sequester carbon dioxide. The earth, lately, has been near the lower limit of CO2 necessary to sustain plant life.

With the increased CO2 there has been a 20-30 percent increase in greening.


Actually, there is no proof at all that CO2 causes anything so far as climate goes; its increase in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is small when complete global effects are accounted for, but, more importantly, the radiant effect of this increase has been shown to be extremely small.

Moreover, it has yet to be shown that these extremely small increases have anything at all to do with climate at all.

So no, there is no scientific basis at all, and there is no proof at all that mankind is changing the climate at all.

Even the notion that we are in some long term climate change is little more than an assertion.

It is lies all the way down, and the goal is to destroy Western Civilization (and to make a few bucks on the side).

If ter get a reasonable person in the WH, one of the major focuses has to be to expose this nonsense through he bully pulpit, and finally chuck in into the dustbin.

We can start with the Pope.

And then he shut his wittle mouf.

You've heard this from me before, but I'm highly amused that Bill Clinton once called CO2 'plant food', but only once. I think he couldn't resist the dig at Al Gore.

Peak plastic.

I've said for years that the hydrocarbon bond in fossil fuels is much to lovingly formed to simply waste for the energy within it. We need those bonds for structure, to house and clothe us, and store our stuff in.

Let's see, what is easiest but least likely to be effective?

'too' lovingly. I need a new keyboard, new fingers, or a new brain.

Economists will eventually figure out what Gaia already has.

Climate always changes, long and short term. The 64 trillion dollar question is attribution, from what cause is the change? Despite the outlay of hundreds of billions of shekels, the human component is still very elusive.

We agree, the human component is not yet characterized, but I doubt it is zero. And, as I quite radically say, it can only be net beneficial.

He dallies with the Devil, here.

The Pope is a social justice warrior, misled by the alarmists. Artificially raising the price of energy is a war on the poor.

He's got it backward. Fortunately, this is one of things about which he is allowed to be fallible.


This reliance on the Pope shows that we have moved completely into the political realm--the discourse moves entirely away from all reason, logic and science into an almost hermeneutic and Gnostic mumbling of a pseudo-religious cult. That is, of course when it is not just outright propaganda and agit-prop. It is little more than post-modern mummery.

The whole Church hierarchy should be ashamed of themselves; Inadvertently, they have affirmed in their behavior all of the worse criticism of the Church heaped on it as regards science by the rationalist since the 17th century. Often this has been untrue and unfair--mere propaganda--but in this case ironically apt. They damage the Church. They damage our civilization. Given the history of the Church, not to mention its current struggles, they really should know better.

Just wait until he gets here.

Climate Change will be the big "policy" push by Obama form now until the end of his term. Sabotaging us via climate change. It will be worse than the Iran deal.
If the GOP candidates where smart they would just start exposing these lies now. But thus far there are few signs of this; we either have mincing around about the topic, or we hear "moderate" buy-in to the whole dastardly program.

The only "problem" with climate change is that it is an entire lie from beginning to end. It is highly destructive, and not just economically--this politicization of science and the corruption of just plain rational, intellectual discourse is at least as destructive as "carbon caps".

Again, we have reached the point where we have moved beyond science and reason, and into fraud and religion. It is not the Religion the Pope thinks it is. No, not at all.


It does not have to be zero. If it 1 .001 %, which seems to be its radiant effect, then the addition not climate change is in effect zero,

Look up the actual science of it thus far (try WUWT).

No, there is no rational, scientific and empirical proof at all that "carbon" contributes to Climate Change, and again, there is not even any proof that we are in some sort of long term change of climate, particularly on the up side of temperature.

Even if there is change and it is natural, the change is tiny.

Again, it is all a pact of lies.


National geographic is nearly as bad, besides skydragon acolytes it has truly crazy perspectives like that rehabilitation of nero


NG is so left wing now it is not work picking up, even for the photographs alone. Too bad really...great photographers.


If it 1 .001 % = If it is .001 %

In fact you are right, I'm an ignorant newbie.  Scratching the surface of the complexity.

Heh, what is up with this WUWT?

I believe the sensitivity of the globe's temperature to CO2 is around 1 degree C/doubling of CO2 concentration, and that is the no feedback figure. We are not likely to be able to more than quadruple the atmospheric CO2 conc., so total man-made temperature rise will be limited to around 2 degrees C.

The sensitivity is subject to further discovery about feedbacks. Right now the climate models seem to triple the positive feedback from water vapour. They are tragically wrong, and there is political pressure to not correct them.

Warming will not effect the tropics, much, which are already limited. The growing area will be extended poleward with warming allowing more people to be sustained. There will be some regional losers with warming, but overall it is inevitably net beneficial.

Kiddoes, it's the clouds.

Far more destructive to human society than any warming we can do.

The history of the Holocene has been a long term slow temperature drop. The Little Ice Age was the coldest portion of it, just a few hundred years ago. We are at half precession, now, in the Milankovitch thingie, and at some, some say great, risk of imminent glaciation.

Heh, for perusing denialist sites.

I almost completely agree with your 1:33, squaredance. You are pretty aware.


Here is a sample, and I got this in about 7 seconds of googling.

The money quote:

Presently all one can say about climate sensitivity is that if there is such a thing we cannot measure the signal to CO2 over and above the noise of natural variation using our best temperature measuring devices. this may suggest that climate sensitivity is very low, however, I consider that there are wide error bounds to the various temperature data sets and given these wide error bounds, it is conceivable that climate sensitivity could be quite large (may be even as large as 1degC per doubling).

But as matters presently stand one is forced to conclude that there is no firm evidence (ie., evidence that withstands ordinary scientific rigour) that suggests that in real world conditions of Earth’s atmoosphere that CO2 does anything to control temperature such that it is likely that climate sensitivity, if any at all, is modest to non existent.

So no, your assertion of "the sensitivity of the globe's temperature to CO2 is around 1 degree C/doubling of CO2 concentration" is in fact no more than an assertion, and has not thus far been empirically proved, nor has the whole "theory" of "climate sensitivity" itself been established with any of rigor we would expect out of Physics or Chemistry.

The Climate people act like their abstractions like "sensitivity" are rigor scientific laws that have been proven on the order of the physical Laws of Thermodynamics.

They have not.


Hope Trump takes on the warmistas..'cause last night I heard him take on the MFM.

Breathing together.

By the way, I really like 'pact of lies'. Inadvertent, sure, but wonderful.

Don't you believe in blankets, heh?

Sure it's an assertion, a belief, my opinion.


We have so much smoke hanging in the air over our valley..days of it..that our micro climate is cooling..a lot.


#$%@ spell checker, but yes, it is both a ack and pact.



I feel your discomfort. This year we have had only a few days with smoke from fires. Last year was awful.

But the fire season still is young!

Man Tran

Just as I read Glasater's note about the smoke, I smelled it here. Then I looked out to see a wide swath of high altitude smoke drifting this way. We normally have westerlies to keep it heading East.


Well if we're going to do something we better do it quick because CNN says we only have 100 days to save the world.


DrJ and Man Tran,

Yesterday there was a little wind to help clear the air. Today is still and the air is thick with smoke. Even when we had a local wildfire not too long ago it wasn't this bad.

It's a very sad story in the North part of our state for fire. The powers that be are making a call to the public to come and help fight fires.



Obviously we need to figure out a central location for a wild JOM blowout party 99 days from now.u

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Judging by the comments at that CNN article they're not convincing too many.
OTOH, we can be sure Barry will do his best to give away the store and harm us as much as possible as penance for our evil ways.


Isn't that what trees do?

The comments to this entry are closed.