Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,154 
March 23rd, 2007, 09:34 PM
Kreskin, Kyoto is only going to work if it becomes more inclusive. The emission credits scheme bothers me first in that huge amounts of money are possibly up for grabs. Naysayers will argue that the market will set the price and the cost could be quite reasonable. Maybe.
The second, of course, is that the major stock and commodity exchanges want a part of the action and are chomping at the bit to get the whole system moving. The exchanges see it strictly as another market to regulate and exploit. They're got enough under their thumb already.
Kreskin, Kyoto is only going to work if it becomes more inclusive. The emission credits scheme bothers me first in that huge amounts of money are possibly up for grabs. Naysayers will argue that the market will set the price and the cost could be quite reasonable. Maybe.
The second, of course, is that the major stock and commodity exchanges want a part of the action and are chomping at the bit to get the whole system moving. The exchanges see it strictly as another market to regulate and exploit. They're got enough under their thumb already.
March 23rd, 2007, 09:38 PM
Quoting tamarin
What are the emission credits based on? Does anyone have a link to the formula?
Kreskin, Kyoto is only going to work if it becomes more inclusive. The emission credits scheme bothers me first in that huge amounts of money are possibly up for grabs. Naysayers will argue that the market will set the price and the cost could be quite reasonable. Maybe.
The second, of course, is that the major stock and commodity exchanges want a part of the action and are chomping at the bit to get the whole system moving. The exchanges see it strictly as another market to regulate and exploit. They're got enough under their thumb already.
The second, of course, is that the major stock and commodity exchanges want a part of the action and are chomping at the bit to get the whole system moving. The exchanges see it strictly as another market to regulate and exploit. They're got enough under their thumb already.
March 29th, 2007, 06:38 PM
The Cost of Business As Usual
Part 2
The issue at hand has in recent times exploded into an orgy of polemic diatribe. Rightly or wrongly the facts have been taken out of context in an effort to sway the tide of influence. This is true for both sides of the debate. What makes this rather easy to do is the underlying truth that climate science is complex and deals with notions intangible to the layperson. Any reporting in the popular press will use language appropriate for the hungry public.
Some concepts require only a basic understanding of the science involved. More tricky to explain to the public is the intricacies of the data. This is really where the issue gets muddied and turbid.
Denialist Lexicon
Now that some of the basic questions have been answered, the road to climate enlightenment must run the gauntlet so to speak of the minutiae. These fine details are what are needed to raise those aforementioned confidence levels in the climate models. These fine details are also the most controversial in the climate debate.
As the science has progressed there have been hurdles set up at each ascending step by the deniers. These hurdles bare semblance to the hurdles thrown at the feet of the evolution-creationism debate. They become the standard vocabulary and because of the obviousness and pedantic nature of the science they wield remarkable power over the influence of the subject matter.
While there is plenty of dissent out there over the IPCC and the ‘consensus’ amongst the climate scientists, the Denialist science is never about dissecting the reports issued by the IPCC and other scientists, but rather papers which come to differing conclusions. These papers have time and again been dissected and shown to be false.
Recently due to the large amount of press and the confidence being espoused by the scientists working on the IPCC report, these hurdles have been thrown down yet again.
The most obvious hurdle is the sun. There have been many studies investigating the solar influence on climate. Many claimed to have found the needle in the haystack. Unfortunately for us, these studies, not one of them has stood up to the scientific inquiry. There are a number of aspects, which have been investigated, and not a single one has nailed the issue.
Late in 2006, a paper was published which garnished much attention. So much so that an influential Senator now famous for his clash with a former Vice-President used this data in senate hearings. The study by Scafetta and West in the journal Geophysical Research Letters claimed to have found that solar forcing accounted for ~50% of the 20th century temperature change.
Some basic problems surfaced when the data was analyzed. Here is the problem. They used selected total solar irradiance (TSI) averages for the 18th and 17th centuries. The equation is set up as:
=[ T(18th C.) - T(17th C.) ] / [ I(18th C.) - I(17th C.) ] where T is mean temperature and I is mean TSI
They used this formula to set up their model. The basic problem of this formula is, the TSI. The indices for the TSI between the 18th and 17th centuries are very similar. When using an equation like this with similar denominator values, any small change to the Temperature in this case will yield large results. This implies a large range of error.
Using this value anyways, when Scafetta and West analyzed differences in 19th and 17th century data with three different estimates for TSI, the results varied between 0.20 and 0.57. This is a very large range to base a model on.
