Carbon Emissions: A Useful Primer

When political candidates start throwing out grandiose statistics on how they will completely transform the American economy, I get a little wary. Here is an insightful piece on why:

Begin with the current inventory of carbon dioxide emissions – CO2 being the principal greenhouse gas generated almost entirely by energy use. According to the Department of Energy's most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050.

Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.

It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934459094348617.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Now just where in hell has all that Global Warming CO2 been these past few days?

Here I wasa thinking it was Springtime heating up time but my furnace has had to be "cycling" to keep my ole arse warm.

Well now, where ever that CO2 went, ......... its supposed to be back here in Burnsville in "full force" on Thursday.

I know because the Ch.8 Weather man was just saying it will be a high of 60 today ........ and a high of 80 on Thursday.


.

PS: Randall, I wasa just thinking ………. of a “sure fire” honest-to-goodness experiment ……. to prove or disprove the “claim” that: an increase in atmospheric CO2 acts like a “greenhouse gas” causing an increase in global temperatures.

Setup experiment:
To conduct this experiment one must first construct four (4) identical clear glass or plastic spheres of say 10 feet diameter, mounted on a support rod or stand of two (2) feet in height. Preferably, 1 to 2 mill or less thick plastic would be best. (aka: a balloon)

Label said spheres as A, B, C and D.

Inside each of these spheres attach a vertical “support string” from the apex (top to bottom), ….. on which, place thermocouples (or whatever temperature sensor works best) from the top to the bottom at one (1) foot increments, ….. with all sensors having a “connection”, either physical or rf, to a recording device .

Conduct experiment:

Based on weather forecast, choose an anticipated ……. quiet, windless, cloudless high pressure day, ……. and two (2) hours before Sun-up, ….. place spheres A and B at 10 feet from each other somewhere in downtown Charleston where they will receive equal Sunlight, ………. and place spheres C and D likewise somewhere outside of Charleston far away from any roads, buildings or other man-made objects.

Next, fill spheres A and C with “local” air containing 370 ppm CO2 (0.037 %) …….. and fill spheres B and D with air containing 2% CO2. Thus, you will have two spheres at each location with one containing “current” CO2 concentrations of 0.037% and the other containing 2.000% CO2 concentration.

Now, at 1 hour before Sun-up, the internal temperatures of each pair of spheres should be the same and thus the “temperature recorders” should be activated ……… and at 10 minute intervals for the next 24 hours …….. all “sensor data” is to be logged via sphere #/sensor #.

Analyze data
Take the recorded data, ….. analyze it, scrutinize it, graph it and plot it, ………. and if CO2 is in fact a “greenhouse effect” causing gas, ………. said data will prove it ...... in that there is 54 times more CO2 in one sphere than in the other.

And "no", I am not going to conduct that experiment, ....... but maybe Al Gore will.

.

HA, so there is actually NO REASON to be conducting the experiment I outlined above.

That doesn't surprise me any.

Can global warming’s vested interests close the deal on greenhouse gas regulation before the public wises up to their scam?

A new study indicates alarmist concern and a need to explain away the lack of actual global warming. Researchers belonging to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported in Nature (May 1) that after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, "global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations … temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature. Although the result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for manmade global warming, it’s not really surprising since the notion of manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353844,00.html

.