Cec Article 4 2010: Fill & Download for Free

Yes. The agreement is both bad science and bad policy. The science lacks verification that carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect impact our climate. For example new research this past year says -[…] there is no empirical evidence that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere causes radiant warming. A critical assumption of IPCC consensus on CO2 concentrations is that it causes radiant heat to be retained in the upper atmosphere. This conjecture “lacks empirical confirmation.” Experiments continue to fail to show that CO2 is a factor in warming the atmosphere. […]The fear of unrestrained global warming because of increasing rise of CO2 a trace gas that is variable and vital to plant growth is the whole basis of the Paris Accord but this fear is not verified.CO2 and Global Warming: I’m still not convinced.Jiggerj February 15, 2021Every time I get curious about how CO2 is impacting the Earth’s climate, it seems I always find articles that agree upon one thing: The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is 0.04%. Now, you have to understand just what that number means. If we were to add 0.96 percent to the 0.04 it would total just one percent of a hundred percent. The graph below represents the atmosphere. There are one-hundred squares, so each square represents 1% of the whole. That little black line in the bottom right square is the amount of CO2 in the air. And, that teeny-tiny amount of carbon dioxide is keeping the Earth’s excess heat from seeping out into space? Hey, I’m no climatologist, but this surely offends my common sense.Image for postIf we were to turn this graph into a grate that covers a heating duct, and then have experts claim that the little black line is causing your house to heat up more than usual (into dangerous levels), you’d call him crazy (wouldn’t you?).This article CO2 Makes Up Just 0.04% of Earth's Atmosphere. Here's Why Its Impact Is So Massive states that “Scientists widely agree that Earth’s average surface temperature has already increased by about 2 F (1 C) since the 1880s,…” Two degrees? In 140 years of the most industrial time of smoke stacks and cars with zero emissions controls? Again, I’m no expert, but I find a 2 degree increase over that time period to be rather remarkable. It proves that our planet knows how to take care of itself quite well.What I find most odd is the fact that it is well known that plant life NEEDS carbon dioxide in the air — it’s the stuff that forests grow on. So, the question that we and our scientists should be asking is, What would happen to all of Earth’s vegetation if we accidentally decreased the CO2 levels to zero, or close to zero? Would plant life diminish? Completely die off? Now, THAT’S a scary thought.What’s missing in this whole climate change debate is the answer to how massive amounts of ice has been melting for the last 2.6 million years without any human interference, and how that particular process is separate from what we’re seeing now? How does a few hundred years of human industrialization get blamed for a process that started even before homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens?Image for postI know I’m wrong, but after hearing the numbers involved, what I would expect the scientific community to be shouting is:WRITTEN BY PAUL HOMEWOOD ONMAR 8, 2021. POSTED IN LATEST NEWSAnother Report Confirms CO2 Is Greening The Earth, Improving CropsScientists have known for many years that increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions.Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), for instance, published a study in 2013 that found that CO2 fertilization correlated with an 11 percent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East, and Africa.This map shows the changes in foliage cover over that period, derived from satellite data.They explain:‘The fertilization effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both.‘If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants in arid environments will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves. These changes in leaf cover can be detected by satellite, particularly in deserts and savannas where the cover is less complete than in wet locations.’Another study from Boston University in 2016 discovered that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society had driven huge growth in trees and other plants.Satellites showed that there had been significant greening of something between 25 percent and 50 percent of the Earth’s vegetated land over the last 33 years, while just 4 percent of vegetated land has suffered from plant loss.Other studies have found that the Sahara has shrunk by 8 percent in the same period.Now, up-to-date data from NASA confirms that these trends have continued and that the planet is 10 