Further in the paper, the authors reveal their bias; they assumed solar causality for all climate fluctuations from the 17th to the 19th century. They ignored the natural forcings like volcanism, changes in land usage and the myriad of other variable chaotic dynamics. The point being that it is possible to have similar solar irradiances, but it is not possible that they could yield such large changes in temperature. Going back to their equation and the flawed assumptions, they neglected the other climatic functions, which play key roles in temperature change.
This is a good example of a flawed model, resulting in data favourable to a pre-conceived notion. This oversight is systemic in all of the investigations that have yielded a strong correlation to solar forcings and the current climate change. This is in stark contrast to the IPCC models and models of many other scientists which use multi-variate data, which must include anthropogenic forces in current models of our climate. Certainly in the past the climate was naturally variable, and still is. It is rather odd as a scientist in training that an unreliable model would get so much attention, yet reliable models would be treated as a factory flaw.
There are a number of other bogus claims that have been brought forward. Carbon dioxide increasing means better plant growth, sun spots rather than TSI are the key forcing, intergalactic cosmic rays and even volcanism. The common thread to all of these notions is this: the models they use have been shown to have flaws in their mathematics, statistics and assumptions. When you base a climate model on singular functions, the result cannot be accurate or reliable enough to be truly representative. This is the pedantic nature of climate science with all its intricacies.
The Cost of Business As Usual
Part 2
The issue at hand has in recent times exploded into an orgy of polemic diatribe. Rightly or wrongly the facts have been taken out of context in an effort to sway the tide of influence. This is true for both sides of the debate. What makes this rather easy to do is the underlying truth that climate science is complex and deals with notions intangible to the layperson. Any reporting in the popular press will use language appropriate for the hungry public.
Some concepts require only a basic understanding of the science involved. More tricky to explain to the public is the intricacies of the data. This is really where the issue gets muddied and turbid.
Denialist Lexicon
Now that some of the basic questions have been answered, the road to climate enlightenment must run the gauntlet so to speak of the minutiae. These fine details are what are needed to raise those aforementioned confidence levels in the climate models. These fine details are also the most controversial in the climate debate.
As the science has progressed there have been hurdles set up at each ascending step by the deniers. These hurdles bare semblance to the hurdles thrown at the feet of the evolution-creationism debate. They become the standard vocabulary and because of the obviousness and pedantic nature of the science they wield remarkable power over the influence of the subject matter.
While there is plenty of dissent out there over the IPCC and the ‘consensus’ amongst the climate scientists, the Denialist science is never about dissecting the reports issued by the IPCC and other scientists, but rather papers which come to differing conclusions. These papers have time and again been dissected and shown to be false.
Recently due to the large amount of press and the confidence being espoused by the scientists working on the IPCC report, these hurdles have been thrown down yet again.
The most obvious hurdle is the sun. There have been many studies investigating the solar influence on climate. Many claimed to have found the needle in the haystack. Unfortunately for us, these studies, not one of them has stood up to the scientific inquiry. There are a number of aspects, which have been investigated, and not a single one has nailed the issue.
Late in 2006, a paper was published which garnished much attention. So much so that an influential Senator now famous for his clash with a former Vice-President used this data in senate hearings. The study by Scafetta and West in the journal Geophysical Research Letters claimed to have found that solar forcing accounted for ~50% of the 20th century temperature change.
Some basic problems surfaced when the data was analyzed. Here is the problem. They used selected total solar irradiance (TSI) averages for the 18th and 17th centuries. The equation is set up as:
=[ T(18th C.) - T(17th C.) ] / [ I(18th C.) - I(17th C.) ] where T is mean temperature and I is mean TSI
They used this formula to set up their model. The basic problem of this formula is, the TSI. The indices for the TSI between the 18th and 17th centuries are very similar. When using an equation like this with similar denominator values, any small change to the Temperature in this case will yield large results. This implies a large range of error.
Using this value anyways, when Scafetta and West analyzed differences in 19th and 17th century data with three different estimates for TSI, the results varied between 0.20 and 0.57. This is a very large range to base a model on.
Further in the paper, the authors reveal their bias; they assumed solar causality for all climate fluctuations from the 17th to the 19th century. They ignored the natural forcings like volcanism, changes in land usage and the myriad of other variable chaotic dynamics. The point being that it is possible to have similar solar irradiances, but it is not possible that they could yield such large changes in temperature. Going back to their equation and the flawed assumptions, they neglected the other climatic functions, which play key roles in temperature change.
