UN Economist: Atmosphere could absorb at most another one trillion tons of CO2

How would the economist know? Do economists even know anything about the economy? Finally, there is already more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than there is radiation available to be absorbed. The atmosphere can hold a lot more CO2 with little (if any) warming effect.

Read more at the NYTimes.

4 thoughts on “UN Economist: Atmosphere could absorb at most another one trillion tons of CO2”

  1. Reminds me of something that happened in college. I noticed a poster in the hallway saying, “2000 economists say global warming is real.” I showed it to several classmates but none got the absurdity. Finally brought it up to the head of the economics department and after sputtering a bit he finally declared, “Well, we have something to say about how resources should be used.”

  2. Why such an ad hominem attack on this guy? He quotes the Pottsdam Institute and other credible sources for his claims. To require any commentary on a subject to only be legitimate if some expert makes the claim is EXACTLY what the warmists claim the climate skeptics do….to wit, . just SHUT UP AND LEAVE THIS TO THE EXPERTS.

    The probelm with the CAGW case is largely the contrary to fact dependence on positive water vapor feedbacks. The article in question here is IRRELEVANT therefore, because CO2 isn’t sufficient to cause a climate disaster without thiese feeedbacks. Additionally, the CAGW case fails to consider the actual cooling from additional evaporation as more CO2 IR suppression occurs. That’s my understanding. That would be my criticism of this article — it assumes the first lie — about CAGW. But once you accept the first lie, all the other lies follow LOGICALLY

    Let’s stick to relevancy.

  3. I always go to Economists for advice on Climate Science! And I go to herbal experts for discussions about metallurgy! And Climate Scientists for geological information! Because as everyone knows, citing experts leads to accusations of “skeptic!”

  4. What’s the net change year by year? And how long would it take to get a trillion tons that way? And how much comes from humans? And what actual effect will it have on weather or climate? When answered clearly, these questions remove nearly all worries about “dirty” coal and “heat-trapping carbon dioxide.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.