climaterealists's blog

Climategate is Still the Issue

http://climategate.tv/2010/11/19/climategate-is-still-the-issue/ 

James Corbett- The Corbett Report.

19 November, 2010

This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.

Sitting here now, one year later, it’s becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience’s concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.

Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.

Tags: 

Australia backs off

Current worries about the economy and our major trading partners' lack of progress towards carbon pricing may prevent the agriculture sector being covered by the emissions trading scheme in 2015 as scheduled the Government says.

Speaking at Federated Farmers National Council today, Climate Change Minister Nick Smith noted his Government had already said it will not proceed with the inclusion of agriculture and other sectors until it sees comparable progress from other countries.

The entry of the agricultural sector into the ETS has already been delayed once - from 2013 to 2015 and the Government has also increased measures to shield the sector from the full impact of the scheme once it does enter.

Talking to reporters later, Dr Smith said it was too early to say whether agriculture's entry would be delayed.

Australian Prime Minister Julian Gillard in August abandoned plans for a European-style emissions trading scheme.

Australia now has a climate committee looking at whether to proceed with an ETS, a carbon tax or a hybrid of both.

Who wants a carbon tax?

Richard Treadgold | November 15, 2010 | Climate Conversation group-

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/ 

To the Editor
Climate Conversation

14th November 2010

When the Australian PM says “we need a price on carbon”, she is just sprouting another misleading Wongism like “we must reduce carbon pollution”.

Most forms of carbon already have a price – coal, oil, gas, petrol, diesel, beef, bread, butter, diamonds and whisky all have a price (which usually includes a few taxes).

What Ms Gillard wants, but dares not say, is another tax on our usage of many carbon products.

But who wants a tax on carbon?

The Greens do. They hate humans and their farm animals, crops, coal, oil, cars, power generators and heavy industry. They would like to see the end of most mining, farming, fishing and forestry. A carbon tax will hit all of these people so the Greens support it.

ACT Welcomes News On ETS – But More Is Needed

ACT Deputy Leader and Climate Change Spokesman John Boscawen today welcomed news that Climate Change Minister Dr Nick Smith is seriously considering delaying the inclusion of agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and called on him to now revisit the provisions relating to forestry.

“Dr Smith’s indication that the inclusion of agriculture may be further delayed is a victory for ACT and for commonsense,”

New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming

'Important to get these things right', says scientist

According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them. 

In particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don't account for this at all, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently.

Bounoua and her colleagues write:

Increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.

The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2°C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C.

It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there's really no need to get in an immediate flap 

 

In particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don't account for this at all, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently.

Bounoua and her colleagues write:

Increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.

The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2°C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C.

It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there's really no need to get in an immediate flap 

To read the full article go to: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

Tags: 

More than 1000 International scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Dec 9, 2010

Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report

INTRODUCTION:

More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from 2007′s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Tags: 

Who Wants a Carbon Tax?

carbon-sense.com newsletter

16 November 2010

The Carbon Sense Coalition said today that to introduce a carbon tax would be to wage war on consumers for the benefit of vested interests.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, also accused Australian PM Gillard of deceptive advertising in her support of a carbon tax.

 “When our PM says “we need a price on carbon”, she is just sprouting another misleading Wongism like “we must reduce carbon pollution”.

National Must Open Its Eyes On ETS

Act Party media release 15 November 2010

ACT Deputy Leader and Climate Change Spokesman John Boscawen today urged the Government to open its eyes and see what New Zealanders have already begun to realise - that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) poses an enormous risk to our standard of living for absolutely no environmental benefit.

"The climate change survey released today shows more and more New Zealanders are of the view that there is no point in continuing to pour money into the ETS," Mr Boscawen said.

"Our emissions levels are miniscule compared with those of other nations, yet we’re the only country with a comprehensive ETS.  In the absence of meaningful international action, our ETS will not affect the climate - in fact, National may as well start dumping money into the ocean for all the good that its ETS will do for global weather.

"And, as I predicted, the cost of the ETS is causing public opinion to turn even further against the scheme.  While New Zealanders want action on climate change, they don’t want it to be in the form of a scheme that imposes a significant cost burden for absolutely no benefit.

The climate change scare is dying, but do our MPs notice?

Telegraph.co.uk    by Christopher Booker 

9 December 2010

The collapse of the warmist position on climate change has not impinged on politicians in Britain or Brussels, says Christopher Booker.  

Nothing more poignantly reflects the collapse of the great global warming scare than the decision of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the largest in the world, to stop trading in "carbon" – buying and selling the right of businesses to continue emitting CO2.

Tags: 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - climaterealists's blog
Error | Climate Realists

Error

The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.