Science and Politics of Climate Change

KLIIMATEADUSE AJALUGU - KINDLASTI VAADATA!

China’s Negotiating Position

In the mean time, it is worth a reminder of what China’s climate change position is going into the Copenhagen conference. Reuters has done a good job summarizing China’s predicament AND positions, which I reproduce in full here:

• China says it is threatened by global warming and the shrinking glaciers, expanding deserts, prolonged droughts and more intense storms predicted to come with a warming world.
• China is the world’s biggest [annual] emitter of greenhouse gases from human activity. In 2008, its output of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels, reached 6.8 billion metric tonnes, a rise of 178 percent over levels in 1990, according to the IWR, a German renewable energy institute. U.S. emissions rose 17 percent over that time to 6.4 billion tonnes.
• But China’s average greenhouse gas emissions per person are much lower than those of rich nations. The average American is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions equal to 25.0 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, compared to 5.8 tonnes for the average Chinese, according to the World Resources Institute.
• China says global warming has been overwhelmingly caused by the accumulated greenhouse gas emissions of rich economies, and they should lead in dramatically cutting emissions, giving poor countries room to develop and expand emissions in coming decades.
• China has previously said that those emissions cuts should be 25 to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020, but more recently it has been coy about specific numbers.
• China says industrialised nations should also transfer much more green technology to poorer nations, and has demanded that they commit up to one percent of their economic worth to helping poor nations fight global warming. Here, too, Chinese officials have recently been vaguer on specific numbers.
• Last month, China said it would cut its carbon intensity — the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of GDP — by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels. This target will still allow emissions to grow substantially over the next decade as the economy continues expanding. This goal was the first measurable curb on national emissions in China.
• China has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. As a developing country, China is not required by the protocol to set binding targets to control greenhouse gas emissions.
• The United States and other countries have said China and other big developing nations should accept more specific goals and oversight in the successor to Kyoto. But China has said that, as a developing country, its emissions goals should not be binding under any international treaty.

“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

Mida arvate sellisest teooriast?

“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

The following is a brief summary of the directly cited peer reviewed science which best refutes the hysteria surrounding Man Made Global Warming. Also included is the option to drill down deeper into the details and the citations.

Over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now.
Click the chart to enlarge it:

Click here to readily verify the data sources.

And, over geological time, there is NO
consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Click the chart to learn more:

Click here to readily verify the data sources.
Click here for a likely explanation for the 4 “Ice Ages” in the above chart.
Click here for the associated peer reviewed abstract.
During the relatively brief period where we have seen a close correlation between temperature and CO2, every single ice core study has demonstrated that temperature primarily drives CO2, not the other way around. Predictably, the IPCC has been incredibly dishonest in dealing with that fact.

Also important is the fact that each additional molecule of CO2 has exponentially less warming effect than the molecule which preceded it. This is best illustrated by three different approximations of the total warming impact of CO2 from 0 ppm to 600 ppm.

Atmospheric CO2 is steadily increasing.
Click the chart to verify the data source:


And, yet, temperatures are flat to down since 2002.
Click the chart to enlarge it:

Click here to readily verify the data source.
Click here to further explore the current cooling trend.
Even the alarmists at NOAA know there has been no global warming since 1998. They further admit that (emphasis mine):

“The [computer model] simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends [in global temperatures] for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

The satellite data indicate we are -- even by NOAA standards -- only 4 years away from creating “a discrepancy” in the IPCC computer models.

All other major datasets agree.

So, just 4 more years without warming and we can say -- with 95% certainty -- that the IPCC computer models have been invalidated.

Additionally, peer reviewed science from May of 2008 suggests that:

“global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade”

It looks like we’re in for a NOAA/IPCC busting 20 years (or more) without any warming!

Click here to further challenge the IPCC computer models.

Vostok, Antarctica - an ongoing 10,000 year cooling trend.
The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.
Click the chart to enlarge it:

Click here to readily verify the data sources.

