http://icecap.us/ images/ uploads/ Hey-Nobel-Prize-Winners-Answer-Me-This.pdf

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ prometheus/ archives/ climate_change/ 001363update_on_falsificat.html#comments

I’ll take the opportunity to elaborate a bit on my previous comment. I agree we need to just start shooting for reductions whether the target is for 450ppm or perhaps a bit more or less. I would just emphasis that the cuts need to be front-loaded, and not back-loaded the way the Feds to deficit reductions. That in itself will be a revolution.

I’m betting that the science will tell us pretty conclusively within the next couple of years that we really need to be going down to zero far sooner than 2100. So if we don’t front load, it will be another couple of wasted years. (Many wishy-washy qualifiers here, I admit, but there are many uncertainties - as Mr. Revkin tells us.)

I’ll agree with you on what you wrote that we just need to reduce carbon dioxide release as a goal. I suppose those who are planning the numbers for what a Cap and Trade will look like when climatologists and other scientists give the world of what the numbers have to be are concerned about whether it’s 450 ppm, 500 ppm or whatever the number will be. I, by the way, don’t see how any of those numbers are going to be met, but there is always hope.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/ 2007/ 08/ 31/ garbage-is-forever/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/dead-heat/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/

That is, if we stabilize at 450 ppm (or higher) we risk returning the planet to conditions when it was largely ice free, when sea levels were higher by 70 meters — more than 200 feet!

Does not follow from

The key paleoclimate finding of the article:

We infer from the Cenozoic data that CO2 was the dominant Cenozoic forcing, that CO2 was only ~450 ppm when Antarctica glaciated, and that glaciation is reversible.

I believe you are missing a de in there. Small thing, but I am pretty sure you don’t want to misrepresent the Man’s Words.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html

PGosselin — I suggesst that you read “The Dicovery of Global Warming”, linked here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

so that you will no longer appear to be such an ignorant fool.

Hansen et al., March 2008,”Target CO2: Where Should Humanity
Aim?” found here:

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/

states that we need to soon reduce atmospheric CO2 from the
current 385 ppm to an initial 350 ppm for compeling reasons.
Here is an outline of a plan for doing so.

The world economy is about 67 trillion dollars (GDP).
Imposing a VAT of 1% raises then 670 billion dollars per year.
This sum is used to grow biomass, convert it to biocoal, and
sequester the biocoal in carbon landfills, every year until
the goal of 350 ppm is met.

Using Powder River Basin style earth movement, it would cost
about $16.50 per tonne to sequester the biocoal. In addition,
the biomass must be harvested, moved to the hydrothermal
carbonization facility, converted to biocoal (while generating
some process heat for electricity generation), and then the
biocoal moved to the landfill site. By conducting all these
operations in parts of the world with ample excess land and
low-cost labor (Africa) I will assume these steps can be done
for only $33.50 per tonne, under half the amount required in
the developed world. Thus the carbon capture and
sequestration net costs are assumed to be $50 per tonne of
biocoal.

I will assume, for simplicity, that the biocoal is 85% carbon.
Humans are currently adding about 8.5 gigatonnes of carbon
(GtC) to the active carbon cycle per year, mostly by burning
fossil carbon. Just to maintain the current 385 ppm of
atmospheric CO2 then requires producing and sequestering
10 gigatonnes of biocoal per year. This costs $500 billion
per year, leaving a net of $170 billion available for
producing and sequestering additional biocoal to reduce the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

To reduce the concentration to 350 ppm requires removing
about 185 GtC from the active carbon cycle. At the rate
of ian additional 3.4 gigatonnes of biocoal per year, using
the net funds available, we would remove 2.89 GtC from the
active carbon cycle each year. Assuming this is done at
a steady rate, it will require 64 years to bring about the
desired initial atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm.

About Biocoal

Popular accounts:

http://www-dw.world.de/ dw/ article/ 0,2144,2071791,00.html

http://biopact.com/ 3007/ 05/ scientists-describe-hydrothermal.html

A demonstration plant is described in the following link.

http://biopact.com/ 2007/ 08/ belgian-dutch-partnership-to-develop.html

Technical article:

