CO2 reduction might HEAT the planet!!!!
Get a load of this: "In contrast, even a fairly aggressive strategy to reduce CO2 emissions under the CO2 measures scenario does little to mitigate warming over the next 20–30 years. In fact, sulphate particles, reflecting particles that offset some of the committed warming for the short time they are in the atmosphere, are derived from SO2 that is co-emitted with CO2 in some of the highest-emitting activities, including coal burning in large-scale combustion such as in power plants. Hence, CO2 measures alone may temporarily enhance near-term warming as sulphates are reduced"
And that is from a report (p. 10) sponsored by two United Nations bodies! (UNEP and WMO).
You couldn't make it up! Only colossal fools would believe anything these guys say after that. But, as Barnum said, there is one born every minute.
Australia's iconic coral reefs threatened by climate change, say armchair modellers
Attempting to model something as complex as the earth's climate is a ludicrous enough enterprise but at least there is quite a lot of data against which one can check the model output -- with uniformly dismal results, of course. NO model predicted the temperature stasis of the last 13 years, for instance.
But when it comes to modelling another very complex phenomenon -- such as worldwide coral reef growth -- where there is virtually no worldwide data available for checking purposes, one knows that the results will simply be whatever the modellers want them to be. And when one notes that the report of the modelling has a foreword by Al Gore, laughter is almost inevitable.
That actual scientific findings run directly contrary to Al Gore's little scam should of course surprise no-one. The media (below) have of course swallowed the hokum wholesale.
The Australian public will however be more skeptical than their media. "Coral reefs threatened" has been popping up regularly in the Australian media for many decades -- long predating the global warming scare. There are constant natural changes in coral reefs and there have always been attention-seekers getting a scary headline out of it
Shocking evidence has been released claiming that nearly all of Australia's coral reefs are at risk of being wiped out in less than two decades.
The report by the World Resources Institute claims that by 2030, 90 per cent of Australia's reefs will suffer from the overwhelming effects of climate change like warmer seas and acidification.
It also outlines the threat to the rest of the world's coral reefs, with research suggesting that many could be obliterated by 2050 due to pollution, climate change and over-fishing.
The report encourages Australia not to waste any time in fighting the prediction, particularly becuase of the impact reef degredation will have on tourism and the economy.
Dr Clive Wilkinson, the United Nations sponsored Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network coordinator, urged Australia "to be part of the global solution to climate change, as our reefs will suffer like others around the world and this will threaten the $5 to $6 billion per year that the Great Barrier Reef means to the Australian economy."
"Australians have no right to be complacent as the vast majority of our reefs will be seriously threatened by rising sea temperatures and increasing acidification in less than 20 years," he said.
Today, 40 per cent of Australia's reefs are under pressure from rising sea temperatures and other threats linked to climate change.
However, 75 per cent of the reefs are in marine protected areas, which is a contributing factor to the improvement in fish numbers and reef resilience.
SOURCE
A barefaced lie from NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
NOAA’s news release on the IG report contains the following misrepresentation of NOAA’s repudiation of FOI requests:
The report questions the way NOAA handled a response to four FOIA requests in 2007. The FOIA requests sought documents related to the review and comments of part of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. NOAA scientists were given legal advice that IPCC work done by scientists were records of the IPCC, not NOAA. The requesters were directed to the IPCC, which subsequently made available the review, comments and responses which are online at IPCC and www.hcl.harvard.edu.
“The NOAA scientists responded in good faith to the FOIA requests based on their understanding of the request and in accordance with the legal guidance provided in 2007,” Glackin said.
I reviewed the actual statements in the Inspector General report earlier today here. The Inspector General said that there was a divergence between Solomon’s evidence and the evidence of the NOAA attorneys, the latter denied giving “legal advice that IPCC work done by scientists were records of the IPCC, not NOAA”, with Susan Solomon unable to provide any documentation of ever receiving such evidence.
NOAA’s assertion that Solomon had been “given legal advice that IPCC work done by scientists were records of the IPCC, not NOAA” is not a finding of the report. Solomon claimed that she’d been given such advice, but the NOAA lawyers denied giving it to her, with the IG saying that he was unable to reconcile the divergent claims.
NOAA’s assertion in the press release misrepresents the IG report, a misrepresentation that has been picked up by various news outlets, e.g. CBC here.
SOURCE. Warmists are just an incredibly slippery bunch. They need to be, of course.
Greenies beware: Cycling to work is one of the biggest causes of heart attacks
As any city cyclist will know, riding your bike in heavy traffic can be, metaphorically speaking, a heartstopping experience. But now research has found that it is literally one of the biggest triggers of heart attacks.
In a new sliding scale of everyday risks that prove the ‘final straw’ in bringing on a heart attack, spending time in traffic – as a driver, cyclist or commuter – tops the list because of factors including stress and exposure to pollution.
But of these, cyclists are in greatest danger because they are more heavily exposed to pollution and are subjecting themselves to another major heart attack trigger, exercise.
The study, which analysed 36 pieces of research, is the first time the ‘final straw’ risk factors for triggering heart attacks – rather than underlying causes of heart disease – have been quantified. While some factors overlap, they were ranked by scientists in
The Lancet medical journal online, after the proportion of total heart attacks caused by different triggers was calculated.
Traffic exposure was blamed for 7.4 per cent of heart attacks, followed by physical exertion with 6.2 per cent.
Overall air pollution triggered between 5 per cent and 7 per cent of heart attacks, while drinking alcohol or coffee accounted for 5 per cent.
Other risk factors included negative emotions (3.9 per cent), anger (3.1 per cent), eating a heavy meal (2.7 per cent), positive emotions (2.4 per cent) and sexual activity (2.2 per cent). Cocaine was to blame for 0.9 per cent of heart attacks, but this was because of limited exposure to the drug among the population.
On an individual basis, taking cocaine was shown to raise a person’s risk of having a heart attack 23-fold, according to the study, led by Dr Tim Nawrot, from Hasselt University in Belgium.
In comparison, air pollution led to a 5 per cent extra risk, but since far more people are exposed to traffic fumes and factory emissions than cocaine, air quality is a far more important population-wide threat.
Professor David Spiegelhalter, a risk expert from Cambridge University, said it was difficult to ‘disentangle’ the risk factors in the study for certain situations, such as driving or cycling to work in heavy traffic.
‘A lot of other factors are contributing to the overall risk; air pollution, stress, physical exertion, even anger which is another well-known trigger for a heart attack. It’s a complex mix,’ he added.
Judy O’Sullivan, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said the benefits of exercising outdoors outweighed the risks from air pollution for most individuals, and urged people not to be put off running, walking or cycling in towns and cities.
Dr Tim Chico, honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Sheffield, said: ‘We know a lot about why people suffer heart attacks (for example smoking, high cholesterol, obesity) but not much about why they occur on a particular day and time.’
But he stressed: ‘The foundations of heart disease are laid down over many years.
‘If someone wants to avoid a heart attack they should focus on not smoking, exercising, eating a healthy diet and maintaining their ideal weight.’
SOURCE
British watchdog says electric cars 'are as dirty as diesel'
Electric cars may portray themselves as 'zero emissions' but the overall pollution they generate can be almost as great as a frugal conventional diesel car, consumer watchdogs said today.
Electric cars are a lot more expensive to buy - though they are generally cheaper to run as they plug in for their power from the domestic mains, say experts at Which?
The amount of carbon dioxide - the so-called 'greenhouse gas' blamed by scientists for global warming - created to generate the electricity powering an electric car, can be just as great as that created by the internal combustion engine, they say.
The main difference is that while a conventional car's emissions come out of the vehicle's exhaust pipe, those created by an electric car are generated at the power station which supplies the electricity.
The findings come as the first ever electric car to pass the European crash test was announced - the Mitsubishi i-MiEVsuper-mini - getting four stars out of a maximum five.
Experts at Which? compared the carbon dioxide created by charging electric cars with that emitted by the most efficient diesel models and concluded:'Sometimes there’s not a great deal of difference.' And the gap is narrowing as 'conventional' cars up their game to cut emissions.
The Which? report noted:'The common manufacturer claim that electric cars produce ‘zero emissions’ ignores the fact that most drivers use a conventional electricity supply to charge them, which has a carbon cost from burning fossil fuels. '
To test its theory, Which? looked at three of the first electric cars destined to hit the UK market and put them up against three 'efficient' conventional rivals. Experts found, for example, that the electric Smart Fortwo, expected to cost around £21,000, creates an 'equivalent' of 84 grams of CO2 per kilometre driven, whereas the £9,540 diesel Smart Fortwo emits 103 grams.
It also compared the Nissan Leaf, the £23,990 electric car, with Volkswagen's diesel Golf 1.6 TDi Bluemotion costing £16,830. The electric power generated to drive the Leaf is equivalent to CO2 emissions of 81g/km.By contrast, the diesel Golf has CO2 emissions of 108g/km.