This is a good example of a flawed model, resulting in data favourable to a pre-conceived notion. This oversight is systemic in all of the investigations that have yielded a strong correlation to solar forcings and the current climate change. This is in stark contrast to the IPCC models and models of many other scientists which use multi-variate data, which must include anthropogenic forces in current models of our climate. Certainly in the past the climate was naturally variable, and still is. It is rather odd as a scientist in training that an unreliable model would get so much attention, yet reliable models would be treated as a factory flaw.
There are a number of other bogus claims that have been brought forward. Carbon dioxide increasing means better plant growth, sun spots rather than TSI are the key forcing, intergalactic cosmic rays and even volcanism. The common thread to all of these notions is this: the models they use have been shown to have flaws in their mathematics, statistics and assumptions. When you base a climate model on singular functions, the result cannot be accurate or reliable enough to be truly representative. This is the pedantic nature of climate science with all its intricacies.
April 1st, 2007, 12:35 PM
The Cost of Business As Usual
Part 3
Whethor or not you ascribe to the schools of thought on the matter at hand, one underlying principle remains at the heart of the matter. Cost. How much will implementing mitigating mechanisms cost? How much will doing nothing cost? What are the costs of a changing climate?
Frequently programs set up to reduce the emissions rely on the trading of emisisons credits.It seems counter-intuitive to some that these programs actually acomplish anything. How does continuing to pollute while spending money in other areas accomplish any of the goals set out? The critical notion that we have to consider is this; if we all share the same atmosphere, and as we all know pollution from one geographic area will of course spread to other areas, it makes very little sense to isolate emissions and treat them as a localized problem. The bigger picture is that by spending money to make efficient use of energy elsewhere, the planet as a whole has also become more efficient, and thus cleaner.
The population growth dictates that more energy production will be needed. Research and development of energy alternatives is big business these days. Renewable energy will be increasingly important as the population of the planet continues to grow. Renewable energy also offers a cleaner alternative to conventional energy production.
As we continue to place reliance on governments to achieve these goals, industry often takes the brunt of the criticism. I will posit that this is unfounded. Insurance companies have allready been implementing climate change in their cost models. When assessing claims, some companies are directing their customers to green materials.
The relatively unknown Chicago Climate Exchange has been up and running since December of 2003. It is the worlds first trading market for greenhouse gas emission reductions and offsets, and includes six of the most forcefull greenhouse gases. Methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perflourocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. Greenhouse gases not included in the list are converteed to an equivalent CO2 weight based on a 100 year global warming potenmtial based on IPCC values. Member corporations, provinces, states and municipalities all agree to mandatory reductions from a baseline established from 1998-2001 numbers.
The emssions schedule looks like this:
Phase I CCX Emission Reduction Target 2003 1% below Member's baseline, 2004 2% below Member's baseline, 2005 3% below Member's baseline, 2006 4% below Member's baseline
Phase II CCX Emission Reduction Target 2007 4.25% below Member's baseline, 2008 4.5% below Member's baseline, 2009 5% below Member's baseline, 2010 6% below Member's baseline.
The mechanisms by which these members can reduce emissions (keeping in mind that global picture I mentioned earlier,) include :
It seems that many corporations and government entities have realized the costs of business as usual and are making their own way towards efficient energy usage and an environemntal ethic that is based on capitalistic mechanisms. Some of the notable members of this exchange include: Rolls Royce, Ford Motor Company, Dow Corning, Dupont, Manitoba Hydro, Motorola, Inc., Waste Management, Inc., Stora Enso North America, and many other corporations, municipalities and universities.
These gains being made by these corporations have also allowed them to remain competitive over-seas and in Asia where regulations prohibit some of their competitors from operating.
As the market grows, it will serve to show other governments and their regulatory bodies that a cap and trade system can work, can generate revenue, and can be effective at making real progress.
The Cost of Business As Usual
Part 3
Whethor or not you ascribe to the schools of thought on the matter at hand, one underlying principle remains at the heart of the matter. Cost. How much will implementing mitigating mechanisms cost? How much will doing nothing cost? What are the costs of a changing climate?
Frequently programs set up to reduce the emissions rely on the trading of emisisons credits.It seems counter-intuitive to some that these programs actually acomplish anything. How does continuing to pollute while spending money in other areas accomplish any of the goals set out? The critical notion that we have to consider is this; if we all share the same atmosphere, and as we all know pollution from one geographic area will of course spread to other areas, it makes very little sense to isolate emissions and treat them as a localized problem. The bigger picture is that by spending money to make efficient use of energy elsewhere, the planet as a whole has also become more efficient, and thus cleaner.
