Climate Challenge Anyone?

Here’s a challenge to all my “skeptical readers” – Trust Matters April 22 2012 .

The Salby lecture link is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YrI03ts–9I

Inverted Atmospheric Pressure to Temperature Anomoly Lag?

I want to start off this post by saying I have no idea what it means. I’m curious and puzzled, and, this may just be a waste of time.

Enough disclaimers.

I came across this graph yesterday:

It reminded me of a post I had read speculating a connection between atmospheric pressure and temperature.

I decided to take the above graph and, because 20 Century temperatures had risen, while atmospheric pressure had dropped, I inverted it, and slid it over the Temperature Anomaly graph below. It didn’t impress me until I slid it 10 years the right.

Then, I was really impressed by just how closely the pressure tracked with the temperature anomaly.

This observation indicates a 10 year lag between pressure changes and temperature.

Why is a question I would like to know the answer to – coincidence or cause and effect?

Take a close look and give me your comments….

Foxes Guarding the Carbon House

After watching a couple of hours of the Durban Conference,  I just had to shake my head and laugh when I read “A Nest of Carbon Vipers.”

Continuously we hear from alarmists about the oil industry supporting skeptics, albeit with little evidence. But, the really big money to be made in climate change is in trading carbon futures.

Well, I challenge anyone to read the above story and come away with the conclusion those at the very top of the list of alarmists don’t have a pecuniary interest in treaty negotiations.

Here is a very brief example of the “nest”…

Vice Chair of Carbon Rating Agency (subsidiary of IdeaCarbon) 2008-2010, Christiana Figueres (now the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [how can you not make fun of that acronym?]) was…

 

 

 

 

 

trained by…

 

 

 

 

 

 

chairman of Generation Investment Management, which owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange.  The Chicago Climate Exchange owns half of the European Climate Exchange. Thus if the United States and Europe adopt a “cap and trade” carbon credit trading scheme Al Gore could potentially rake in billions of dollars.

Call the Travel Agency and Book Us a Heavy Guilt Trip

One of the “brilliant” ideas from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists (CAGW’s) is to tax developed countries because of their “historical responsibility” for causing “global warming” via CO2 emissions. Third-world countries will not be obliged to pay anything.

Poverty rates (in %) in the Developing World, 1981-2005. Source: PovCalNet, World Bank (2010).

In the words of Indur M. Goklany – This figure shows that the most spectacular reductions in poverty occurred in East Asia and the Pacific, where the number of people living in “absolute poverty” (defined as living on less than $1.25 per day in 2005 dollars), dropped from 1,071 million to 316 million between 1980 and 2005. And as anyone who has bought anything in the past few years ought to know, their economic growth was driven substantially by trade.

So, if I understand this correctly, we evil, CO2 emitting devils, and our wasteful consumerist ways (buying trinkets from China, etc.) have played a large part in elevating over 700 million people out of “absolute poverty.” And for this we are supposed to (a) pay more carbon taxes, and (b) feel guilty as hell.

Thank you to Peter Kent and Stephen Harper for drawing a line in the “CO2 sands” and saying enough to this nonsense.

I would however like to make a suggestion to the Conservatives. If they really want to make a statement that it’s not business as usual, then commit $1 billion of the money they have just saved us by dropping out of Kyoto, and earmark it for a fund, to be administered by Canada,  to feed starving children in the developing world.

While the $1 billion is only about 20% of what is needed on an annual basis, by doing something as bold as that, Canada would be further challenging the rest of the world to step up and put their money where their mouths are. You really want to help the developing world? Then shift your self-centered and righteous focus from CO2 to sufficient food, water, clothing, shelter, medicine and sanitation which will help prevent 16,000 children a day from dying unnecessarily.

What a world leader and hero Canada would be.

We could also erase any notion of having to book  any “heavy guilt trip.”

C’mon Stephen, think outside of the box…what Green Grinch could argue with that idea?

The Best Policy

I just came across the following post,  made back in 2009 by sebastianjer (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/sebastianjer/comment.html?entrynum=123)

I love it when someone tells it like it is….enjoy this one.

 

If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.
– Anon

When faced with conflicting claims made by persons on an issue, it is often difficult to determine which side to believe. This becomes even more difficult if the issue is technical and beyond the laypersons normal base of knowledge. Despite assertions to the contrary, there are two views to the Global Warming issue, the fact that one side continuously attempts to assert that there is not should be taken into account when trying to determine the likely truth of the opposing arguments. In addition a person who wants to make a judgment on the opposing views ought to also take into account as we do in most things in life, the experience, the character, and the motives of the opposing proponents.

Much has been made in the debate over Global Warming over the fact that many of those skeptical of the theory are older and quite a few retired (emeritus) professors. Recently commenting on the just concluded international Convention on Climate Change ( ICCC) the so called Skeptics Conference a reporter for a British newspaper snidely commented

“The 600 attendees (by the organisers’ count) are almost entirely white males, and many, if not most, are past retirement age…”

In today’s society age is often, sadly, ridiculed as if the rules of the past, when age meant greater experience and thus greater wisdom have somehow been replaced by the cyber technology of the new more enlightened age. Though many in attendance at the conference may in fact be older, once considered distinguished, scholars many were not and far more than you will ever hear about are currently at work in institutions through out the world, quieted by the monolithic scientific juggernaut of the Climate Change Governance of modern science.

Let me point to a simple fact that is often overlooked when this discussion of the Emeritus of some skeptic scientist is ridiculed and used as a straw man to discredit their voices. The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been at the forefront of climate and related sciences for over 20 years now. These so called old men who are now reaching retirement or even have been retired for a few years now, have generally maintained their positions within their institutions and are fully aware of ongoing research, But more important, for the past ten, fifteen, twenty years they were not retired in Florida enjoying the sun, they were actually the lead scientist in the prime of their careers investigating and researching these theories.

I could list the names and accomplishments of these men and women and some I have listed here, but that is not the point of this post. The point is trying to determine whom to believe, what are the motives? What motive does an established respected scientist at the end of their career have to take on the entire science community? To have an entire lifetime of in most cases distinguished work besmirched and ridiculed by the very people whom just years before, they taught.

The recently deceased Reid Bryson was for years known as the father of modern climatology a geologist and meteorologist, the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies, made a Global Laureate by the United Nations Global Environment Program. This man’s stature in the world of climate sciences can not be disputed.

“ All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”…… “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide“.

Why would such a man say such things? What was there to gain? He was already recognized as one of the greatest scientist of his time and yet he basically tells the science field he has belonged to his entire life the field of scince he is considered one of the founders of- “you are full of crap”. He is just one example but ask yourself, what was his motive, fame ? money ? All he recieived for his position against the AGW teory was ridicule from a bunch of pygmies.

The famous American Geographer T.C. Chamberlain wrote:

“The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence, and as the explanation grows into a definite theory his parental affections cluster about his offspring and it grows more dear to him…As this parental affection takes possession of the mind, there is a rapid passage to the adoption of the theory. There is an unconscious selection and magnifying of phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of those that fail of coincidence…

When these biasing tendencies set in, the mind rapidly degenerates into the partiality of paternalism. The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation, are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to the ruling position, and investigation, observation, and interpretation are controlled and directed by it. From an unduly favored child, it readily becomes master, and leads its author whithersoever it will…

When the last stage has been reached, unless the theory happens, perchance, to be the true one, all hope of the best results is gone.”

A very good explanation of scientific pride. Make no mistake, a large portion of the scientific world and a majority of the climate science world is now heavily invested “parental affection” in the man made global warming belief structure. There is no doubt that the entire climate science community has not only been extensively financed but it’s very meaning defined by the global warming theory. This is more than just a scientific theory to be debated amongst a select few, this the prestige and funding for a new industry, the industry of Climate Change. Take this comment of one of the most respected climate scientist in the world, the first woman to receive a PhD. Dr. Joanne Simpson:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor
receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”

Consider that quite apart from what she said about climate models, the fact that she was affiliated with an institution , a government institution no less NOAA, that received funding based upon climate change science, restricted her from speaking frankly about her true thoughts about global warming. She is now able to speak frankly about a subject which she is a renowned world expert, but felt constrained from so doing prior to her retirement.

Over and over again prominent scientist retire or get close to retirement from their various institutions or agencies and then they feel comfortable about expressing their true opinions. Here is another example, retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon had this to say.

“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

Granted Dr. Theon has been retired from NASA for many years but the fact that he is now so adamantly expressing them is striking. Dr Roy Spencer another former NASA scientist gives a possible explanation, on his web site he writes:

And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is manmade…and adding “climate models are useless” for good measure. Even I wouldn’t go quite that far, since I use simple ones in my published research. I remember the old days at NASA, when even John Theon was singing the same tune as most people at NASA were. Manmade global warming was a potentially serious threat, and NASA wanted Congress to fund new satellites to study the problem. It was a team effort to get that accomplished.

Global warming research was a relatively new field back then. Was Theon always skeptical, and just being a team player at the time? I don’t know. It could be that Dr. Theon, after watching 15 years of climate research go by, decided that he was no longer convinced that mankind was at fault for warming.

We all know that government agencies as well as most institutional entities do no willingly cut their own budgets. In fact it is a well know practice to spend every last dime of budgeted money so as not to lose funding the next year and to justify budget increases, it is one of many reasons why governments are so inefficient.

A scientist who is employed by an institution whose funding is directly tied to a particular outcome is wont to find fault in that outcome, particularly when it may jeopardize his/her own career and financial security. As Upton Sinclair once noted“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

Lest we think that scientist simply because they are scientist are beyond such mortal sins as manipulation and deceit for prestige and money consider what a current atmospheric scientist recently observed:

“Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”-Petr Chylek

Not that all scientist in the climate and related fields are unscrupulous or even deceitful, they don’t need to be. The belief in the Global Warming mantra is so prevalent that it is just a matter of accepting the dogma and not being a critical or skeptical observer which is the true mission of a scientist. This would be a lie of omission, failure to take due diligence to insure accuracy. As old T.C. so eloquently if pointedly observed “The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation, are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established.” Obviously this is not a new phenomena in the scientific community.

Even a casual observation of the science of global warming shows the bias towards predetermined outcomes and the tendency to make “things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”

Dr John Everett on his excellent web site make the following observation:

When reviewing impact assessments, look for bias. Often the authors think only of negative changes. This is not necessarily because of personal agendas (such as to assist animals, clean the air, or reduce the birth rate), but is primarily due to human nature. To guard against having a biased report, one should look for balance. Does the material articulate that things will be different and that there are pluses and minuses? There may well be more of one than another. Sometimes balance is reflected in the amount of text, or graphics made to illustrate impacts and often it is reflected in the number of negative versus positive impacts….

He then goes on to give examples and explain how they are being treated. I’ll let the reader decide if the current state of scientific discourse on global warming has given us a balanced or even a fair representation of the risk versus rewards of the affects of global warming.

I fear that the process is so far down the road, that the interest of the scientific community is so vested in maintaining the current dogma, to demonizing opposing views and even stifling contrary research findings, the general public has little chance of receiving a fair airing of the truth.
Worse yet the policies being implemented by governments around the world based on shoddy and sometimes corrupted sciences will inevitably lead to civil unrest once the truth is ultimately exposed, which it ultimately will be. But until then we must take what is fed us from the scientist with a skepticism that the science community is currently unable or unwilling to impose on itself.

“Basically, the problem is that the research community has gone so far along the path of frightening the life out of the man in the street that to recant publicly even part of the story would massively damage the reputation and political clout of science in general. And so, like corpuscles in the blood, researchers all over the world now rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by any idea that threatens the carefully cultivated belief in climatic disaster. ”

Garth Paltridge

No Laughing Matter

Mind Control – Candidates for the Goebbel Prize?

As the public’s belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming wanes, a massive worldwide propaganda campaign, which the 20^th Century father of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, would be proud of, is now in full swing.

This post is meant to give you a brief idea of how far alarmists are prepared to go to do what they do best – alarm you.

“An Inconvenient Truth,” by Al Gore, et al, is the grand-daddy of them all. In October 2007, the High Court of London ruled that there were “nine significant errors” in the film and decided that the film’s “apocalyptic vision” was “politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change,” according to The Times (UK). The High Court also ruled the film should not be shown to school children unless the errors were explained to the children before they watched the film.

Alarmists conveniently forget those truths, in favour of continuing to honour Al Gore as their saviour. I have never heard any alarmist EVER correct even one of the lies. But then again, its not really about “science” is it?

Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are….” Grist Magazine (May 9, 2006)

So, grab your Kleenex, and let’s continue with a video (sponsored by a company named Quercus, which I believe produces software) depicting a monkey, a kangaroo and a polar bear committing suicide in the aftermath of catastrophic global warming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sNY6XYlzI0

I guess lemmings have been overused….

Next comes one of my favourites, the “10:10” video. 10:10 is an organization started in the United Kingdom “to unite every sector of society behind one simple idea: cutting our carbon by 10% a year starting now.” Evidently fear is one of their methods of uniting us all.

https://youtu.be/WjVW6roRs-w

So, I guess that not everyone is going to end up being united. Some are destined for being blown up for their beliefs.

And here’s Raffi’s Cool It video, depicting the world burning up due to global warming.

Just before you start watching, here’s a little background on the effect this kind of propaganda is having on our children. A telephone survey conducted among a national sample of 500 PRE-TEENS comprising 250 males and 250 females 6 to 11 years of age, living in private households in the continental United States found that “one out of three children ages 6–11 years old fear that the planet won’t exist when they grow up and more than half (56%) believe that the Earth will not be as good a place to live…Minority children worried the most—with 75% of Black children and 65% of Hispanic children fearing the planet was going to deteriorate before they grow up…67% of girls ages 9–11 versus 60% of boys ages 9–11 worry that the earth won’t be a good place to live when they are grown up…Girls aged 6–8 are more “worried” than boys (57% vs. 43%) in the same age group.’

Come on kids, I know you’re only 6 years old, but suck it up, because, according to some well meaning adults, this is your new reality:

The next one is perhaps the most horrific, despicable example of how low alarmists are prepared to stoop to purposefully scare/indoctrinate children. This video was being broadcast on the BBC.

This next one, shown at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009, reminds me of some of my own nuclear childhood nightmares from the early 1960’s (which I admit still sometimes recur). Although I had to laugh at the “Michael Mann look alike” playing the father (was that really intentional?):

And, because it’s Christmas let’s not forget this one which states “The North Pole will be gone before Christmas.”

David Suzuki this year has followed up on this theme lying through his teeth that he is reporting “live from the North Pole…” and that Santa has to move, so send David money so his organization can help Santa. What the hell is next?

http://www.wherewillsantalive.ca/

The last video nicely sums up the insensitivity of Suzuki, et al.

Joel Rogers of Apollo Alliance and COWS, also a member of Emerald Cities talks about global warming and how to not only scare children into becoming activists for the Global Warming cause but how to indoctrinate them for a lifetime.

Listen to the laughter…yeah, let’s suck in the kids…they’re stupid and malleable…now is the best time to politicize them.

And lastly, for all of you who may think the above videos aren’t really propaganda vehicles, or specifically designed to modify/change behaviour, I direct you to the Garrison Institute’s website. (Sorry, no video, just boring mind control stuff):

Climate, Mind and Behaviour (CMB)

CMB/NRDC “Behavioral Wedge”
CMB envisions a “behavioral wedge” empowering people to eliminate a gigaton of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by simply changing our behavior now before regulatory, investment and other strategies take hold. In collaboration with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Garrison Institute is working to research, verify and disseminate practices individuals can use right now to reach one gigaton of GHG reductions. The Institute is working neuro-, behavioral and social scientists as well as movement and thought leaders in the CMB network on generating and disseminating behavior change strategies.

This kind of think tank will undoubtedly result in more scary videos, over exaggerating climate, in the hope people will look to their emotions for solutions.  Demonize the deniers and disbelievers, scare the kids and either ignore any science which is contrary to the CO2 theory or condemn it as heresy.

http://www.garrisoninstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=244&Itemid=1071

Yes, the discussion has moved far beyond science. In alarmists’ minds the debate is over, and its now time to indoctrinate with full force. Meanwhile, skeptics (those who are still asking questions of climate science) are denounced for asking questions or raising doubts. Asking questions and raising doubts is the basis of scientific reasoning. Without them, we will be lost to another kind of inquisition….

”No one expects the Global Warming Inquisition! Our chief weapon is impending catastrophe… impending catastrophe and fear. Our two weapons are fear and impending catastrophe,,,,and a ruthless over exaggeration of the situation….Amongst our weaponry are fear, impending catastrophe, a ruthless over exaggeration of the situation….and an almost fanatical devotion to Al Gore!”

If only it were as funny as Python…

CO2 Out of the Rock? – #1

CO2 Contributions – Fellow Canadians, We’re Really Not as Evil as We’re Made Out to Be.

 

 

 

 

 

The most usual perspective of looking at CO2 emissions worldwide is to consider either (a) the number of metric tonnes of CO2 per capita, or (b) the total number of tonnes of CO2 a country emits, as a method of ranking that country’s carbon footprint.

 

However, another way of looking at CO2 emissions worldwide is to examine the amount of CO2 being created by countries per square kilometer of land area. This is relevant for the purposes of discussion, since, according to the CO2 Greenhouse Effect Theory, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere refers to the “total CO2” and the “total atmosphere.” The size of the atmosphere is dependent upon three known factors – land area, water area and height over land and water. Therefore, when it comes to CO2 “production guilt,” one may compare a country’s land area to its CO2 output to arrive at the number of metric tonnes of CO2 per square kilometer, and therefore the actual theorized, proportional effect that country’s production of CO2 has on the total atmosphere.

 

The argument here is the more CO2 a country emits per square kilometer, the more of the rest of the world’s atmosphere they are affecting.

 

For example, imagine a very small planet with two very small countries.  Country A is 100 sq km, and emits 100 tonnes per year, so the amount of CO2 per sq km/year emitted would be 1 tonne. However, Country B is only 10 sq km and emits 100 tonnes per year, so the amount of CO2 per sq km/year is 10 times that of Country A. This means that proportionately, Country B is contributing 10 times more CO2 to the total atmosphere of the planet than Country A.  Country A’s population is 1 million, Country B’s population is 100,000. Which country is more responsible for CO2 contributions to the total atmosphere of the planet? Country B.

 

Using that rationale I did an analysis of the land area of the world’s countries to their 2009 CO2 emissions, and here are their rankings, from least contributions per sq km, to the most.

 

While you’re reading through the list, note that while Canada is ranked 7^th of all countries on per capita CO2 emissions, it ranks 140^th on per square kilometer contributions of CO2 to the total atmosphere.

 

This brings forward the question – do larger area countries, with smaller populations, have a greater “moral” obligation to reduce their CO2 emissions than smaller countries, with larger proportional populations?

 

While this is an interesting argument, for me, it’s a moot point, since I don’t believe CO2’s influence is anywhere near what alarmists believe it is in the first place.

 

Chad	211
Greenland	210
Central African Republic	209
Mali	208
Niger	207
Afghanistan	206
Somalia	205
Mauritania	204
Congo (Dem. Rep.)	203
Mozambique	202
Zambia	201
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)	200
Mongolia	199
Namibia	198
Sudan	197
Burkina Faso	196
Laos	195
Madagascar	194
Guinea	193
Ethiopia	192
Liberia	191
Eritrea	190
Bhutan	189
Guyana	188
Tanzania	187
Botswana	186
Congo (Republic)	185
Uganda	184
Lesotho	183
Paraguay	182
Solomon Islands	181
Papua New Guinea	180
Malawi	179
Vanuatu	178
French Guiana	177
Suriname	176
Bolivia	175
Guinea-Bissau	174
Burundi	173
Cameroon	172
Gabon	171
Sierra Leone	170
Burma (Myanmar	169
Angola	168
Kenya	167
Cote d’Ivoire	166
Cambodia	165
Saint Helena	164
Nepal	163
Zimbabwe	162
Rwanda	161
Kyrgyzstan	160
Peru	159
Benin	158
Libya	157
Senegal	156
Iceland	155
Ghana	154
Nicaragua	153
Niue	152
Gambia, The	151
Belize	150
Uruguay	149
Timor-Leste	148
Tajikistan	147
Yemen	146
Algeria	145
Kiribati	144
Brazil	143
Togo	142
Samoa	141
Canada	140
Australia	139
Argentina	138
Colombia	137
Kazakhstan	136
Comoros	135
Honduras	134
Haiti	133
Georgia	132
Djibouti	131
Swaziland	130
Morocco	129
Nigeria	128
Cape Verde	127
Chile	126
Russia	125
Ecuador	124
Guatemala	123
Fiji	122
Sweden	121
Turkmenistan	120
Norway	119
Latvia	118
Costa Rica	117
Montenegro	116
Tunisia	115
New Zealand	114
Sao Tome and Principe	113
Finland	112
New Caledonia	111
Albania	110
Equatorial Guinea	109
Pakistan	108
Venezuela	107
Dominica	106
Turks & Caicos Islands	105
Egypt	104
Sri Lanka	103
Panama	102
Tonga	101
Moldova	100
Indonesia	99
Jordan	98
Mexico	97
Oman	96
Iraq	95
Saudi Arabia	94
Philippines	93
Lithuania	92
French Polynesia	91
Uzbekistan	90
Cuba	89
El Salvador	88
Saint Pierre & Miquelon	87
Macedonia	86
Belarus	85
Vietnam	84
Syria	83
Iran	82
Turkey	81
Romania	80
Bosnia & Herzegovina	79
South Africa	78
Bahamas	77
Armenia	76
Croatia	75
Bangladesh	74
Estonia	73
Bulgaria	72
Dominican Republic	71
Azerbaijan	70
Ukraine	69
Malaysia	68
India	67
Thailand	66
Serbia	65
Palestinian Territories	64
Hungary	63
United States of America	62
Faroe Islands	61
Ireland	60
Portugal	59
Cook Islands	58
Spain	57
Korea (North)	56
Saint Lucia	55
France	54
Slovakia	53
Greece	52
China	51
Austria	50
Slovenia	49
Grenada	48
Poland	47
Cyprus	46
Switzerland	45
Saint Vincent & the Grenadines	44
Jamaica	43
Reunion	42
Saint Kitts & Nevis	41
Denmark	40
Czech Republic	39
Guadeloupe	38
Brunei	37
Italy	36
Lebanon	35
Montserrat	34
Antigua & Barbuda	33
Cayman Islands	32
Germany	31
Mauritius	30
United Arab Emirates	29
Martinique	28
Japan	27
Maldives	26
Guam	25
Seychelles	24
Barbados	23
American Samoa	22
Israel	21
Puerto Rico	20
Luxembourg	19
Belgium	18
Kuwait	17
Korea (South)	16
Aruba	15
Qatar	14
Netherlands	13
Taiwan (Rep. of China)	12
Trinidad & Tobago	11
Nauru	10
Malta	9
Netherlands Antilles	8
Bermuda	7
Virgin Islands, U.S.	6
Bahrain	5
Hong Kong	4
Macau	3
Singapore	2
Gibraltar	1

 

 

Sources –

CO2 Emissions – US Energy Information – http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8

Land Areas – World Bank – http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2

 

 

 

She’s Freakin’ Out Man…$8 Trillion of White Paint?

Mounting Doom – I want to see it painted, painted, painted, painted white….white as the Arctic…

Wow. My staunchest local nemesis, Ms. Johnston (no “e” – http://blog.greenhearted.org/), has just published a blog post, which includes the following:

“So what are we going to do? It’s an emergency situation! What are we going to do? We’re actually facing down the prospect of extinction of our species! What are we going to do?

Folks, the tracheotomy is an emergency procedure for emergency situations. Our collective tracheotomy is geoengineering: “deliberate large-scale engineering and manipulation of the planetary environment to combat or counteract anthropogenic changes in atmospheric chemistry” (Wikipedia).

If we’re already saying no to the possibility of geoengineering, then we either don’t realize the emergency we’re in, or we’re choosing a future with no future for our children. The Canadian Youth Climate Coalition naively, in my view, calls geoengineering “a false solution.”

Friends, geoengineering is not a false solution, it is our last resort — and soon to be our only solution. We have been stung. We are ignoring the allergic reaction. We are refusing to use our EpiPen. If we don’t get some adrenalin into our system soon, we’d better be open to a tracheotomy (pardon the pun). Because otherwise, we are opting for death.”

Sounds like something Conan (the Barbarian, not the late night talk show host) would say – “Give me geoengineering, or give me death.”

Ms. Johnston’s blogs, within just a few months have gone from semi-reasonable to irrational to vindictive/nasty and now to outright hysterical. I’m quite concerned where this is all heading – figuratively shooting up with adrenalin or cutting our collective throats open? Why am I reminded of that scene from Pulp Fiction?

And, with the failure of Durban, Copenhagen, Kyoto, etc., it appears Ms. Johnston’s dire prediction of the mounting doom (not to be confused with Tolkien’s Mount Doom) is now spiraling wildly out of control. Is this some kind of runaway, psychological effect caused by people ignoring repeated warnings about the dangers of CO2?

In all seriousness, the physics of CO2 indicate there will be little more warming, due to CO2, over the next century, likely in the 1.2 degree Celsius range. For the past 11 years  temperature has been trending downward in spite of increases in CO2.

What I find fascinating about people like Ms. Johnston, is that their passion so often overcomes logic. Here is a great example from one of her posts: (http://blog.greenhearted.org/2009/11/29-days-to-copenhagen-where-are-elders.html)

1. Paint your roof white, to replace the disappearing 2.5 million square miles of albedo — the heat-reflecting effect of white ice and snow — in the Arctic. No less an expert than Steven Chu, US Secretary of Energy, explains that painting our roofs white would be the equivalent of taking all the cars in the world off the road for 11 years. The simple act of painting roofs white, he says, could have a dramatic impact on the amount of energy used to keep buildings comfortable, as well as directly offsetting global warming by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth.

 

When I did the math on her above suggestion, I found it would take more than 34 billion, 2,000 square foot homes to equal the 2.5 million square miles.

 

But, there are only approximately 135 million homes in the US and Canada, and that includes apartments. So, for the sake of this argument, I’ll be generous and say there is about 135,000,000 x 1000 square feet of roof. This works out to be 0.19 percent of the 2.5 million square miles. Therefore, if everyone painted their roofs white, it would have a negligible effect (0.19%) on the albedo effect. Not to mention the cost of the paint, estimated (@ $20/gallon and 350 sf coverage per gallon) at $7,714,285,714,286 – that’s over $8 trillion (including taxes, but not counting labour) and 385 billion gallons (385,714,285,714) of paint.

 

 

 

 

 

As I’ve mentioned in other posts, just $1 trillion would feed all of the world’s starving children for 200 years.

 

And yet, in Ms. Johnston’s compassionate world we should spend $8 trillion on an insignificant and totally fruitless (or is that fruitcake?) exercise because “no less an expert than Steven” somebody-or-other said its a good idea…pardon me…a “simple” act. “Simple” as in naive?

 

But wait, it gets even better. How much CO2 would be created by the production of the 385 billion gallons of paint? Well, @ 8kg CO2 per gallon, that works out to over 3 billion tonnes of CO2. That’s the equivalent CO2 emissions of 514,285,714 average cars for a full year. At 16 tonnes per year per Canadian, that equals about 6 years of total CO2 emissions for every person in Canada. 6 years of CO2 emissions for a 0.19% increase in albedo.

 

And for the “yeah buts,” I want to point something out. Sure you can shift the above square footages up or down, but, remember if you increase square footage you increase the amount of paint used and CO2 produced, and, if you decrease square footage you further reduce (< 0.19%) the insignificant effect this would have on warming.

 

So, its not time to slit our throats, shoot up adrenalin or opt for death. Really Ms. Johnston, calm down, catch your breath and enjoy the Christmas season. Throw another log on the fire and warm up.

 

It is however perhaps time the rest of us started to ask why we should believe activist teachers, and/or those who can’t, or don’t want to, add, subtract, multiply or divide to save their lives.

 

PS – Am I the only one who owns a copy of Excel? I mean math can really be fun, and revealing.

Selfish Percentdollarnumberatexlamation? I’ve Been Called Worse.

First I would like to offer an apology for misspelling a fellow blogger’s name – Ms. Julie Johnston. I had mistakenly spelled her name with an “e” (Johnstone).

Having committed that seemingly rather simple, human mistake, I was rather taken aback to find that I had “lost any last shred of credibility” because of the error.

Ms. Johnston (no “e”) recently blogged:

“And why should I live in a cold house all winter to lower my carbon footprint when that selfish %$#@! I wrote about a while ago doesn’t give a crap about today’s children or future generations? (By the way, turns out he’s read one book on climate change written by a denier, which of course makes him an expert. And he couldn’t even spell my name right when he slagged me in his blog … he kinda lost any last shred of credibility when I saw that.)”(http://blog.greenhearted.org/2011/11/so-am-i-climate-change-chump.html)

So, let me see if I have this correctly – in Ms. Johnston’s world, one lost “e” in a name shred’s credibility.

Well, I must admit I have been marveling at the hypocrisy of Ms. Johnston chiding me for making such a simple error in her name, while spewing so much misinformation about me in one paragraph.

1. Contrary to her above assertion, I do “give a crap” about today’s children AND future generations. I have written extensively about the fact that simple solutions to real, existing problems like lack of water, sanitation, food, medicine, education, and habitat worldwide have fallen by the wayside in the name of CO2 reduction. It is estimated $37 trillion would be required to meet Ms. Johnston’s carbon reduction goals, while one trillion would feed the world’s starving children for 200 years. While 16,000 children a day die because of their current “environment,” Ms. Johnston is happy to extoll the virtues of her sitting, shivering in her “cold house,” to combat CO2. And, the colder it gets, the more bitter a winter I’m sure it will be in her world.

2. Contrary to her assertion I have read only “one book on climate change written by a denier,” I have, in fact, read dozens of books (not “one book”)  on climate change, written by a myriad of scientists, quoting hundreds of studies, and have been interested in the subject for years. I have never proclaimed myself and expert, just an interested individual who enjoys learning more. The information I use is from scientific studies, or based on them. Since Ms. Johnston does not know me, and has never asked me how many books I have read on the subject, and without any explanation to the contrary, I have to conclude she is also comfortable creating baseless allegations and lying to her readers in an effort to discredit myself and my views.

One must ask the question of Ms. Johnston – why is it necessary for someone to use ad hominem, emotionally charged attacks to support your position and beliefs?

The answer to that question can be found in an examination of the associated fundamentalist theory – Anthropogenic Global Warming – which gives rise to the “belief” man is destroying the planet.

So, sorry about spelling your name wrong, sorry about the self-imposed temperature of your living quarters (I’ve got my thermostat set at 70), sorry you are so bitter, sorry that the science behind manmade CO2 global warming is falling down around your ears, sorry for the grief this must all cause you, and sorry you are such a sad, sad, sad individual.

There are my apologies…where are yours?

PS – Durban is not going to make you a happier camper.

 

 

 

 

Who’s Down With Big Business?

I had to laugh when I saw the following two images from:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/09/the-climate-movement-becomes-occupied/

Hypocrisy is evidently thick on both sides of Wall Street…these pictures speak volumes….