Thursday, 24 January 2013

Green Gillard Government's tax on CO2 goes from BAD to Worse.

Image: Larry Pickering
Talk about a bunch of losers. Climate Hoax Minister Greg Combet decided that, after 2015, Australia would link their carbon dioxide tax to European Market:
Under the full arrangement businesses will be allowed to use carbon units from the Australian emissions trading scheme or the European Union Emissions Trading System for compliance under either system.
"Starting today, Australian liable entities can purchase EU allowances for future compliance in Australia," Mr Combet said. (link)
Greg (You're so wrong, Greg) Combet says that Australia will link to the European Scheme.

The Australian Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Hon Greg Combet MP, and the European Commissioner for Climate Action, Ms Connie Hedegaard announced today that Australia and Europe will be linking their emissions trading systems. (link)
And the price, Mr You're so Wrong?
 Mr Combet repeated he was confident of the Treasury modelling, which predicts a $29 a tonne carbon price in 2015/16.
But, in reality, the price has fallen to around 20% of that: (link)
THE European carbon market, which Australia has agreed to join, has been plunged into crisis with the price falling below E5 ($6.30) a tonne for the first time.
The European price is now less than a quarter of Australia's fixed carbon price and has lost 70 per cent of its value since mid-2011.
Prices in the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) on Thursday dropped to 2.81 euros a metric ton (1.1023 ton) after a vote in the European Parliament's energy and industry committee opposing a scheme known as "backloading" to support prices by extracting allowances from the market and reinjecting them later.
That's less than 10% of the Green Gillard Government and Mr Combet's $29 a tonne.

And here's another little bit of info for Mr You're so wrong Combet. The Mafia are involved in the European Reneable Energy Scheme.
“Uncle Vincenzo,” implored the businessman, Angelo Salvatore, using a term of affection for the alleged head of Sicily’s Gimbellina crime family, 79-year-old Vincenzo Funari. According to a transcript of their wiretapped conversation, Salvatore continued, “for the love of our sons, renewable energy is important. . . . it’s a business we can live on.”

The U.K. is the state where voters are more likely to call EU membership bad for their country.
And for quite awhile, Italian prosecutors say, they did. In an unfolding plot that is part “The Sopranos,” part “An Inconvenient Truth,” authorities swept across Sicily last month in the latest wave of sting operations revealing years of deep infiltration into the renewable energy sector by Italy’s rapidly modernizing crime families.
(Below sung to the tune of Da doo Ron Ron)    
Co            Mr. Combet says he thinks the evidence is clear
You’re so wrong wrong, Greg, you’re so wrong, wrong
He says it’s getting hotter year by year.
You’re so wrong wrong, Greg, you’re so wrong, wrong.

He Says
As he grits his jaws
He Says that
Man’s the cause
He Says that
He'll change the laws
You’re so wrong wrong, Greg, you’re so wrong, wrong.
I knew that he was thinking that he’d fool us all
You’re so wrong wrong, Greg, you’re so wrong, wrong.
Which shows an amount of gall
You’re so wrong wrong, Greg, you’re so wrong, wrong.

Climate Crimes

Ulrich Eichmann
Dr Benny Peiser has reviewed a new film by  Ulrich Eichmann. From Herr Eichmann's blog we learn:
He is an ecologist and working professionally for over 20 years in conservation. From 1990 to 2007 he was with the WWF Austria and coordinated several campaigns against dam construction and destruction of nature. For several years he has led the Stop Ilisu Campaign and the NGO "ECA Watch Austria". He has a daughter and lives in Vienna.
Benny Peiser writes
These days, much is spoken and written about the destruction of our planet as a result of climate change. In his evocative film “Climate Crimes”, the Austrian filmmaker Ulrich Eichelmann who was an active member of WWF for 17 years and worked in conservation for decades, now documents that it is rather the reverse: he shows how many ecosystems, species, habitats and the cultural heritage too are threatened – but, as he sums up, “not by climate change, but by climate protection and the things done in its name.” It is predominantly hydropower and bioenergy projects that threaten to destroy precious areas of our planet’s nature.

That current climate policies harm conservation in many ways is nothing new, even if many do not want to admit it. However, no one so far has compiled the evidence as strongly and on a global scale as Eichelmann. His one-hour film, which is shown in several cinemas in Germany these days and also on Austrian television, is the result of two years of work that led his team to Brazil, Turkey, Iraq and to Indonesia, but also to the model country of climate protection, Germany, where crimes against nature are especially evident.  Read more HERE

A Threatened Life

Below, a trailer for Ulrich's Movie (in German) Einige beängstigend Bilder.


Pierre Gosselin, reviewing the Movie in December
If you are one of the skeptics, much of the film probably will be familiar to you. But if you’re a devout environmentalist who has been reading and believing all the climate propaganda put out by “environmental” and “climate protection” groups and institutes, then you may want to have an ambulance ready outside the cinema. It might be really tough to take.

Be sure to bring your environmentalist friends to see this film. Their reaction will be most interesting as it will reveal if they are truly open to the truth. Face it, there’s a huge industrial lobby behind the “green” movement too.

Are Humans responsible for the increase in CO2?

AGW and CO2: Are humans responsible for the increase in CO2?

by Anthony Cox

The empirical evidence for an increase in atmospheric CO2 over the 20thC is fairly uncontroversial. The increase in CO2 levels began about 1850 when the Little Ice Age ended. The acceleration in CO2 levels began about 1900 when they were 280 parts per million [ppm] and have continued until they are now 394 ppm.

Until the 20thC records of atmospheric CO2 levels show a basically constant CO2 with variation as little as 10ppm over centuries. These past records are based on ice cores. The theory is that natural emissions of CO2 and sinks, or places where the CO2 is absorbed, were in equilibrium. This all changed when human emissions of CO2, ACO2, began.

The official viewpoint about why CO2 levels have increased over the 20thC is put forward by the EPA. The EPA makes a comparison with a bath-tub. They say prior to the increase in ACO2, natural emissions of CO2 were like water from the “spigot” going into the bath-tub and natural sinks were like the drain. The level of CO2 never changed because nature, like the bath-tub, was in balance. ACO2 upset this balance by being like a glass of water which was poured into the bath-tub and is responsible for the increase in CO2.

There are a number of problems with this official view. The first is the assumption that past CO2 levels were as unvarying as the ice cores suggest. The problems with the ice cores is they are subject to close-off fractionation, or leakage of gases from the gas trapped in the ice, because of ice pressure; this process is related to the kinetic diameter of the gas molecules not the collision diameter; something which confuses even experts who gave ice cores a clean bill of health as a proxy for past CO2 levels.

The result of close-off fractionation is that ice cores may underestimate past levels and fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, as Drake, Jaworowsky, Glassman and Segalstad have proposed.

Arguably the most reliable history of past CO2 levels is from plant stomata records as Figure 12 shows. Figure 12 indicates past levels of CO2 were almost at today’s levels as recently as 1550. In addition chemical analyses of CO2 levels in Figure 13 show CO2 levels higher than today in the early 1800’s.

If the stomata and chemical analysis records are right this would mean that the natural emissions and sinks, the spigot and drain of the system are not always in equilibrium. In turn this would throw doubt on the assumption that there was equilibrium between natural emissions and sinks at the beginning of the 20thC before ACO2 allegedly caused the increase in CO2.

Further doubt on this assumption of a natural equilibrium is contained in 2 recent papers.
The first is by Tom Quirk. Figure 1A from Quirk shows the ACO2 emissions with the increase in atmospheric CO2:
If the assumption about the equilibrium between natural emissions and CO2 and sinks was correct the increase in atmospheric CO2 would correlate with the ACO2 emissions since, according to the EPA, the increase in the CO2 is entirely due to that extra glass of ACO2 being added to the ’bath-tub’ or atmosphere. However there is no such correlation; and since we know what the ACO2 emissions are the lack of correlation between ACO2 and the increase in CO2 must mean there is no equilibrium between the natural emissions and sinks.

Quirk also shows the natural CO2 emissions and sinks are strongly correlated with changes in ENSO, the pattern of El Nino and La Nina episodes. There have been stronger warm ENSO periods since the LIA. Warmer ENSO periods would lead to higher sea surface temperatures. According to Henrys Law with warmer sea surface temperatures more natural CO2 would be emitted from the oceans into the atmosphere. This is one possible reason why natural CO2 has been contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Another reason is contained in the 2nd paper by Knorr which supported by the Gloor et al paper.
Knorr found the airborne fraction [AF] of ACO2 has not changed in 150 years. The AF is the % of ACO2 emissions which remain in the atmosphere contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. The constant AF found by Knorr was about 40%.
Figure 1 from Knorr illustrates this:

Knorr: Figure 1
Knorr describes Figure 1 as “Observed atmospheric CO2 increase derived from direct measurements, taking the average of Mauna Loa (Hawaii) and the South Pole (thin solid line), and two ice cores: Law Dome (dashed thin line) and Siple (dotted thin line). This is compared to total anthropogenic emissions (thick solid line) and 46% of total emissions (thick dashed line)”.

The 46% in fact was an estimate by Dr Knorr [as indicated in private correspondence] and should be 40% as the calculated amount of the constant AF. The graph shows that general atmospheric CO2 is increasing by much less than the amount of the ACO2 emissions. It is this which underpins the argument that ACO2 is responsible for all the increase in atmospheric CO2. That is, given the assumption that natural emissions and sinks were in equilibrium before ACO2 started to increase, the official position is now that the sinks have increased to absorb some of the increase in ACO2 but not all and that remainder of non-absorbed ACO2 is what is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Quirk and the stomata history has already shown that the assumption that natural CO2 emissions and sinks were in equilibrium is problematic. What the constant AF shows is that the increase in ACO2 and natural sinks does not explain the increase in atmospheric CO2. The AF does this because it is the ONLY amount of ACO2 available to increase the atmospheric CO2. The expanding sinks are absorbing about 60% of the increase in ACO2 but as Knorr’s figure 1 plainly shows atmospheric CO2 increase is expanding more than the remaining 40% of ACO2 left. This is shown by all the peaks above the thick dashed line. If the AF were graphed at its correct 40% it would be slightly lower than shown in Knorr’s graph. This is plainly shown in this graph based on the Mauna Loa measurements from 1959:

Graph by Ian Hill

Clearly the AF is predominantly below the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2. This is reflected in a comparison between the slopes of the increase atmospheric CO2 which is 0.0575 and the AF which is 40% of the increase in ACO2, or 0.0447. That is, the AF is increasing LESS than the increase in atmospheric CO2. Even in those years when the increase falls below the AF it cannot be said that natural CO2 emissions are not contributing because of the lack of equilibrium between CO2 emissions and sinks.

The effect can be compared with the principle of a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 40% of all CO2 [as per the constant ACO2 AF] which is 100, so ACO2 is 40 and natural CO2 is 60; when all CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 40% will be 80 so natural CO2 will be 120, an increase of 60; at 300, ACO2 is 120, natural CO2 is 180 and so on; natural CO2 MUST be contributing to the increase in total CO2.

Man made global warming [AGW] is based on human emissions of CO2 disrupting the climate. The basic science supporting AGW has been shown to be defective. If it turns out that human emissions of CO2 are not the primary reason for the increase in atmospheric CO2 then even further doubt is cast on the theory of AGW.

China Getting Greener - CO2 is good for you.

Over a quarter-century ago, Dr. Sherwood Idso stated in a small self-published book that if the airs CO2 content continued to rise, it would enhance plant growth and water use efficiency to the point that semi-arid lands not then suitable for cultivation could be brought into profitable production and that the deserts themselves could blossom as the rose. How is this prediction standing today?
Sherwood's son Craig Idso of CO2 Science:

Real World observations of ever increasing productivity throughout China. Net Primary Productivity increased in water limited regions. Net Primary Productivity of China’s vegetation will increase with the global increase of atmospheric CO2.

Support sound science.Tell the world’s radical environmentalists that carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor a major source of global warming.

No imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.

Team of Ex-NASA Scientists Concludes No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A group of 20 ex-NASA scientists have concluded that the science used to support the man-made climate change hypothesis is not settled and no convincing physical evidence exists to support catastrophic climate change forecasts.
Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.

Employing a disciplined approach of problem identification and root cause analysis honed from decades of dealing with life threatening safety issues in successfully sending astronauts up through Earth's atmosphere and returning them safely home, the TRCS team concluded that no imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.
The team of renowned space scientist include many with Ph.Ds are "dismayed with NASA's increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories."  The TRCS team runs three websites:
From CO2 is Green
Why would labeling CO2 as a pollutant be such a catastrophic decision?
Claims that CO2 is a pollutant are a myth and are absolutely false. In fact, lowering levels of carbon dioxide would actually inhibit plant growth and food production. What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2.
From Plants Need CO2
Earth and its inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.
More CO2 means:

  • More Plant Growth
  • Plants need less water
  • More food per acre
  • More robust habitats and ecosystems
CO2 is Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer.  Without it - No Life On Earth!      
From The Right Climate Stuff

Apollo Era NASA Retirees publish new report.

The science is not settled!!

  1. The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.
  2. There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis. The standard test of a hypothesis is whether it is supported by real observations, which seems to have been ignored by climate alarmists.
  3. Claims made by proponents of catastrophic man-made warming are dominantly supported by non-validated computer models and the output of these models should not be relied upon by policy-makers. Some TRCS team members have been making critical decisions using complex computer models for decades.

H/t Marc Morano's Climate Depot