Monday, 30 May 2011

Carbon dioxide, pollutant? [updated]

How can a gas that’s just 0.039% of the atmosphere cause all the calamities alleged by global warmists?

Is CO2 as dangerous as some scientists claim?

And if not, why are we saddled with the extra costs of Nick Smith’s Emissions Trading Scheme—with the pledge of an extra Phil Goff supplement to come?

A Princeton physic professor addresses the pertinent question, on which the whole climate circus depends: Just how dangerous is this naturally occurring trace gas?  His answer:

    Let me summarize how the key issues appear to me, a working scientist with a better background than most in the physics of climate. CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and other things being equal, adding the gas to the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas will modestly increase the surface temperature of the earth. Other things being equal, doubling the CO2 concentration, from our current 390 ppm to 780 ppm will directly cause about 1 degree Celsius in warming. At the current rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere—about 2 ppm per year—it would take about 195 years to achieve this doubling. The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects. Supposed calamities like the accelerated rise of sea level, ocean acidification, more extreme climate, tropical diseases near the poles, and so on are greatly exaggerated.
    “Mitigation” and control efforts that have been proposed will enrich a favored few with good political ties—at the expense of the great majority of mankind, including especially the poor and the citizens of developing nations. These efforts will make almost no change in earth’s temperature

So why all the catastrophising about carbon? Because

    The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observation…

They never were, were they. 

Read it all here:

UPDATE:  And what about the Kyoto Treaty-on which Nick Smith’s Emissions Tax Scam, Phil Goff’s Smack-the-Farmers-Scheme and Julia Gillard’s Carbon Tax are based?  Answer: Now that the Big Four have pulled out permanently, it’s a dead duck. Which means we down under are now  “world leaders” in punishing ourselves.

Kyoto deal loses four big nation
DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said…
    Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.
    Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.
    But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said. [Moreover] at last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.

Which means Kyoto is dead.

Which means New Zealand has no “Kyoto obligations.”

Which means neither farmers not any other producer has any “Kyoto obligation” to meet.

Are you listening John and Nick and Phil and Julia and Cate?  Because you can be damn sure voters will be.

1 comment:

  1. It's useless to highlight percentages without offering a context. Firstly, the average temperature of the earth is about 288 degrees Kelvin, a rise of 1 degree is only a .35% increase.

    Secondly, The atmosphere doesn't have the same composition all the way through. In the upper reaches of the atmosphere, and over the poles, CO2 concentrations make up a larger percentage because there is less water vapor due to lower temperatures.

    Thirdly, we're not talking about a linear relationship. Green house gases increase the ability the atmosphere has to retain energy, but it doesn't increase the amount of energy coming in. What we're measuring is a cumulative effect.

    Lindsay Perigo demonstrated his level of ignorance on this subject by mentioning on his show that the burden of proof is on the pro-AGW side, and that the skeptics should not have to prove a negative. This is a gross mis-characterisation of the argument but is common among the lower-teir skeptic commentators.

    No-one who understands the topic is saying that changes in CO2 concentration will have no effect on temperature. The skeptic argument is that the effect will be much lower than what is widely expected. In other words, both sides are asserting a positive of varying degrees.

    The wider skeptic community is out of touch with reality, and the people at the fore-front of it have an argument which has been eclipsed by the far more comprehensive research of the IPCC, it's contributors and other scientific organisations.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.