Davis and Caldeira, with colleague Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal, calculated the amount of carbon dioxide expected to be released from […] energy infrastructure worldwide, and then used a global climate model to project its effect on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.
“The problem of climate change has tremendous inertia,” says Davis. “Some of this inertia relates to the natural carbon cycle, but there is also inertia in the manmade infrastructure that emits CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
After compiling data on lifetimes and emissions rates for the full range of fossil-fuel burning devices worldwide, the researchers found that that between the years 2010 to 2060 the total projected emissions would amount to about 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. To gauge the impact, they turned to the climate model. The researchers found that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would stabilize at less than 430 parts per million (ppm) and the increase of global mean temperatures since preindustrial time would be less than 1.3°C (2.3°F).
“The answer surprised us,” says Davis. “Going into this study, we thought that […] sources of CO2 emissions would be enough to push us beyond 450 ppm and 2°C warming.” In light of common benchmarks of 450 ppm and 2°C, these results indicate that the devices whose emissions will cause the worst impacts [do not exist].
It seems that the scientists are finally making climate models that have some resemblance to reality. For us climate realists, it hardly comes like a surpise that nothing we do can have any effect on the climate. Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Climate Disruption!
Non semper erit aestas.
Most excellent reporting, Baron. It was ever so helpful for you to correctly interpret those tricky science-y sounding phrases in the original source (indicated in your text by brackets) with the real meaning. While others may say that the report affirms the view that the devices which will kill us are actually the ones that haven't been built yet (to replace today's energy infrastructure as it wears out) - WE know the TRUTH. (That's thanks to blog science, of course.)
ReplyDeleteRegards,
LCarey
Oh, I get it. You're trying to be funny. Keep going - it's like riding a bike. Once you get it, it'll be easy.
ReplyDeleteThank goodness that the global warming hoax has not reached the point at which a concerted anti-anti-fossil fuel campaign can stop it!
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWe are dead serious. If you are looking for a laugh, read the comments here.
Well, give a monkey a typewriter and eventually he'll spit out some Shakespeare, that's about all I can say. Once a lamebrain, always one. Don't be fooled Baron, you're smarter'n that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with REoR - a model is a model is a model.
ReplyDeleteJust because they're now touting one that doesn't increase Algore's share portfolio doesn't mean it's any good.
No matter how carefully glued and painted, nobody is ever going to confuse an Airfix model with reality. So it is with climate models.
It's more likely this latest Trojan Horse is the thin end of the wedge, then when everyone's forgot, they'll revert to their 'scare the children' ones they've temporarily put away in the cupboard out of sight.
I think now the time has come that more and more "sceintists" will turn away from the "sceintific" "establishment" of "global warming". These people at Stanford are not very stupid, after all. Even they have realised at some point that something that does not exist or has not been built cannot possibly be a threat. I would say: welcome to the REAL world, guys!
ReplyDeleteIf the planet is warming,as the Sceintists at the IPCCC tell us, then why do I feel cold?
ReplyDeleteTake that warmists!!!!!!
Paul from Sweden