|2011-10-28 11:24:34||"Shut down the planet for 33 years to save one degree Fahrenheit"|
I found this video today of the Viscount on Glenn Beck in October of 2009. He uses an argument I haven't seen directly rebutted anywhere, so I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. Here it is in a nutshell.
 The gain of 468 ppm is because Monckton uses 836 ppm in 2100 from the A2 projection and subtracts 368 ppm in 2000. Discussion of shenanigans with the trend lines he fits to these points can be found here, but that's probably not relevant for this.
 30Gt/y / 2ppm/y = 15Gt/ppm. And then, get this, 468 ppm * 15Gt/y/ppm = 7.02Tt. Finally, 7Tt / 7°F = 1Tt/°F
 1000Gt / 30Gt/y = 33y
So off the top of my head, I can see a few problems here:
That's what I've got, and presumably it adds up to the whole equation being bunk. But I wanted to ask about it here, to see if I'm missing anything else, and also ask if this argument (such as it is) deserves a response. Not sure how popular it is, but I have see it in this video and now on several other fora while researching the video. So it _is_ (or at least was) being used by some people.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Yeah, the linear assumption is wrong. This is really dumb, because the IPCC already shows the temp change for various emissions scenarios, i.e. Scenario B1 is nearly 2°C less warming than Scenario A2 by 2100, and doesn't call for shutting down the global economy. As I recall, Scenario B2 calls for 1.3 to 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 emissions by 2050. Keeping the warming below 2°C, which is 2°C less than Scenario A2, requires limiting emissions to about 1 trillion tons of CO2 by 2050 (see my post on The Critical Decade). Scenario A2 is about 2 trillion tons by 2050. So it's actually only a 1 trillion ton reduction to cut 2°C. And of course there are ways to achieve that reduction without shutting the economy down, because we're still allowed 1 trillion tons between 2000 and 2050.