The target of 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 is part of the discussion underway in Poland at COP 19. The delegates want to get a treaty in place by 2020 which all nations will sign when the Kyoto Treaty expires. The new treaty will demand two things. Reparations for the developing nations for the “damage” resulting from global warming that the developed nations are responsible for and an agreement by which CO2 emissions are dramatically reduced. (Click on charts to enlarge.)
The developed nations had agreed to supply $30 billion in the period of 2010-2012. Five nations–US, Germany, Norway, UK and Japan—gave a total of $27 billion. The desired treaty will include vast sums of money to be transferred between developed and less developed countries. There was a study done of how much money would be needed to accomplish the objective of never letting the atmospheric CO2 exceed 1 trillion tonnes and the number was $5.7 trillion. Not all of this is transfer money. Much of it would go for changes to the global energy structure.
Posted in AGW, carbon tax, China, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Kyoto, Renewable Energy
It is misinformation, largely based upon purposeful lies, that a giant conspiracy funded by Big Oil is making people skeptical of the theory of man-made global warming. Accordingly, this supposed campaign has been so good that the majority of people do not think that global warming is a significant issue. Surely that must be the explanation, they say. How else could such an insignificant number of people (skeptics) be so persuasive?
Lets assume that the premise that enough money can buy opinion is factual. If so, who is getting the money? The skeptics or the warmers?
In summary the Warmers get more than $25 billion per year. I am guessing here, but I “swag*” that the Skeptics pull in something in the range of $25 and $50 million at a maximum.
The IPCC recently completed its 5th Assessment Report (AR5). The preceding Report, AR4 was issued in 2007. The tasks given to the group that develops these reports are to “assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects and options for adaptation and mitigation.” As you can see from the tasking, these reports are not designed to determine if the warming results from natural causes but rather it has as a given that the warming results from man’s activities. AR5 seems to carry almost biblical importance to the Warmers.
Skeptics are exposing the many significant errors that are in AR5. Yet there is one topic where AR5 and the skeptics are in agreement. That area is “Extreme Weather”. Because global temperatures have not gone up for going on 17 years, the Alarmists had to come up with something new to keep the public frightened. So they began peddling Extreme Weather.
The IPCC has issued the 2013 report on global Climate change. The skeptic community has effectively challenged the IPCC primary positions. This post will provide a broad selection of those challenges for the reader to examine. Each of the 18 entries will give you the title, a brief synopsis, and the link to that document.
The IPCC failed on two major issues. Their failed to explain why global temperatures have not increased in the past 16 years despite a continued growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The second issue is that of climate sensitivity. They did say that in the past, they had overestimated climate sensitivity but did not tell us what they now believe it to be. This posting will also cover climate model performance and should the IPCC be discontinued.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, ClimateGate, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, IPCC, Sea Ice, Sea Level, solar cells
The Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has issued their 2013 report “Climate Change Reconsidered II-Physical Science”. This report, a Summary for Policy Makers (SMP), challenges the data within the IPCC’s SMP scheduled for release this month.
Let’s contrasts the two reports. The NIPCC science is empirical data based. The IPCC also includes empirical data but their methodology relies heavily on computer based
guesses projections, the scientific conclusion are revised to satisfy political objectives and the IPCC is not home to scientists that want to submit studies that contradict the message that global warming is man-made. NIPCC says this about the IPCC: “The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.” They start with a conclusion and look for studies that support the conclusion. That’s not the the scientific method.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, Ice Melt, IPCC, Sea Ice, Sea Level
The hype around the soon to be released UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) does make me a little ill. The last such report was issued in 2007 and it does not seem that the assemblers of the report have learned much in that time. It is not that they have completely ignored reality but just mostly ignored it.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, Government Revenues, Green Jobs, Interglacial periods, IPCC, United Nations
Philippines’ environmental groups destroyed a “Golden Rice” development test plot. Golden Rice is genetically modified rice that is being developed to combat vitamin A deficiency in the developing world. The Hellen Keller International organization says the around 670,000 children world-wide will die each year from vitamin A deficiency and about 350,000 will go blind from the lack of vitamin A. It is reported that one cup of Golden Rice will supply half an adult’s recommended daily intake. The International Rice Research Institute reports that: “The rice has been modified by adding extra genes that turn on the plant’s ability to produce beta-carotene, which humans can convert into vitamin A.”
NASA predicts a solar magnetic field reversal in about 3 to 4 months. When that happens, Solar Cycle 24 will have reached what is known as the cycle maximum. After that the Sunspot numbers will decrease with time. There is a possibility that a short period of none at all will happen before Cycle 25 kicks in. NASA has produced a video that discusses the mechanism and the implications of the solar magnetic field reversal. The video can be viewed by clicking here.
The July charts for Sunspots and F10.7 cm Radio flux are shown below.
Posted in AGW, Ap index, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Solar Activity, Solar Cycle 24, Solar Cycle 25, Sun, sun and climate, Sunspots
There are several theories for the cause of glacial periods–Cycles of glaciers followed by interglacial warm periods and then repeating that cycle. Of those theories, the Milankovitch Cycles theory seems to have a broad base of adherents who believe it to have the best answer that question. The Milankovitch theory has some weaknesses. So this posting remains skeptical, however, it appears that there are good reasons why it is probably the most accepted theory. That Richard Lindzen is a supporter of the theory is one of the good reasons.
The Milankovitch theory says that moving in and out of glacial periods is a result of variation in the Earth’s orbit and orientation. Three parameters—Earth’s eccentric orbit around the Sun, the planet’s axial tilt and the procession of its axis are the basis of the theory. These parameters are pretty well defined. The coincidence with certain combinations of the three parameters and the paleohistory of glacial periods is reasonably close. A posting by Doug Hoffman on his blog, the Resilient Earth “Confirmed! Orbital Cycles Control Ice Ages” is very good. I could not say it as well, so this posting will lift much from his.
From Hoffman’s posting:
Earth’s orbit goes from measurably elliptical to nearly circular in a cycle that takes around 100,000 years. Presently, Earth is in a period of low eccentricity, about 3%. This causes a seasonal change in solar energy of 7%. The difference between summer and winter is a 7% difference in the energy a hemisphere receives from the Sun. When Earth’s orbital eccentricity is at its peak (~9%), seasonal variation reaches 20-30%. Additionally, a more eccentric orbit will change the length of seasons in each hemisphere by changing the length of time between the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. (Click on the Chart to enlarge.)
Variation in Axial Obliquity, Orbital Eccentricity, and Polar Precession.NOAA.
Posted in AGW, Astronomy, CO2, Environment, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Ice Melt, Interglacial periods, Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Activity, sun and climate
The Department of Energy (DOE) projects that global energy consumption will increase 56% between 2010 and 2040 from 524 quadrillion Btus to 820 quadrillion Btus.
Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Alarmism, Domestic Energy, Electricity, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Fracking/Shale Gas, Renewable Energy, solar cells, Windpower