Greenland ice sheet - an ongoing 10,000 year cooling trend.
The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.
Click the chart to enlarge it:

Click here to readily verify the data sources.
Note: The most recent warming was NOT linear.
See the next chart.

Greenland ice sheet -
Potentially warm biased temperature measurements
show, circa 1930, generally warmer temperatures
AND a MUCH more rapid rise in temperature!
Click the chart to enlarge it:

Click here to readily verify the data source.

Vostok, Antarctica - the 140,000 year temperature history.
The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.
Click the chart to enlarge it:

Click here to readily verify the data sources.

Vostok, Antarctica - the 423,000 year temperature history.
The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.
Click the chart to enlarge it:

Click here to readily verify the data sources.

Click the image for more
basic science on climate change:

"Kliima on nagu börs" - vahepalaks OzBoti heietus

Mis siis tähendab see "Kliima on nagu börs"? Järgneb OzBoti erakordselt asjatundmatu, ent sellest hoolimata pretensioonikas sõnavõtt - nii nagu OzBotile kohane:
1. Nii kliima kui börs on mittelineaarsed dünaamilised süsteemid. See tähendab, et diferentsiaalvõrrandite tasemel nende protsesside modelleerimine ei anna kuigi sisukaid tulemusi. Vaja on kaoseteooria läbimurdeid. Vaja on uut põlvkonda teadlasi, kes võtavad aluseks erineva paradigma ning vaja on kriitilist massi teise paradigma alusel toimetavaid teadlasi, et saavutada tulemusi (loe uut hingamist) andmetöötluses. Hetkel ma pole veendunud, et see "uus" või "teine paradigma" ülepeale üldse formuleerunud on. On avastatud mittelineaarsed dünaamilised süsteemid ning neid modelleeritakse edukalt nt. hüdrodünaamika (fluid dynamics), jne. Ent katsed muudes eluvaldkondades on väga lapsekingades ja võibolla jäävadki utoopiaks. Samas, ega enne teada ei saa kui pole läbi proovitud.

Selles mõttes kui väga utreeritult väljenduda, siis nii tehniline analüüs (TA) kui ilma ennustamine (üle teatud täpsus- või tõenäosustaseme) on sama hea kui astroloogia, pendel või kohvipaks ja mõni mustlane.

2. Tehniline analüüs börsil - graafikutele joonte vedamine ja selle põhjal tuleviku ennustamine on nagu kliimausklike mantra - kujutlusvõime tulemusena luuakse mingid nägemused missugune on maailm kui temperatuur on +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6 jne kraadi üle praeguse ja võetakse (teaduslikule meetodile au andes) arvesse tõepoolest kõik mida suudetakse oma pisikeses arus ette näha ja minevikuandmetel põhinevatel loogilistel konstruktsioonidel tuletada, ent mis on selle tulemusel saadud ennustuste korrelatsioon tegelikkusega? Kas on sellisel meetodil saadud tulemused tõepoolest reprodutseeritavad (seega kontrollitavad), või käib ikka mingi häma "uutest faktoritest" mida ei võetud arvesse ja valedest eeldustest mis viisid valede järeldusteni? Mina kaldun arvama, et tegu on pigem hookus-pookusega ja selles mõttes on kliimateadus nagu börs või majandusprognoosid.

3. Vastuväide: "Aga suures plaanis on ju trendid näha ja üsna suure tõenäosusega ennustatavad?"
Võibolla on, aga võibolla ei ole. Ma siiski olen seisukohal, et kui maailma kliimateadlaste konsensus väidab, et 90% tõenäosusega on inimene praeguse globaalse soojenemise põhjustaja, siis...see on fakt ja sellega ma vaidlema ei hakka. Kas aga tegelikult on globaalne soojenemine inimtekkelise põhjusega, selles ma nii kindel ei ole.

Näide 1
OMX Tallinn börsiindeks vs S&P okt keskelt kuni praeguseni

Korrelatsioon suht väike.. samas, muutke ajavahemikku ja on leitav väga suure korrelatsiooniga perioode.

Kui inimkond oleks nagu üks indiviid, siis praegune kliimatemaatika diagnoositaks psühholoogide poolt neurootiliseks käitumiseks. Jah, see käitumine on vastutustundlik. Jah, see käitumine on ettevaatav, tuleviku pärast mures. Kindlasti on see käitumine kasulik eeldusel, et on AGW (Antropogenic Global Warming).


Samas tundub see neurootiline käitumine mulle siiski stiilis: eesmärk pühitseb abinõu. Eesmärk siinjuures on minu meelest tarbija väärtuste muutmine, nn. globaalse teadlikkuse tõstmine teemal ressursid on piiratud. Abinõuks on valitud väga kaalukas argument: inimese tegevus on põhjustanud globaalse soojenemise. Nimeta mulle tänapäeva maailmas mõni muu meetod nii keeruka ülesande (kui inimkonna väärtuste muutmise lühema perioodi kui 1-2 põlvkonna jooksul - sest nõndaviisi toimub see loomulikul teel) lahendamiseks kui poliitika (sanktsioonid maksude ja tasude näol) ning teadus kui poliitika tööriist, mis peab pakkuma tõestuse, et nii on?

"Green is no longer progressive. Green is expected."

Audi's Diesel-Powered A3 TDI Crowned Green Car of the Year

Johan de Nysschen, Audi of America's president, who once called buyers of GM's Chevy Volt "idiots", emphasized this in his acceptance speech.  He stated, ""Green is no longer progressive.  Green is expected."

http://www.dailytech.com/Audis+DieselPowered+A3+TDI+Crowned+Green+Car+of+the+Year/article17049.htm

Johe Average küll raiub kuidas ta ei usu AGW-sse, ent käitub karjaloomana ikka teisiti. Muutus mõtlemises on juba tegelikult toimunud.. kliimakonverents ja asja politiseerimine on lihtsalt kogu teema nö teadvustatud tasandile tõstmine, "click" on juba käinud, nüüd tegeletakse põmst kriitilise massi kasvatamisega, et "tootjad muutunud tarbijakäitumisega kohaneksid". Põmst pole neil valikuid, sest varsti lihtsalt Joe Average enam ei osta 10 liitrise mootoriga maasturit, et ämm saaks poes käia vaid ostab Audi A3 või Toyota Priuse. "Government effect" lihtsalt aitab muna kiiremini (või jõulisemalt) veerema saada...

Elagu "Roheline majandus!"

(roheline schmoheline.. )

What You Need to Know in Advance of the International Climate Change Summit

The ingredients for a successful outcome at Copenhagen are all there. We are on track to set the architecture for a legally binding agreement in 2010 by following a two-step Danish proposal supported by President Barack Obama and finalizing an interim agreement at the meeting. Here’s how actions by the Obama administration and international community have moved us toward establishing an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and why doing so will help every nation.

The United States has laid the groundwork for negotiations

• The Obama administration set a provisional target for greenhouse gas pollution reductions. President Obama announced on November 25 a provisional U.S. greenhouse gas pollution reduction target “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. This was the first time the United States proposed its own reduction targets as part of the international negotiation process. This provisional reduction proposal is dependent on congressional approval.
• The federal government made the largest investment in clean energy in U.S. history. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invested $90 billion in clean-energy programs and tax incentives.
• President Obama set aggressive new fuel economy standards. The president announced new motor vehicle fuel economy standards in May that would reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 950 million metric tons annually starting in 2016.
• The Obama administration established new federal greenhouse gas regulations. An October executive order requires federal government agencies to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets that must be met by 2020. All of these actions, along with additional steps forward, will help enhance American economic competitiveness.
• Climate change legislation is on track for passage next year. The House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act in June and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a similar bill in November. Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are writing clean-energy and global warming legislation that should appeal to Senate moderates and demonstrate strong momentum for a bipartisan Senate bill. Senator Kerry has introduced the International Climate Change Investment Act, which will help the United States fulfill its expected obligations to developing countries by providing immediate assistance for adaptation to climate change and access to clean-energy technology.
• Clean-energy jobs provisions could spark additional energy investment. Congress is likely to consider a job creation bill that could include significant investments in clean-energy job creation and manufacturing.

Large emitting nations are ready to cooperate

• China announced a carbon reduction target. The Obama administration’s hard work with China and India is starting to pay off. China announced on Thanksgiving Day a target of reducing carbon pollution per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. This is the first time China has committed to specific carbon reductions. The November joint statement by Presidents Obama and Hu Jintao on the creation of a greenhouse gas inventory between the U.S. EPA and China will make it possible to measure and verify these reductions.

• India announced a carbon reduction target. India announced on December 2, soon after the U.S.-India summit in Washington, that it intends to offer a target for decreasing its carbon intensity 24 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. This is the first time India has proposed its own specific carbon reduction target, which adds to its already established commitment to set the largest solar power generation target in the world.

China and India’s new goals are clear signs that the largest economies in the developing world are repositioning themselves to be constructive players in Copenhagen and may be prepared to begin committing to transparent and accountable reductions. Other major economies in the developing world have similarly stepped up with their own carbon pollution reduction plants, including Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and South Africa, significantly increasing the likelihood for success at Copenhagen. They are joined by Japan, South Korea, Australia, the European Union, and other countries that have increased their ambition for carbon reductions in advance of the Copenhagen meeting.

Existing policies get on the right path

• Current and planned policies would already yield 65 percent of needed reductions. Project Catalyst and the Center for American Progress modeled the pollution reductions from policies implemented and proposed by the 16 nations of the Major Economies Forum and the 27 countries of the European Union. The best-case scenario shows that these policies provide 65 percent of the immediate reductions science recommends by 2020. This would help the world limit total atmospheric concentration to 450 parts per million of carbon equivalent. This is the stabilization pathway that the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change estimates is necessary to limit temperature increase to 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. An international agreement should allow for a full accounting of each nation’s commitment to achieve these goals and eventually increase to the full reductions needed for climate stability.
• U.S. state and regional efforts will achieve emissions reductions. Executive actions, state and regional efficiency and renewable energy initiatives, and greenhouse gas pollution reduction programs provide a backstop for the United States to make international commitments to decrease its emissions, even without final passage of a comprehensive clean-energy and climate change bill.

Cooperation on climate will boost the economy

• An international agreement would restart the global economy. A binding international agreement would spark more public and private outlays for clean-energy technologies to capitalize on emerging clean-energy investment opportunities abroad and at home. A report to be released at Copenhagen by the Center for American Progress as part of the nine-party Global Climate Network estimates that part of the current and proposed clean-energy proposals in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Nigeria, South Africa, India, China, Australia, and Brazil would produce a total of 19.7 million jobs. This report also demonstrates that job growth will accelerate and multiply as more countries adopt clean-energy policies and trade their various clean technologies across borders.
• Financing technology leads to job growth. An expenditure of $4.5 billion on smart grid technology as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should create 278,600 U.S. jobs during installation, and 139,700 of these would be ongoing. This is a fairly modest example, and an additional 138,000 U.S. jobs could be created to serve an export market if other countries also install smart grid technologies.
• Cooperation on clean-energy technology creates jobs here. According to a CAP-Asia Society report, a U.S.-China collaboration to research, develop, and deploy carbon capture and sequestration technology could lead to a five-year acceleration of the commercialization of this critical technology to slash carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. This program would create an additional 403,000 jobs in the United States, and a 10-year acceleration of deployment could create as many as 943,000 new U.S. jobs by 2022.

Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails