|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Aug 30, 2011 10:03:21 GMT 1
If you are suddenly becoming more moderate what proportion of the purported 0.7oC global temperature rise over the last century do YOU allocate to other causes? And could you have a stab at telling us what those other causes are, please? Orbital changes and solar activity affect the temperature, but over the last few decades the effect is at least an order of magnitude less than the increased greenhouse effect. Volcanic activity and El Nino produce short-term variations but they do not have a long term effect. Sulphate emissions have slowed down the warming recently, as they did mid-20th century, but this is also a short-term effect as sulphates only last a few years in the atmosphere. The Chinese and others enjoy smog as much as we do, so it is only a matter of time before they clean-up their act. |
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Aug 30, 2011 10:08:00 GMT 1
And when you have done that perhaps you could consider the totally evidenceless myth of climate "sensitivity", i.e. water vapour amplification of the supposed anthropogenic CO2-induced warming signal. A 1 degree increase in temperature allows air to hold 7% more water vapour. Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. Which part of this is "evidenceless"? |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Aug 30, 2011 13:09:00 GMT 1
And when you have done that perhaps you could consider the totally evidenceless myth of climate "sensitivity", i.e. water vapour amplification of the supposed anthropogenic CO2-induced warming signal. A 1 degree increase in temperature allows air to hold 7% more water vapour. Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. Which part of this is "evidenceless"? Aw, bless - still worrying about CAGW...so last year. Possibly you could explain why there hasn't been any warming since 1995 and we've suffered four horribly cold years in the UK? Possibly your suffering from this: wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/29/climate-change-causes-mental-illness/Or more likely you're just a socialist using this myth to further your miserable ideology... |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 30, 2011 13:43:39 GMT 1
"A 1 degree increase in temperature allows air to hold 7% more water vapour. Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. Which part of this is "evidenceless"? "
"1 degree increase in temperature allows air to hold 7% more water vapour."
It allows, but not necessarily, and 7% of what?
"Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas."
My ignorance of the effects of water vapour precludes any argument by me at the moment, but my initial reaction was incredulity at the 'turnaround'. Is 'Water Vapour' to become the 'new CO2' with curbs on making tea etc.
" Which part of this is "evidenceless"? "
All of it. No evidence presented, just a few phrases.
StuartG
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 30, 2011 17:04:22 GMT 1
So, Eamonn, not willing to make a stab at telling us what proportion of the 0.7oC per century is due to anthropogenic CO2, how much is due to Urban Heat Island effect and how much to other "natural" causes like clouds and solar effects and "internal forcings like ENSO ? And is CO2 worth the angst you devote to it? You are all humbug, ol' pal. Water vapour is indeed the most powerful greenhouse gas but you won't find it anywhere on the IPCC forcings diagram. Why? Because it would make nonsense of the other radiative forcings so it is being held in reserve merely as an "amplifier" of the pitiful purported CO2 "forcing".  |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 16, 2011 18:48:40 GMT 1
Obama Delays CO2 Regulations IndefinitelyThe Environmental Protection Agency is again delaying a plan to curb greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, saying it needs more time to propose the rule. The move comes amid intense pushback from business groups and Republican lawmakers who complain a recent slate of EPA proposals are chilling business investment and hindering the economic recovery. Late last month, the White House forced the EPA to abandon an air-pollution rule that business groups said would kill millions of jobs. “I am very pleased by today’s announcement that one of EPA’s most economically damaging rules will be delayed,” Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe said in a statement, adding that Republicans would work to block other EPA rules from coming into effect. –The Wall Street Journal, 15 September 2011 More here wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/16/newsbytes-obamaepa-put-co2-regulation-on-hold/#more-47421
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 16, 2011 20:27:21 GMT 1
The Republican party is very anti-science, to judge by its presidential hopefuls. Anti-evolution, Anti-vax, Anti-everything. I wonder if they regard the record temperatures in Texas (and not by trivial amounts, by 3F!) and the associated drought as economically damaging?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 16, 2011 22:02:48 GMT 1
Personally I don't give a toss for political parties and whether Eamonn claims they are "anti-science" or "pro-science" (what a bozo!)
If a point of view is correct and well grounded in fact it does not matter what the political beliefs of the holder are.
The test of party political allegiance is a shortcut for inadequate and lazy people who are unfit to judge matters on any other basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 22, 2011 9:40:16 GMT 1
CO2 emissions still going upPosted on September 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts  CO2 per capita - Image via Wikipedia From the European Commission Joint Research Centre Steep increase in global CO2 emissions despite reductions by industrialized countriesGlobal emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main cause of global warming – increased by 45 % between 1990 and 2010, and reached an all-time high of 33 billion tonnes in 2010. Increased energy efficiency, nuclear energy and the growing contribution of renewable energy are not compensating for the globally increasing demand for power and transport, which is strongest in developing countries. This increase took place despite emission reductions in industrialised countries during the same period. Even though different countries show widely variable emission trends, industrialised countries are likely to meet the collective Kyoto target of a 5.2 % reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 as a group, partly thanks to large emission reductions from economies in transition in the early nineties and more recent reductions due to the 2008-2009 recession. These figures were published today in the report “Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions,” prepared by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. The report, which is based on recent results from the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) and latest statistics for energy use and other activities, shows large national differences between industrialised countries. Over the period 1990-2010, in the EU-27 and Russia CO2 emissions decreased by 7% and 28% respectively, while the USA’s emissions increased by 5% and the Japanese emissions remained more or less constant. The industrialised countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (so called ‘ratifying Annex 1 countries’) and the USA, in 1990 caused about two-thirds of global CO2 emissions. Their share of global emissions has now fallen to less than half the global total. Continued growth in the developing countries and emerging economies and economic recovery by the industrialised countries are the main reasons for a record breaking 5.8% increase in global CO2 emissions between 2009 and 2010. Most major economies contributed to this increase, led by China, USA, India and EU-27 with increases of 10%, 4%, 9% and 3% respectively. The increase is significant even when compared to 2008, when global CO2 emissions were at their highest before the global financial crisis. It can be noted that in EU-27, CO2 emissions remain lower in absolute terms than they were before the crisis (4.0 billion tonnes in 2010 as compared to 4.2 billion tonnes in 2007). At present, the USA emits 16.9 tonnes CO2 per capita per year, over twice as much as the EU-27 with 8.1 tonnes. By comparison, Chinese per capita CO2 emissions of 6.8 tonnes are still below the EU-27 average, but now equal those of Italy. It should be noted that the average figures for China and EU-27 hide significant regional differences. Long term global growth in CO2 emissions continues to be driven by power generation and road transport, both in industrial and developing countries. Globally, they account for about 40% and 15% respectively of the current total and both have consistent long-term annual growth rates of between 2.5% and 5%. Throughout the Kyoto Protocol period, industrialised countries have made efforts to change their energy sources mix. Between 1990 and 2010 they reduced their dependence on coal (from 25% to 20% of total energy production) and oil (from 38% to 36.5%), and shifted towards natural gas (which increased from 23% to 27 %), nuclear energy (from 8% to 9%) and renewable energy (from 6.5% to 8%). In addition they made progress in energy savings, for example by insulation of buildings, more energy-efficient end-use devices and higher fuel efficiencies. The report shows that the current efforts to change the mix of energy sources cannot yet compensate for the ever increasing global demand for power and transport. This needs to be considered in future years in all efforts to mitigate the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions, as desired by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Bali Action Plan and the Cancún agreements. more here wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/21/kyoto-fail-co2-emissions-still-going-up/#more-47853
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 22, 2011 11:42:02 GMT 1
Where do they get these CO2 figures from? They are not average, they are what some-body [eg. IPCC] has decided are average. They may well be higher, I don't know, and these 'bodies' don't know either. Is there an equivalent O2 loss? Are we running out of oxygen?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 22, 2011 11:55:29 GMT 1
The map just shows estimated per capita fossil fuel emissions, Stu. That is why Australia is painted red (high per capita) even though it only has a tiny population and only emits about 1.4% of total global anthroppogenic CO2.
China comes out green (lower per capita) because it has a massive population. China is, in fact, by quite a large margin now, the biggest emitter of fossil fuel CO2. But maps like this appeal to those with a grudge against the "greedy" West.
As for your general question "Where do they get these CO2 figures from?" it's a very good one. Is the product of plant respiration, soil emissions and ocean outgassing included in the total?
The "anti-science" (as pal Eamonn would call it) assumptions of the bureaucrat/Environmentalists who produce these documents are incredible!
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 22, 2011 12:24:05 GMT 1
MM, I think I've discovered the culprit! It's EDGAR who dunnit. Here's one of his reports... edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdfand his main page... "The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) provides global past and present day anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants by country and on spatial grid. The current development of EDGAR is a joint project of the European Commission JRC Joint Research Centre and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)." edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php"Is the product of plant respiration, soil emissions and ocean outgassing included in the total?" Sorry Madam, next department along the corridor... |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2011 15:56:42 GMT 1
"In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur. “ from How we measure background CO2 levels on Mauna Loa. www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.htmlBloody MARvelous! So even at Mauna Loa, out in the middle of the ocean, the CO2 is not "well mixed" and most of the data has to be junked! Over land CO2 concentration is not even permitted to be measured for averaging purposes! Why? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 20, 2011 1:45:33 GMT 1
Carbon capture scrapped in the UK, “…descended into farce” Posted on October 19, 2011 by Anthony Watts All they needed was unlimited money and it would have worked…"If there was a completely unlimited resource then we might have been able to surmount the technical problems" says Huhne. BBC article www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-15371258-------- Hurrah - light dawns. Cost-benefit analysis, anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 20, 2011 1:47:45 GMT 1
kwik at WUWT commented wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/19/carbon-capture-scrapped-in-the-uk-descended-into-farce/#comment-772024October 19, 2011 at 1:38 pm Yes, we dont hear much about that HUGE project in Norway lately. At Mongstad.
You wouldnt belive how much money they have wasted on it already.
The prime minister called it Norway's Moonlanding Project. Moonlanding indeed.stanj says: October 19, 2011 at 1:50 pm The UK is broke but the eco-lobby want to spend £1bn ($1.5bn) to run a pipeline 260km (160m) along the seabed to pump CO2 into a deep-sea well. Utterly bonkers – like something out of Gulliver's Travels.Excellent analogy! |
|