Two 'super-minis' were also compared. Which? found that the power generated to power the £24,045 Mitsubishi i-MiEV electric car was equivalent to 68g/km. Then similarly sized Suzuki Splash costing £10,410 with a 1.3litre diesel engine has CO2 emissions of 131g/km.
However, electric cars are much 'greener' than diesel cars when it comes to localised emissions, as they don’t emit toxic chemicals that degrade air quality. This is especially significant in cities, where the uptake of electric cars is predicted to be highest, says Which? The consumer report concludes:'While we don't agree with the car makers' 'zero emissions' claims, we can't knock their efforts to create greener cars.'
Richard Headland, editor, Which? Car, said: 'We applaud car makers’ efforts to create greener cars – but we don’t agree with their ‘zero emissions’ claims. Until more electricity is produced from renewable sources in the UK, the carbon footprint of driving an electric car may not be as small as owners think.'
The report adds that electric cars are still costly - often more than double the price - despite a £5,000 taxpayer subsidy: 'Electric cars offer drivers a lower-carbon output and cheaper fuelling costs, but are expensive compared with their traditional counterparts and not as versatile.'
There is also a 'big question' over their second hand value as traders will be 'cautious'. More than seven out of ten (71 per cent) of more than 2,000 Which? members surveyed said there were concerned about the relatively short range of electric cars.
To measure the carbon dioxide created by charging an electric car, Which? followed the advice of the Carbon Trust which states that 544grams of CO2 are emitted per kilowatt hour of electricity used. Which? converted this to an equivalent 'grams per kilometre' CO2 rating, to make it easier to compare electric cars with the diesel cars.
SOURCE
Leftist Australian government set to legislate a carbon tax
This is just an opening shot, of course. What, if anything, gets through the parliament remains to be seen
STRUGGLING families will be compensated with cash for rising energy costs when the Federal Government imposes a carbon tax on Australians from July 1 next year. But most households won't be able to escape Prime Minister Julia Gillard's new emissions trading scheme, with forecasts that it will push power bills higher by between $300 and $500 a year.
Accused yesterday by the Opposition of betraying Australians, Ms Gillard formally broke a key election pledge and announced that the Government would impose a price on pollution from July 1, 2012, with a full emissions trading scheme to be operating as early as 2015.
It will be the most complex and broad-ranging carbon tax of almost any country in the world. The actual carbon price has yet to be set, but industry experts claim that the flow-on costs of a moderate $26 price per tonne of carbon would result in a $300 rise in electricity bills due to the country's reliance on coal-fired power generation. The price could be as high as $40 a tonne by 2020, adding anywhere up to $500 a year to bills. Petrol prices would also be expected to rise by 6.5c a litre.
The fixed carbon price would operate for between three and five years before a full market-based emissions trading scheme would come into operation between 2015 and 2017, with a floating price then to be set by the market.
Welfare groups demanded that low-income families be protected from the inevitable rise in the cost of living, as the Australian Council of Social Service warned that low-income households would be affected by climate change first and worst. "They have little capacity to cope, adapt or move," ACOSS CEO Cassandra Goldie said.
Australia's business lobby attacked the lack of detail in the plan and warned it threatened jobs and would fuel uncertainty with Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief Peter Anderson labelling it "a blow for the competitiveness of Australian business, especially small and medium-sized enterprises".
Ms Gillard, flanked by Greens Leader Bob Brown and the NSW rural independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, tried to head off the inevitable backlash, claiming the money raised from the tax would go back into compensation but admitted it would affect households.
"That's the whole point. Every cent raised from pricing carbon will go to assisting households, helping businesses manage the transition and funding climate change programs, and the Government will always support those who are in need of assistance with cost of living pressures," Ms Gillard said.
Before the August election Ms Gillard declared: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." Yesterday she said: "This is the parliament the Australian people voted for."
Ms Gillard said some elements of former prime minister Kevin Rudd's abandoned emissions trading scheme - one of the triggers for his sacking - might be taken up in the new scheme. Under the old ETS, more than eight million households would receive compensation payments of up to $600 a year. Some low-income families would have ended up better off than before an ETS.
But Opposition Leader Tony Abbott accused Ms Gillard of the ultimate act of "betrayal". "The price of this betrayal will be paid every day by every Australian," he said. Mining giant BHP and big energy players welcomed the move but one of Australia's biggest manufacturers, BlueScope Steel, was scathing saying it was "potentially killing manufacturing in Australia". Leading price comparison website GoSwitch.com.au chief executive Ben Freund said households would pay higher costs for electricity and locally manufactured goods.
SOURCE
***************************************
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment