Re: And the Earth warmers sobbed
- From: pausch@xxxxxxx (Paul Schlyter)
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 06:43:24 GMT
In article <Xuo9f.11163$zb5.6826@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jax <j.a.f@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Paul Schlyter" <pausch@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dk3fg4$5su$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In article <kZp8f.187070$qY1.166626@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Jax <j.a.f@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> "Paul Schlyter" <pausch@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:djsika$2uhq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>> It's wrong to say Kyoto did **NOTHING** - it did something. But I
>>>> agree with you that it did far too little -- we need to do much more
>>>> than that. And we need you to join us - after all your country is
>>>> also vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
>>>> --
>>> If Kyoto was fully implemented, what would be the expected change to
>>> global
>>> warming?
>>
>> Not much ... if we really want to do something about this, then Kyoto
>> is merely a beginning. Kyoto is already so full of compromises --
>> yet it means something because at least most nations of the world now
>> have agreed that this is a problem. And that is a start, but more is
>> required.
>>
>>> What more needs to be done to reverse it?
>>
>> To REVERSE it? You mean to lower the atmospheric CO2 abundance to
>> pre-1850 levels? Do you really want to hear about that? OK, here we
>> go: we'd need to stop almost all burning of fossil fuels, worldwide,
>> as soon as possible, preferably "yesterday". Then we'd have to wait
>> perhaps a thousand years, or maybe more (we just don't know how
>> long this would take) to let natural processes put down the CO2 to
>> pre-1850 levels. Pretty drastic, eh?
>>
>> It's not realistic to expect this to happen. So the best we can hope
>> for is a much more modest goal. Even ensuring that atmospheric CO2
>> does not rise significantly above present-day levels would require
>> drastic (and here I mean really drastic - what Kyoto suggested was
>> almost nothing in comparison) cutdowns in the world's oil and coal
>> consumption. So the best it's realistic to hope for is a rise in CO2
>> abundance which will not let the situation run completely out of hand.
>> This too will require large cutdowns in the consumption of oil and
>> coal - but they are possible if people are willing to adjust.
>
> This is what i'm trying to get an answer to. How much for how much? How
> much must each person/country decrease their oil/gas/coal consumption to 1)
> slow,
Any amount - the more, the better
> 2) stop,
100% -- not realistic
> and 3) reverse global temperature increase?
More than 100% -- impossible
> Someone must have a best guess answer. In this discussion, the problem has
> been stated, global warming, the cause has been identified, CO2, but the action
> items are missing.
>
> Peace,
> Jon
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Mars dust storm!
- Next by Date: Re: Halloween observing rampage (long, rambling)
- Previous by thread: Re: And the Earth warmers sobbed
- Next by thread: Re: And the Earth warmers sobbed
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
