Friday, February 21, 2020

Methane is harmless to the climate

The projected doubling of methane levels over the next 180 years would have a barely measurable effect on global temperature  -- says new paper abstracted below. The minimal effect of methane emissions is summarized by numbers and figures in the paper.

Methane and Climate

By W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer


Atmospheric methane (CH4) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in units of W m-2, depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude, and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere.

For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008.

So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing increase from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m-2 year . Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts.


More Flagrant Sea Level Fraud

The amount of fraud in this article is off scale.

Even the Washington Post knows that the Gulf Coast is sinking.

MORE here

Buttigieg Supports a Carbon Tax, With Proceeds Going to Low- and Middle-Income People

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, now running for the Democrat presidential nomination, supports legislation imposing a tax on carbon pollution.

The way he explained it at Tuesday night's CNN town hall, such a tax would combine a bit of wealth redistribution with green energy goals:

"Would you support a specific legislative proposal for a carbon tax and rebate?" a voter asked Buttigieg.

"I will," the candidate said.

Because I believe it would play a very important role in making sure that our economy and the prices in our economy accurately reflect the true cost of business as usual. Remember, the most costly thing we could possibly do is to stay on the path that we're on, and that's not just a moral cost, that's a dollars and cents cost, because the catastrophic effects of climate change, which we're already beginning to see, are only going to increase.

So the idea of a carbon tax and rebate, or a carbon fee and dividend, whatever you want to call it, is that we assess a fee on the price of carbon. But at least in my plan, we would rebate that right back out to the American people, and I do it on a progressive basis, so that most low- and middle-income people would be made more than whole.

This is not about taking money out of the economy. This is about making sure the economy accurately reflects the cost of carbon pollution and climate change. And that's part, but only part, of how we're going to meet these needs.

Now, you're right, there's been a lot of partisan resistance to doing the right thing, whether it's climate, whether it's protections for federal lands, for air and for water. But here's another example... where actually, there's a lot more agreement among the American people than there is on the floor in Congress. Right now, most Americans, including in conservative states, believe in protecting public lands, believe in making sure we have clean air and water.

Now there are some who have been made to feel like they’re part of the problem, if you're working in certain kinds of industry, for example. Ironically, those are some of the very people whose skills we will need to recruit in the next generation of those industries that have to be carbon-free. There's no question there will be a transition, and I'm proposing that we invest over $200 billion in supporting workers through that transition.

But we also estimate that we will create at least 3 million net new jobs by taking the action that we must as a country to mobilize and fight climate change. And some of these jobs are -- might sound a little new-fangled, high-tech green jobs. A lot of them are jobs that are perfectly easy to understand right now.

I'm talking about building trades, I'm talking about union carpenters and electrical workers and insulators and glaziers, (that) we're going to need just to get our buildings to where they will have to be retrofitted for us to stay ahead of the climate challenge. So we've got to break this idea that we're choosing between doing the right thing for our climate and doing the right thing for our economy.

The only way forward for our economy, for our future, for our children and for our climate is to step up, come together, deal with carbon pollution and lead the world in doing something about it.


Green New Dealers not ready to practice what they preach

In case you missed the Bronx Legends episode of the Showtime series Desus and Mero with guest Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, you should watch the opening here:

As the trio emerges from the subway at Parkchester Station, co-host Desus Nice says, “We are going to start our day as every Bronxite does with a bodega sandwich.”  He then asks AOC, “What kind of bodega sandwich do you like to eat?”

“I’m a bacon, egg and cheese,” replies AOC.

Yep, the favorite sandwich of the author of the Green New Deal (GND) is a triple-threat carbon bomb!

Not really, of course, but from the GND perspective, going for a three-way protein stack in one single sandwich with “factory farm” products was a surprising choice.

We also learn that the Congresswoman prefers cheddar, but will settle for American if she has to – presumably made from milk from non-farting cows.

Ironically, it was on the premier of the same show a year earlier that AOC expounded on cow flatulence highlighted in the GND.

As The Hill newspaper reported on 22 February 2019, “In the deal, what we talk about is … that we need to take a look at factory farming, period. It’s wild,” she told Desus Nice and The Kid Mero.

“And so, it’s not to say you get rid of agriculture. It’s not to say we’re going to force everybody to go vegan or anything crazy like that. But it’s to say, listen, we’ve got to address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Like, let’s keep it real,” she continued.

Presumably, later in the day, off camera, AOC opted for a carbon neutral non-meat dinner option because just as the show’s segment opened with lots of animal protein consumption, it closed with the Congresswoman tucking into a ginormous beefy burrito for lunch, giving her two strikes against her own climate agenda in just two meals.

Oh, and by the way, her big complaint about living in DC?  That it is “impossible” to get a good bacon, egg and cheese sandwich.  Of course, if she keeps up her climate agenda, DC won’t be the only place where it is impossible to get affordable, nutritious and delicious meat, eggs and cheese.


Australia: State government to block new coal-fired power station?

The Greenies are happy.  See below. But Qld. Premier Palaszczuk is facing an election in October and blocking the Collinsville proposal would lose her the whole of the North.  She would be out on her ear. So she won't do it.  Coal mining is popular in the North -- which is why Scott Morrison won federally

Premier Anastascia Palaszczuk is absolutely right to question the impacts of a coal fired power station on the Great Barrier Reef says the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS).

The Premier echoed the sentiment of Labor Federal leader Anthony Albanese when she said she was open to blocking a planned coal-fired power station at Collinsville.

AMCS Great Barrier Reef spokesperson Shani Tager said: “The Premier is right to highlight the impact that coal-fired power stations have on our Reef. The single greatest threat to our beautiful Reef is climate change and coal fired power stations are a big part of the problem.

“Our Reef supports 64,000 jobs and is home to thousands of incredible animals, let’s not throw them down the drain for an uneconomic, unwanted and polluting coal fired power station when we could be building clean, renewable energy.

“It would be absolutely irresponsible to build a new coal fired power station at a time when we need to be moving beyond coal to give our Reef a fighting chance.

"Our Reef is still a dynamic, vibrant, awesome place but it’s in deep trouble and it’s time for politicians of all stripes to be standing up and taking steps to protect our Reef.”

Email.  Contact: Jo Manning 0405 567 228 /


For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: