2011-03-21 14:10:11The Washington Times Talks Laws of CO2




I kept mostly to pointing out that the science is behind the plaintiffs, even though I really wanted to get into the law, but that might bore people and be inappropriate anyway.  I just added it as some further reading.  I think this makes a nice adjoiner to Scott Mandia's letter.  Any good?

2011-03-21 14:57:26
Rob Painting

Maybe each point could be bolded, but other than that looks good. And yes, stay well away from discussion of the law, boooooriiiiing.

2011-03-21 20:55:47


Scott Mandia's letter states: "(For perspective, the amount of CO2 that is added to the air every day by human activities, primarily from burning fossil fuels, is equal to the amount of oil spilled by 8,000 Gulf Oil Spills per day.)"


How is an amount of CO2 equated to an amount of oil?



Production of CO2 from combustion of oil?

2011-03-21 21:12:45mandia figures
John Cook



The amount of CO2 that is emitted globally each day is equivalent to almost 8,000 Gulf oil spills each day!

So how much does a barrel of oil weigh?  From Wiki:

Texas Crude Oil Density = 873 kg / cubic meter

1 cubic meter = 264.172 gallons

1 barrel of oil = 42 gallons

42 gallons * (1 cubic meter / 264.172 gallons) = .15898 cubic meters / barrel

.15808 cubic meters / barrel * (873 kg /cubic meter) = 138.8 kg / barrel of oil

Each barrel spilled adds 138.8 Kg (0.1388 metric tons) of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.  Each day 5552 metric tons of oil are released into the Gulf.

In the past few years humans are adding CO2 at a rate of nearly 2 ppm per year which is equivalent to 15.6 Gt (billion tons) CO2 per year. 

15,600,000,000 tons CO2 per year / 365 days / 5552 metric tons oil per day = 7,698 oil spills per day.

The amount of CO2 emitted EACH DAY is comparable to almost 8,000 Gulf Oil Spills EACH DAY!

2011-03-22 00:22:08


I tweaked the formatting in a few places (bolding, italics, etc) and added a link to Scott's explanation of his oil comparison.  Thanks.

2011-03-22 00:53:48Got my thumb
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

You may wish to include a reference to the appropriate IPCC chapter on sea level rise for your point 6 in addition to the verbiage on the Weiss paper.  The Weiss paper is an impact study based upon potential 1 and 6 meter SLR, whenever and if ever they occur (but does not establish causal mechanisms & timetables like the IPCC).  Someone could rightfully call you on that & then you'd have to scramble after the act.

Best to do it up front.

Nice job!

2011-03-22 04:46:39



I updated the sea level with the latest from the Copenhagen Diagnosis.  The IPCC figures were too conservative, even for when it was printed.  It's the funny little secret that none of the skeptics seem to know about as they pronounce how ideological and extremist the IPCC is.  AFAIK, the Copenhagen numbers are now widely accepted for a possible time table.  Let me know if that looks good.  




edit:  I also changed the title

2011-03-22 05:10:29CopenZhagen ist und gut eztimate
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

Did you change the location of your post?

When I went to here:


I got this:

File not found

There is no page at this address.


Perhaps you were editing it at that time.

2011-03-22 05:19:57




oops!  I editted the file name too.

2011-03-24 05:26:01


I've done another draft.  This is ready pending any other suggestions.

New title:  "The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law"