4 Comments

1. GW says:
   April 1, 2012 at 12:00 am

   I just read the abstract for a peer reviewed paper that took the position that it has been the growth in our atmospheric CO2 that has allowed agricultural yield to keep up with our growing population since the dawn of the industrial age and that increasing CO2 will be key to increasing yields to meet population growth into the future. The increased CO2 apparently allows for plants to make much more efficient use of water.

   So when we find out, a decade from now, as the next little ice age kicks in and agriculture yields begin to become a crisis, just who is that we should lynch. I say we lynch Kuipers, if for nothing else than its symbolic value.
2. Ian B says:
   April 1, 2012 at 5:16 am

   And that will save exactly HOW much atmospheric CO2

   If anyone can come up with a figure, we’ll have something to aim at compensating for. I just said over at Worstall’s, I’m a bit embarrassed on this most special day of the year, because I actually like compact fluorescents so I use them everywhere and haven’t got any carbon guzzlers to burn.

   But I can light my hurricane lamps if that’ll help, they’re nice and carbon based.
3. CountingCats says:
   April 1, 2012 at 7:28 am

   Ian,

   The point is, the bloke is in orbit. Nothing he does, nothing at all, results in an atmospheric effect.
4. Ian B says:
   April 1, 2012 at 8:01 am

   Well, presumably he imports his light bulbs from Earth, so getting them into orbit would use a lot of energy, I would have thought, so an hour of space station light bulbs probably has quite a big terrestrial carbon footprint, doesn’t it?