Durban climate delegation calls for cutting CO2 emmissions by more than 100%

[StreetScooby 5]

Delusional in Durban

Quote

One more proposal simply requires that rich countries commit to cutting their “greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040.” One way to achieve cuts of “more than 100 percent” might be to shut down all American industry, transport, fossil fuel power generation, and cover the landscape with carbon dioxide absorbing trees.

And Obama wants to give this people money, too...

We are all engines of karma

[skydiver604 0]

better shut down China, India and Pakistan too.

"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo

[wmw999 2,165]

Does Obama want to give this particular group money? and does he want to give them money for this project?

Or is this kind of like conflating PETA with responsible hunters who believe in single shots and not letting the animal suffer?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Does Obama want to give this particular group money? and does he want to give them money for this project?

Or is this kind of like conflating PETA with responsible hunters who believe in single shots and not letting the animal suffer?

Wendy P.

Wendy
PETA and the group he posts about are both nuts

So grouping in responsible hunters seems a bit off target

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

So maths 101 ... how can anything be cut by MORE than 100% ?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 2,456]

>So grouping in responsible hunters seems a bit off target

Which was Wendy's point.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

better shut down China, India and Pakistan too.

and all you fuckers..QUIT BREATHING!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[masterrig 1]

Quote

So maths 101 ... how can anything be cut by MORE than 100% ?

Unless, someone changed it while we slept.



Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

better shut down China, India and Pakistan too.

and all you fuckers..QUIT BREATHING!

I've been noticing... you're on a roll!


Chuck

[dks13827 3]

That will be kinda tough on the trees !

[billvon 2,456]

>That will be kinda tough on the trees !

Trees would love it. Since trees take in more CO2 than they expire, planting lots of trees would cut CO2 by more than 100% from baseline.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>That will be kinda tough on the trees !

Trees would love it. Since trees take in more CO2 than they expire, planting lots of trees would cut CO2 by more than 100% from baseline.

Ding...ding...ding...


Chuck

[kallend 1,662]

Quote

So maths 101 ... how can anything be cut by MORE than 100% ?

Easy

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So maths 101 ... how can anything be cut by MORE than 100% ?

Easy - give them a few trillion over the next decade and they'll tell you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skiskyrock 0]

As I read it the cuts are expressed as a % of 1990 levels, not a cut to a % of 1990 levels. China produced about 2 billion metric tons of CO2 in 1990, and they are somewhere around 10 billion tons today (note numbers are ballpark, I don't have the exact numbers). So if they needed to reach a target reduction of 50% based on 1990 levels, they would need to reduce emissions by 1 billion tons, or 10%.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

he cuts are expressed as a % of 1990 levels

Which is always Europe’s big ruse. As we all know, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, as well as the inefficient and grossly polluting economies of Eastern Europe. The EU set a mark for itself that it already made and showed that collapsing the economy is the easiest way to accomplish it.

It’s an economic ploy by a consortium of countries called the EU. They’d pitch a fit if the date was, oh, 1992…

All of these things are important. Why is 1990 chosen? Why does it REMAIN 1990 levels even 20 years later?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Does Obama want to give this particular group money? and does he want to give them money for this project?

My understanding is he's agreed to levy a tax in the US to fund them.

We are all engines of karma

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

So maths 101 ... how can anything be cut by MORE than 100% ?

Easy

Negatives never gave me much trouble. It was imaginary and complex numbers that gave me fits .

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

It’s an economic ploy by a consortium of countries called the EU. They’d pitch a fit if the date was, oh, 1992…

Or it might be due to the fact that IPCC first assessment report was published in 1990 and contained data up to that year, and that is the date used as the start date to calculate emission scenarios.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So maths 101 ... how can anything be cut by MORE than 100% ?

Easy

Negatives never gave me much trouble. It was imaginary and complex numbers that gave me fits .

Well since most of the numbers for cuts will be of the imaginary kind you are in trouble.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So maths 101 ... how can anything be cut by MORE than 100% ?

Easy

Negatives never gave me much trouble. It was imaginary and complex numbers that gave me fits .

Well since most of the numbers for cuts will be of the imaginary kind you are in trouble.

Piss.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kallend 1,662]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So maths 101 ... how can anything be cut by MORE than 100% ?

Easy

Negatives never gave me much trouble. It was imaginary and complex numbers that gave me fits .

Well since most of the numbers for cuts will be of the imaginary kind you are in trouble.

But your tax return will still be complex.

Be thankful they don't use quarternions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>That will be kinda tough on the trees !

Trees would love it. Since trees take in more CO2 than they expire, planting lots of trees would cut CO2 by more than 100% from baseline.

Apparently, bill, trees are bad for albedo, and thus more of them would exacerbate global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/tundra-shrubs-turn-trees-arctic-warms-181755415.html

Quote

Were the treelike shrubs to become widespread, this change could exacerbate global warming through what is known as the albedo effect, he said. When snow falls on the tundra's shrubs, it creates a continuous white blanket that reflects the sun's energy back out into space. Trees, however, rise above the snow, breaking up the white and darkening the land surface. As a result, less energy is reflected back into space and more is absorbed, resulting in warming.

And here I thought that trees actually absorb solar energy, absorb CO2 and absorb water, and processing them to create carbohydrates, which have the effect of sequestering energy and carbon and releasing oxygen.

All those years I've been studying this and I'm wrong. You are, too.

Trees are bad for global warming.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,456]

>Apparently, bill, trees are bad for albedo, and thus more of them would
>exacerbate global warming.

In places where they replace snow they are indeed. In places where they cover lower albedo materials (dirt, asphalt, water, etc) they increase albedo and thus decrease energy absorbed.

As a secondary effect, large forests transpire a lot of water. This creates clouds, which have an _extremely_ high albedo.

[lawrocket 3]

I agree with you about everything you've said. But my issue is, "Do those trees actually decrease albedo?"

It has always seemed to me that trees don't emit longwave IR. So while the overall albedo is lessened for the area, the longwave IR albedo isn't increased - which is the key problem for global warming. So increased albedo, per se, does not lead to increased warming from CO2. Rather, longwave IR causes it.

Re: transpiration. I think that's also a double edged sword. Water vapor is the single most influential greenhouse gas. If it does not create clouds, then there are going to be issues with lower atmospheric warming.

I know it's a double-edged sword. I just find myself somewhat irritated by the oversimplification.

My wife is hotter than your wife.