percent greener than in 2000.In any sane world, this fact would be welcomed. It may be one of the reasons why the UN Food and Agricultural Organization is forecasting a record world grain harvest this year.Instead, we demonize carbon dioxide.Read rest at Conservative WomanScientists: The CO2 Greenhouse Warming Effect Rides On Mere Assumption And Lacks Empirical VerificationBy Kenneth Richard on6. January 2020Fundamental tenets of the CO2 greenhouse effect hyphothesis aren’t supported by real-world, observed evidence.Image Source: Kennedy and Hodzic, 2019I. CO2 warms the planet by 7.2°C?According to the IPCC and other sources, when CO2’s atmospheric concentration ranges between 0.03% and 0.04% (300-400 parts per million, or ppm), it literally warms the air by 7.2°C within the Earth’s 33°C greenhouse effect.Image Source: Boersema and Reijnders, 2009Problematically, at no time has it been empirically demonstrated in a real-world experiment that CO2 warms air by this temperature at this concentration. (Or any concentration.)CO2’s capacity to warm air by 7.2°C is an non-validated assumption derived from the arbitrary estimation that CO2’s warming influence contributes about 20-25% to the Earth’s 33°C greenhouse effect.Scientists: The CO2 Greenhouse Warming Effect Rides On Mere Assumption And Lacks Empirical Verificationimpossible to predict as the climate is non linear, chaotic and subject to competing forces - some heating other cooling the climate.This means the climate will swing hot then cold then back again in cycles OF NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY like the activity of the sun, or the temperatures of the oceans, or the increase or not in volcanos etc. No studies yet discern a separate human impact from natural climate variability.“The Paris Agreement's central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”These temperature targets of warming above “pre-industrial levels” are statistical fictions and false because the recent past has been much warmer than today.With the ice age weather across the world in the middle of February what is now beyond obvious is that the Paris Accord attack on fossil fuels is suicidal.Paris claims that the by controlling the greenhouse effect the natural warming can be arrested to the fine point of 1.5 to 2 degrees C. This is a fiction of statistics well within the standard deviation which means the goal is meaningless.Dr. Vincent Gray wrote a book exposing the delusional aspects of the greenhouse theory.“Summary for PolicymakersClimate has always changed and nothing we can do will stop it from changing.There is no credible evidence that the earth is currently warming. Satellite measurements in the lower atmosphere for the past 23 years show no significant temperature change. The frequently quoted combined temperature record from weather stations is biased in favour of proximity to cities, airports. buildings, roads and vehicles, all of which have become slightly warmer over the years from increased energy consumption. Surface measurements from remote areas, or from countries with many well controlled sites ( such as the USA) show no evidence of significant warming.Sea level measurements are even more biased than weather stations. They are mainly near Northern Hemisphere ports, and are subject to local and short and long-term geological changes which are difficult to allow for. Sites in remote, low population places, such as the smaller Pacific islands show no evidence of recent sea level change.The earth’s temperature is warmer because of its atmosphere, and by the influence of greenhouse gases which partly prevent heat loss.The changes over the years in the properties of the most important of these gases, water vapour, and the clouds that form from it, are virtually unknown.The minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is increasing in concentration linearly at the rate of 0.4% a year, and as a result, agricultural and forestry yields are increasing. There are no established harmful effects of this increase.The rate of increase of the only other important greenhouse gas, methane, has fallen steadily for the past 17 years. The concentration is currently falling.Computer climate models are based on the incorrect belief that changes in the greenhouse effect are the only influences on the climate.There are huge uncertainties in the model outputs which are unrecognised and unmeasured. They are so large that adjustment of model parameters can give model results which fit any climate, including one with no warming, and one that cools.No model has ever successfully predicted any future climate sequence. Despite this, future "projections" for as far ahead as several hundred years have been presented by the IPCC as plausible future trends, based on largely distorted "storylines", combined with untested models.The IPCC have provided