M.-M. Titrisci, et al.,
Back in the Black: hydrothermal carbonization of plant
material as an effiecient chemiccal process to treat the CO_2
problem?
New Journal of Chemistry, 207, 31, 787–798 (25 references). (Linked below)

http://www.rsc.org/ delivery/ _ArticleLinking/ DisplayHTMLArticleForFree.cfm?JournalCode=NJ&Year=2007&ManuscriptID=b616045j&Iss=6

or as a .pdf file

http://www.rsc.org/ Publishing/ Journals/ NJ/ article.asp?doi=b616045j

The main point of the new paper is to use Cenozoic data to counter the criticism that the slow forcing mechanisms of the glacial-interglacial cycles are not effective in the modern context. At 35 My there was no effective ice albedo operating because the planet was largely ice free. Climate sensitivity was at ~3C. After that point, triggered by geological drawdown of CO2 via weathering > subduction outgassing, ice albedo starts to kick in, as the Antarctic ice sheet accumulates. Figs 5 and S4 are the key to understanding this. Which is the better fit - 600, 450 or 325 ppm at the 35 Ma trigger point? Hansen et al say somewhere between the 325 and 450 model seems about right, and it is hard to disagree (look also at Fig S9 for proxy alternatives). In addition, as Joe has already said, there are plenty of other non-albedo amplifiers that are likely vulnerable at 1-2C above current temperatures but plausibly “out of reach” at Holocene-type temperatures. It is not implausible to imagine flat spots where one feedback plays out before others kick in. See Lenton et al 2008 PNAS 105: 1786 for a recent discussion of some likely candidates.

Regarding the implied lag of 700 yrs between the solar trigger and CO2 feedbacks, the shorter (century to decadal scale response) is inferred on the basis that that there must have been some [unknown] period of time between initial forcing and sufficient CO2 feedback to create a net imbalance in airborne CO2 - probably on the order of centuries due to the relatively small size of the net global solar forcing (~0.25W/m2). There is now no need to await a feedback - we are already in substantial energy imbalance due to direct anthropogenic GHG forcing.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ 2008/ 03/ 13/ to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part-2/

http://icecap.us/ images/ uploads/ SmoothedMonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg

Best,

D

Roger has used 22 GCM models and has showed them to be trash modeling the temps in the tropics

I am sure RC and NASA will call a press conference to say the South pole sea ice is way above normal or that the ice is back in the North:

http://icecap.us/ images/ uploads/ NHICEMAR1508.jpg

you said: “By conducting all these operations in parts of the world with ample excess land and low-cost labor (Africa) I will assume…”
do you know the opinion of of the “low-cost labor(ers)”??? i think that they are citizens of independets nations… aren’t they??? well, they are… to put it mildly “third world human beings” and so below your first world level!!
if you think that your solution is right, why not in u.s.a.??? there are ample excess land too!!!
sorry, i found your post a bit racist and colonialist.
and if you and Dr.Hansen have found the cure for the global warming, why don’t you run for congress with your solutions as political platform??
i beg all of you perdom, i’m old an spanish speaking…

Best,

D

http://motls.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 03/ npr-nasa-oceans-slightly-cooling-since.html

The issue is the labor cost of collecting the biomass and the transportation cost of taking it to the hydrothermal carbonization facility. The labor rates in the U.S. and Western Europe are such that the price would approximately double while in Africa there are many people who would be happy to have a job which pays a steady, living wage.

I would expect a small portion of the activity in the developed countries, in those situation where the biomass is being collected anyway. Forestry wastes are an example and the demonstration project in The Netherlands uses forestry wastes to product 75,000 tonnes of biocoal per year.

Thank you for raising this point. I’ll rewrite that portion in an attempt to account for sensitivites.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

People interested are invited to post their concerns for the need for these demands, w/ emails, at:

nlc@lists.riseup.net

solidarity, love, AUTHENTICITY, and peace
Cloudy

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Its going to be a tough bird trying to convey that the last 200 years of understanding our lives, economy, etc.,,,, was ‘Wrong’.
The other issue is that when you talk about addressing this issue, you’re also talking about ‘National Security’, and do that one thing alone, it would take no less than either a miracle or catastrophe to get everyone around the globe upon the same page(like in ‘War of the Worlds’).
*I gave the Brookings Institution a scenario on how to do this(how to initiate what I call a Psychological Coup).
The point is to enlist everyone’s immediate attention, because I believe this Planet has become ‘Neuro-Pathic’, and soon things are going to spiral out of control.

Thing is, I believe the only answer going to be delivered is ‘War’(to both correct the collapsing Global Economy, and the ‘CO2′/Warming issue).

Oh… that number ‘358′ is the Gematria Number of the ‘Messiah’(quite a long story on how I came around to that number as the critical number- and I won’t go into it any longer— I tried for a full year to make this understood).
Thankyou,

Jeff

I wrote Al Gore 2 years ago with this information and have only heard back from a staffer thanking me for the tip on the mid-Atlantic ridge magnetic striping. I should go back and get my masters in Bizarre Behavior.
Enjoy the deluge.
Cheers, snydly.