The population growth dictates that more energy production will be needed. Research and development of energy alternatives is big business these days. Renewable energy will be increasingly important as the population of the planet continues to grow. Renewable energy also offers a cleaner alternative to conventional energy production.
As we continue to place reliance on governments to achieve these goals, industry often takes the brunt of the criticism. I will posit that this is unfounded. Insurance companies have allready been implementing climate change in their cost models. When assessing claims, some companies are directing their customers to green materials.
The relatively unknown Chicago Climate Exchange has been up and running since December of 2003. It is the worlds first trading market for greenhouse gas emission reductions and offsets, and includes six of the most forcefull greenhouse gases. Methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perflourocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. Greenhouse gases not included in the list are converteed to an equivalent CO2 weight based on a 100 year global warming potenmtial based on IPCC values. Member corporations, provinces, states and municipalities all agree to mandatory reductions from a baseline established from 1998-2001 numbers.
The emssions schedule looks like this:
Phase I CCX Emission Reduction Target 2003 1% below Member's baseline, 2004 2% below Member's baseline, 2005 3% below Member's baseline, 2006 4% below Member's baseline
Phase II CCX Emission Reduction Target 2007 4.25% below Member's baseline, 2008 4.5% below Member's baseline, 2009 5% below Member's baseline, 2010 6% below Member's baseline.
The mechanisms by which these members can reduce emissions (keeping in mind that global picture I mentioned earlier,) include :
- Methane destruction:
- Initiating and operating landfill methane collection and destruction in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil and other countries as applicable
- Initiating methane collection and destruction systems at livestock operations
- Agricultural practices:
- Committing land to continuous no-till, strip-till, or ridge-till cropping in the central United States and other regions or countries as applicable
- Initiating grass cover planting in specified states, counties and parishes in the United States
- Forestry practices:
- Initiating forestation and forest enrichment projects
- Initiating combined forestation and forest conservation projects in Brazil and Mexico
- Other GHG emission mitigation in Brazil:
- Fuel switching
- Renewable energy generation from solar, wind, small hydroelectric and biomass systems
- Renewable energy:
- Displacement of CO2 emissions by eligible renewable energy facilities
- Clean Development Mechanism Eligible Projects:
- Acceptance of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
It seems that many corporations and government entities have realized the costs of business as usual and are making their own way towards efficient energy usage and an environemntal ethic that is based on capitalistic mechanisms. Some of the notable members of this exchange include: Rolls Royce, Ford Motor Company, Dow Corning, Dupont, Manitoba Hydro, Motorola, Inc., Waste Management, Inc., Stora Enso North America, and many other corporations, municipalities and universities.
These gains being made by these corporations have also allowed them to remain competitive over-seas and in Asia where regulations prohibit some of their competitors from operating.
As the market grows, it will serve to show other governments and their regulatory bodies that a cap and trade system can work, can generate revenue, and can be effective at making real progress.
August 1st, 2007, 11:57 PM
The Cost Of Business As Usual
Part 4
It’s been some time since this thread was posted in, but the recent activity in related threads has prompted a revisit. Although I’ve already given my two cents on many issues, I will give a couple more pennies yet again.
The first issue I want to deal with is a favorite of the denialist repertoire. The sun. Another paper was recently published which, to everyone’s surprise, could find no trend between the solar output and the temperature here on Earth. (http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf).
The issue amongst solar physicists is long dead, and to borrow a line, “That's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”
This segways right into my next point. The reliability of news media and blogospheres when reporting the “facts” of global warming. Recently I have seen many articles pointing to the sun, but what’s missing is data, what they have plenty of is editorializing. Let’s have an example shall we?
Recently on the blogosphere, I came across a working paper titled “Global Warming: Forecasts by scientists versus Scientific Forecasts.” In the paper, the conclusions are that the IPCC forecasts are not-in their words mind you- scientific and therefore must be wrong. This is despite the fact that the previous IPCC numbers have already been proven correct and in some instances, due to the consensus nature of the IPCC, been too conservative and actually underestimated the changing variables.
This “working paper,” twists words by inserting their own language and scoring system which gives a score to indicate how well the “science” is working.
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com...armAudit31.pdf
.
Heres an example of their arrogance, and probably why, as of yet they have met with resistance by both academics in the many scientific fields as well as practitioners. In their tirade against the IPCC numbers, one of their problems is that they think GCM, or global climate models, are not tested on data from outside the samples used, which is preposterous. First off the models are used for situtations these bums aren’t aware of such as, paleo-climatology as a whole and the last glacial maximum to be specific. In fact it appears that they know very little about models in general, for in order for a GCM to be considered valid in the climate field it must meet these criteria: 1) The principles used must be consistant with the laws of physics, 2) Can it accurately simulate present climate, 3) Can it simulate our daily weather systems which constitute our climate and 4) Can it simulate what is known about past climates.
Another prime example of the dichotomy between good science and good editorializing came a few weeks back when a paper published in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/317/5834/111) , found DNA dating back approximately 500,000 years to Greenland. This was a marvel indeed, but what happened was nothing short of a mad circus from the usual suspects. Immediately the article was picked up and hailed for showing how Greenland is a stable ice mass, how it has been as warm as England before and how this all plays into the natural cycles of climate variability. On that note, false, true and false. When these stories are picked up, they fail to mention that it is expected that these temperatures would be found back then. Earth’s orbital make-up was such that we were in a warm phase, which runs in predictable and regular cycles known as Milankovich cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Another bone to pick, is the frequent notion that abating the climate change we’ve helped spur will cost us, dearly. First off, whenever an economist makes claims on how environmental regulations will cost us dearly, I remember reading about the lesser talked about Montreal protocol.
One economist has done some exceptional work. Eban Goodstein analysed the past projections of regulatory costs to industry and found that in every case, the actual costs to industry were grossly inflated in the estimates before hand. The problem as he saw it was that an economist cannot predict how industry will innovate to comply with new regulations.
To bring it back to the Montreal Protocol, when countries responded finally to the public outcry, before the science was even settled interestingly enough, companies had to clean up their acts. Nortel networks actually saved money following the new regulations. They had to invest $1 Million initially on new systems, but after the new systems were up and running, they were saving $4 Million in waste disposal costs and CFC purchases.
These snippets are but a taste of the sideshow tricks and gimmicks employed by some folks resisting the tide so to speak.
The Cost Of Business As Usual
Part 4
It’s been some time since this thread was posted in, but the recent activity in related threads has prompted a revisit. Although I’ve already given my two cents on many issues, I will give a couple more pennies yet again.
The first issue I want to deal with is a favorite of the denialist repertoire. The sun. Another paper was recently published which, to everyone’s surprise, could find no trend between the solar output and the temperature here on Earth. (http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf).
The issue amongst solar physicists is long dead, and to borrow a line, “That's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”
This segways right into my next point. The reliability of news media and blogospheres when reporting the “facts” of global warming. Recently I have seen many articles pointing to the sun, but what’s missing is data, what they have plenty of is editorializing. Let’s have an example shall we?
Recently on the blogosphere, I came across a working paper titled “Global Warming: Forecasts by scientists versus Scientific Forecasts.” In the paper, the conclusions are that the IPCC forecasts are not-in their words mind you- scientific and therefore must be wrong. This is despite the fact that the previous IPCC numbers have already been proven correct and in some instances, due to the consensus nature of the IPCC, been too conservative and actually underestimated the changing variables.
This “working paper,” twists words by inserting their own language and scoring system which gives a score to indicate how well the “science” is working.
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com...armAudit31.pdf
.
Heres an example of their arrogance, and probably why, as of yet they have met with resistance by both academics in the many scientific fields as well as practitioners. In their tirade against the IPCC numbers, one of their problems is that they think GCM, or global climate models, are not tested on data from outside the samples used, which is preposterous. First off the models are used for situtations these bums aren’t aware of such as, paleo-climatology as a whole and the last glacial maximum to be specific. In fact it appears that they know very little about models in general, for in order for a GCM to be considered valid in the climate field it must meet these criteria: 1) The principles used must be consistant with the laws of physics, 2) Can it accurately simulate present climate, 3) Can it simulate our daily weather systems which constitute our climate and 4) Can it simulate what is known about past climates.
Another prime example of the dichotomy between good science and good editorializing came a few weeks back when a paper published in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/317/5834/111) , found DNA dating back approximately 500,000 years to Greenland. This was a marvel indeed, but what happened was nothing short of a mad circus from the usual suspects. Immediately the article was picked up and hailed for showing how Greenland is a stable ice mass, how it has been as warm as England before and how this all plays into the natural cycles of climate variability. On that note, false, true and false. When these stories are picked up, they fail to mention that it is expected that these temperatures would be found back then. Earth’s orbital make-up was such that we were in a warm phase, which runs in predictable and regular cycles known as Milankovich cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Another bone to pick, is the frequent notion that abating the climate change we’ve helped spur will cost us, dearly. First off, whenever an economist makes claims on how environmental regulations will cost us dearly, I remember reading about the lesser talked about Montreal protocol.
One economist has done some exceptional work. Eban Goodstein analysed the past projections of regulatory costs to industry and found that in every case, the actual costs to industry were grossly inflated in the estimates before hand. The problem as he saw it was that an economist cannot predict how industry will innovate to comply with new regulations.
To bring it back to the Montreal Protocol, when countries responded finally to the public outcry, before the science was even settled interestingly enough, companies had to clean up their acts. Nortel networks actually saved money following the new regulations. They had to invest $1 Million initially on new systems, but after the new systems were up and running, they were saving $4 Million in waste disposal costs and CFC purchases.
These snippets are but a taste of the sideshow tricks and gimmicks employed by some folks resisting the tide so to speak.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 5,380
Location: Kamloops BC
Location: Kamloops BC
October 26th, 2007, 12:20 AM
and your answer for this little report Tonington?
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...O2_Scandal.pdf
and your answer for this little report Tonington?
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...O2_Scandal.pdf
October 26th, 2007, 09:53 AM
In response to the large amount of funding, I have not answers but more questions. The Americans have a satellite sitting in a warehouse right now. This satellite would sit in a spot between the earth and sun, and constantly monitor the sunlit side of the earth. It cost $100 million to build, but it has been scrapped. The satellite would have given scientists for the first time, a clear picture of exactly how much energy from the sun is absorbed, reflected and radiated back into space. A very important dataset to have.
The current administration has scrapped the idea, mothballed. It now sits while it could be collecting data to give us a better understanding of the climate system as a whole. Perhaps it is because the satellite is a product of the former administration. The information given doesn't fit with the increase in funding at all. The administration cited the reason for cancellation as "competing priorities", like going to Mars is so much more important....
Then he misrepresents the findings. Then he goes back to the water vapour argument. A circular argument that is constantly thrown around. The water vapour may be the largest component by %, but that does not make it the most important gas. Nitrogen is the largest component of atmospheric gas, but oxygen is by far the most important.
I'm not impressed at all by the "report." It's not a scientific report, it's an op-ed filled with half truths, lies and the usual misdirection of a denier. According to his work, we're entering an ice age. According to him, the co2 in the ice cores is an artifact caused by structural changes in the ice with depth and by postcoring processes, despite the physical evidence to the contrary.
He cherry picks, badly. If he wants to make a case for his claim, do not pick ONE ice coring station, you pick as many as you can, and if there is a trend, well then you're onto something. But he isn't. Increases in carbon dioxide and methane have been found in many ice coring stations around the world for the interglacial periods. The most recent interglacial is located in the brittle zone of ice. This would be a contradiction to his claims.
In response to the large amount of funding, I have not answers but more questions. The Americans have a satellite sitting in a warehouse right now. This satellite would sit in a spot between the earth and sun, and constantly monitor the sunlit side of the earth. It cost $100 million to build, but it has been scrapped. The satellite would have given scientists for the first time, a clear picture of exactly how much energy from the sun is absorbed, reflected and radiated back into space. A very important dataset to have.
The current administration has scrapped the idea, mothballed. It now sits while it could be collecting data to give us a better understanding of the climate system as a whole. Perhaps it is because the satellite is a product of the former administration. The information given doesn't fit with the increase in funding at all. The administration cited the reason for cancellation as "competing priorities", like going to Mars is so much more important....
Then he misrepresents the findings. Then he goes back to the water vapour argument. A circular argument that is constantly thrown around. The water vapour may be the largest component by %, but that does not make it the most important gas. Nitrogen is the largest component of atmospheric gas, but oxygen is by far the most important.
I'm not impressed at all by the "report." It's not a scientific report, it's an op-ed filled with half truths, lies and the usual misdirection of a denier. According to his work, we're entering an ice age. According to him, the co2 in the ice cores is an artifact caused by structural changes in the ice with depth and by postcoring processes, despite the physical evidence to the contrary.
He cherry picks, badly. If he wants to make a case for his claim, do not pick ONE ice coring station, you pick as many as you can, and if there is a trend, well then you're onto something. But he isn't. Increases in carbon dioxide and methane have been found in many ice coring stations around the world for the interglacial periods. The most recent interglacial is located in the brittle zone of ice. This would be a contradiction to his claims.