a wealth of scientific information on the climate, but they have not established a case that increases in carbon dioxide are causing any harmful effects.Attempts to suggest a relationship with "unusual" weather events and changes in greenhouse gases have been unsuccessful.”The earth is cooling not warming up too fast. See NOAA data showing temperatures in decline.Canada, Iceland November Mean Temperatures Cooling…Sweden Temperatures 200 Years UnchangedBy P Gosselin on20. December 2020Share this...Climate Unchange has Greta pulling her hair out…nothing really to be alarmed aboutBy Kirye and PierreFirst we start by noting how Greta Thunberg has been obsessed with the climate of the globe and that of her home Sweden. She claims it is changing dangerously fast and how this is supposedly unprecedented.But a recent paper shows this is in fact all false, at least in Sweden, hat-tip Wei Zhang at Twitter.The authors of the paper found that Sweden’s temperatures in reality have not at all changed over the past 200 years.Today’s Swedish climate is well within the range of variability. It’s a bit sad how Greta has dedicated her life to fighting for a false cause. What a waste. But she’s young, and hopefully someday she’ll wake up to the hoax and realize she’s being used.Record, 1960s-like snowfallsRight now parts of the globe are experiencing an old-fashioned 1960s type of winter, with record snowfalls. More on this are IceAgeNow. Also record snow has fallen in northern Italy.Winter arriving a little earlierNext we look at November mean temperatures for Canada and Iceland using Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) trends for stations with data going back to the 1990s. First Canada:Data: JMA here.As the trends show, 5 of the 9 stations show a cooling trend for November, meaning winter is arriving a bit earlier. There’s nothing troubling happening here and certainly nothing to get alarmed about. Greta is all hysterical about nothing.IcelandGlobal warming doomsday-sayers also like trying to fool people about the climate in Iceland. So let’s look at the JMA data for the stations with sufficient data to see what’s happening there:Data source: JMATwo of 3 stations in Iceland have been cooling modestly, and one has warmed slightly. Note the wide fluctuations, which likely are in large part dependent on natural Atlantic oceanic cycles.Iceland summers have cooled since the early HoloceneNow a final note on Iceland and its glaciers.It turns out that according to sedimentological analyses conducted by authors of the below publication, early summer Holocene temperatures had to have been approximately 3°C warmer than in the late 20th century!A bit of a mixed bag today, but it tells us not to worry about all the doomsday hollering by Greta and Co.There is no realistic alternative to fossil fuels as unreliable wind and solar power failduring severe weather. Here is reality not phony junk computer models.“The dark red throughout this map of TX wholesale electricity prices means that electricity is selling for $9000 a MWH, which is $9 a KWH. If you had to pay these prices to fill up your 100 KWH Tesla battery, it would cost $900. Remember this next time you hear "wind is cheap." Alex EpsteinThe alarmist scientists at NOAA have used T swings to adjust the measured temperature data to override the reality from 1927 to 2017 with tampering temperatures look hotter than they are. Michael Mann is the giant fudge master with the same tactic by erasing the established history of Medieval Warming and the LIttle Ice age using weak tree data. The measured temperatures next are the expected weather when you remember we are in the middle of an ice age and the cooling of the Holocene inter glacial.It is laughable nonsense to talk about global temperatures rising at 2 or 3 degrees in the next 100 years when the data is just a statistical fiction and those levels are surely within the accepted margin of statistical error or standard deviation. Think about the enormous size of the population of the data set for all global temperatures over decades of time hence!How to calculate standard deviationStandard deviation is rarely calculated by hand. It can, however, be done using the formula below, where x represents a value in a data set, μ represents the mean of the data set and N represents the number of values in the data set.The Paris warming targets are well within the standard deviation that is for example in the US alone between 12.2 F in Alaska and 4.0 F in Hawaii of data sets of temperatures. This statistical reality makes the Paris target meaningless as policy goals.Figure 2. Average daily standard deviation for 5,869 stations based on NCDC (US National Climate Data Center) published values.The largest values of temperature variability are in interior Alaska north of the Alaska Range. Umiat, Alaska, wins the variability contest. On average, Umiat has a daily temperature standard deviation of 12.2°F. In the Contiguous U.S., the largest values are in Montana and North Dakota. Powers Lake , North Dakota has that largest value in the Contiguous U.S. (10.8°F). Stations with the largest values are subject to the widest variations of temperature whereas stations with the lowest values have very constant temperatures. The 44 lowest variability stations are all in Hawaii. The Ohe'O 256 station in Hawaii has an average daily standard deviation of 1.5°F. In the Contiguous U.S., the lowest values are along the west coast and southern Florida. A number of stations have average daily standard deviations under 4.0°F.Intra-Annual Climate VariabilityCanada like Russia has the coldest climate in the world and yet has imposed an ineffective carbon tax under the mandate of the Paris Accord to vainly make Canada colder. This tax is not even virtue signally as it is obvious that there would be much virtue in a warmer Canada.Pretending we can measure the world’s temperature decades hence with the precision of 1.5 degrees is statistical nonsense and makes the Paris Accord fraud.WRITTEN BY ANDREW ROMAN ONNOV 18, 2019. POSTED IN LATEST NEWSWhy The Paris Agreement Won’t Fix The So-Called ‘Climate Crisis’Preparations are underway for COP25, a global climate conference of thousands of politicians and observers that opens Dec. 2 in Madrid.It originally was going to be hosted by Chile but that got changed because of riots sparked by hikes in transit fares and electricity prices — of which there will be many more if COP25 participants have their way.One COP25 agenda item is the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was supposed to fix the climate crisis. Even if there is such a crisis, Paris won’t fix it.The media says it was to reduce global CO2 emissions. But that’s not what the agreement says or does. It does not require any country to reduce its emissions.Some of the planet’s largest emitters have said they will increase theirs — not just a little, but a lot. China, the world’s largest emitter, accounts for 29 percent of global CO2.India, with its, for now, less-developed economy, is responsible for another seven percent. Yet both countries project increased emissions without any numerical limit.Even if all 195 nations that signed the Paris Agreement do what they have said they will do, the net effect will be no significant reduction in CO2 emissions. The disconnect between what Paris is supposed to do and what nations have said they will do is glaring.The current panic over the “climate crisis” makes it politically necessary for most governments to respond with dramatic displays of determination to “fight climate change.”Unfortunately, as Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus has written: “The reality is that most countries are on a business-as-usual trajectory of minimal policies to reduce their emissions … The international target for climate change with a limit of 2°C appears to be infeasible with reasonably accessible technologies even with very ambitious abatement strategies.”Meeting the UN’s global emissions reduction target for 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 is not practically possible.The only safe political path between the panic and the possible is to pretend to do the impossible — which is the real purpose of the Paris Agreement.Already, after just four years, only 17 of 195 countries are on track to their targets. If every country met its stated 2030 goals, how close would the planet come to the year 2100 target of 1.5°C maximum warming? Not close.According to economist Bjorn Lomborg, the reduction in warming would be less than five percent of 1°C. Even if nations stay on track all the way to 2100, that gets you only 13 percent of the 1.5°C target.In addition to targeting CO2 emissions, the Paris Agreement aims to transfer wealth. Developed countries have agreed to transfer $100 billion annually to developing countries, starting in 2020, to help them reduce emissions.The U.S., which had been expected to pay about $45 billion annually, recently announced it is quitting the agreement. With the U.S. out, this key part of the agreement will probably fail.Getting the entire planet completely off fossil fuels by 2050 would require a complete global energy overhaul from the current mix of 80 percent fossil fuels and only 1.3 percent wind and solar. That is highly unlikely.As Canadian energy expert Vaclav Smil has put it: “As in the past, the unfolding global energy transitions will last for decades, not years, and modern civilization’s dependence on fossil fuels will not be shed by a sequence of government-dictated goals.”Greta Thunberg and other eco-celebrities and protesters focus on the wrong political leaders. The developed countries account for about a third of global CO2 emissions, the developing countries two thirds.China, not Sweden or the U.S., is where most new emissions come from. Yet no one is allowed to protest in front of the Chinese legislature in Tiananmen Square against China’s massive new coal plants.Human-caused climate change can only be controlled through universal global action. Every country should do its part, but how much is our part and, for that matter, what is the whole?Without knowing we cannot rationally determine what our part should be. And, with most other countries not doing enough, should we be the exception and do more, or should we also do less?If the planet’s capacity for additional CO2 emissions is limited and needs to be rationed, how do we do this, who does it and by when? Blocking traffic or taking a day off school to carry placards provides drama but not answers.Over the past century or two, voters have judged governments on their success in raising overall well-being. A sudden transition off fossil fuels would drastically reduce living standards.Painfully high carbon taxes and big increases in other taxes would be needed to fund massive new energy infrastructure.Are we really willing to do this, for no net global effect, while China and others massively increase their emissions? If not, we need to stop pretending the Paris Agreement will fix the “climate crisis.”Read more at National PostDubious Paris climate goals mean major economic pain for CanadiansAppeared in the Calgary Sun, July 22, 2020According to a new study from the Canadian Energy Centre (CEC), to achieve our Paris Agreement climate commitments, Canada will need a huge carbon tax hike, costing $54 billion in lost annual output by 2030, with the pain concentrated in Alberta’s oil and gas sector. What’s worse, other analyses show that even if all countries met their Paris pledges, the world wouldn’t come close to hitting the UN’s goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius by 2100.The CEC study—titled Mind the (Paris) Gap—contrasts emissions reductions expected from “promised” Canadian greenhouse gas policies with commitments made under the Paris Agreement. Canada has pledged to reduce emissions by 30 per cent (from 2005 levels) by 2030, which means annual emissions of 511 megatonnes (Mt). Under promised future policy, the CEC study estimates that Canada will have a “Paris gap” of some 112 Mt in emissions.To bridge this gap, the study argues the least-painful approach is to hike the federal carbon tax to $116 per tonne by 2030 (currently the carbon tax is only $30 per tonne). Note that this is actually the best-case scenario because in practise the government—if it wants to hit its Paris targets—will probably implement other top-down measures even more economically damaging.Even so, the CEC study estimates that such a drastic hike in the carbon tax would render the Canadian economy $54 billion smaller in 2030 than it otherwise would have been. Alberta alone would see its total economic output $13.5 billion lower—a fall of 3.2 per cent—with $4.5 billion of that reduction occurring in the province’s oil and gas sector.It would be one thing if all this economic pain actually achieved the official climate goals underlying the Paris Agreement. But alas, it’s estimated that even if all countries met their stated commitments under Paris, the planet in the year 2100 would still have experienced 2.8°C of warming. This of course isn’t remotely close to staying below the official upper ceiling of 2°C of warming, which is the ostensible purpose of the Paris Agreement.Fortunately for Canadians and the rest of the world, the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement are far too aggressive, at least according to standard methods of evaluating policy. For example, William Nordhaus shared the 2018 Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on the economics of climate change. Yet his model (as of 2016) estimated that the “optimal” amount of global warming by 2100 would be 3.5°C.In 2017, Canada was responsible for only 1.7 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, so the issue of its Paris pledge is largely symbolic. According to the CEC study, meeting the pledge will require almost a quadrupling of the federal carbon tax, a move that would depress output, particularly in Alberta’s oil and gas sector.But again, this economic pain for Canadians wouldn’t help the world achieve the official Paris climate goals, since the pledges are nowhere close to adequate. And again, the inadequacy of the world’s Paris pledges is probably a good thing, because leading models show that the UN ceiling of 2°C is far too aggressive. Canadians should step back and evaluate the costs and benefits of sticking to our Paris pledge before continuing down this path.Author:Robert P. MurphyDubious Paris climate goals mean major economic pain for Canadians: op-ed