NC Media Watch

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years(updated 1-1-10)

Russ Steele

Science Daily (Dec 31, 2009)

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

This is why we can ignore Anna

Russ Steele

Anna has changed her introduction to what she calls the "climate contrarians" column at NCVoices:

This is why we have peer review.

Scepticism's Limits, in The Economist:
"Why do these people keep bugging us like this? Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong? [No]... So... my response to any and all further 'smoking gun' claims begins with:
'Show me the peer- reviewed journal* article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.'"

This paragraph in it's original form was take from an anonymous Economist article:

Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.

This  Economist author lacked the class to sign this article attacking the work of Willis Eschenbach posted at Climate Audit.

Here is Willis's reply to this cowardly attack:

Top 10 Most Ridiculous Uses of Stimulus Funds

Russ Steele

Verum Serum has compiled this list of ridiculous use of stimulus funds that produced 19.79 jobs for $65.7 million dollars, or roughly $3.3 million per job.  Wow! 

“Putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done“…

10.  A $427,824 research grant to design better video games for senior citizens based on their unique “game-play needs”.

9.  Funding of a Dartmouth College study involving “sexual arousal in anesthetized female rats” ($9,870).

8.  Funding of a $168,300 SBA loan to the Escape Massage parlor in Midlothian, VA.

7.  Funding a $447,492 Univ. of North Carolina study on the development and use of “African American English” amongst 70 adolescents.

6.  $10,346 for a heating and cooling company to provide “escort services” for other companies performing a laser scanning survey at a courthouse in Honolulu, Hawaii.

5.  An academic study comparing outcomes of the concurrent and separate use of malt liquor and marijuana ($389,357).

4.  A $225,000 study at Ohio State University on the relative and combined impacts of air pollution and a high fat diet on obesity development.

3.  A $712,883 research grant to develop “machine-generated humor“. Project will design artificially intelligent “comedic performance agents”, and will “deploy them both on and off-line for the enjoyment and illumination of everyday citizens”.

2.  A $54 million project to relocate one bridge for the Napa Valley Wine Train (!) in order to mitigate the possible impact of a “100 year storm event”.

And the number one most ridiculous use of stimulus funds…

1.  $9.3 million (!) to fund the design and development of a “coordinated colony of robotic bees“!

It was a large stimulus package and it is hard for anyone to get a handle on all the possible pork barrel applications. If you know of a list topper, please post in a comment.

Greenies vs. Greenies

Russ Steele

A regular reader send this over the email transom. The state Coastal Commission encourages California's seaside communities to embrace clean energy -- but it has to look good.

The regulatory agency has told a Santa Cruz County couple that a wind turbine planned for their new home in the Pleasure Point neighborhood is too tall. Suggesting it would add to the area's "visual clutter," the commission recommends the residents lower their proposed 35-foot-high, electricity-generating windmill, an idea the home's architect says is simply unworkable.

The view is more important than saving the planet from excess energy consumption.

"In general, we do want to support this type of alternative energy, especially with the commission more recently concerned about climate change," said commission planner Katie Morange. "But at the same time, it can't come at the expense of coastal resources. What if every house started putting these up? What  would that mean for the viewshed?"

More details in the Santa Cruz Sentinel here.

"Everyone wants clean air and water"

Russ Steele

For the record AB32 has nothing to do with "clean air and water," is has to do with taxing the crap out of citizens for using carbon. One more "everyone wants clean air and water" by a useful Al Gore idiot when discussing AB32 and I am going puke in my keyboard.

Maybe the new Apple iSlate will have a virtual keyboard and I can just wipe the puke off and keep on typing.

French Revolution! Carbon tax ruled unconstitutional just two days before taking effect

Russ Steele

This new French carbon tax was scheduled to go into law on Jan1, 2010. The tax was steep: 17 euros per ton of carbon dioxide (USD $24.40).  In a stunning move, and surely a blow to warmists everywhere, the tax has been found unconstitutional and thrown out.

Anthony Watt and Lord Monckton have the details at Watts Up With That.

Why was Nevada County not on this list?

Russ Steele

The local greens are wondering why Nevada County is not on this list of renewable energy projects.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the first comprehensive list of 244 proposed renewable energy projects that could produce up to 69,925 MW of clean energy annually. These proposed projects throughout the state include solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydro facilities and will help move California towards achieving the renewable energy goal of 33% by 2020.

One has to ask where would Nevada County fit on this list? Solar? We get 250 days of sun shine a year, but where would we put major solar farm? Would you want to live next door to a solar farm?  Wind? Are there any Nevada County ridge tops suitable for these bird shredders? I do not know of any geothermal vents, but we do have some hot spring in the area, perhaps we can drill? Biomass? With snow in the woods in winter could we provide a reliable year round supply of biomass to the generator boilers. I am sure that a biomass generator with a large storage yard would be welcome in most of our local neighborhoods, especially if it was to save the planet. Small Hydro?  Good idea, we have several dams and power houses that are up for re-licensing. Perhaps we could raise the dams and story more water for power in the summer, instead of breaching them for the salmon runs. 

I think the County is really lucky not to be on this list of rent seeking power projects that will required government subsidies to survive.  Once it becomes clear to tax payers that global warming really is a hoax and there is no need to save the planet from rising CO2 they will turn on the rent paying politicians and the subsidies will stop. Every survey shows less and less support to the global warming hoax. With a little luck Nevada County will not be stuck with a renewable energy albatrosse, except maybe for some larger water storage facilities for power and recreation. No subsidies need, they are would be self supporting.

I guess experience does not count!

Russ Steele

Our local left leaning former newspaper editors writes about our local economy and has this to say about AB32 The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which includes host of regulations that impact small businesses:

Most of the programs from AB32 won’t go into effect until 2012 anyway, when the economy will hopefully improve. In addition, the premise that AB32 will destroy jobs is unproven. Proponents argue it will create jobs.

Really?  AB32 was patterned after the European Union's green jobs, CO2 reduction, and renewable energy programs. Those programs in Spain and German have been an economic disaster, reducing jobs and driving up energy costs. I wrote about the Spain experience here. After years of promoting "green jobs," Spain has the highest unemployment rate in Europe, standing at an alarming 17.5 percent. Every green job cost the Spanish economy 2.5 non-green jobs.  

The German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung has published a report titled Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energies: The German Experience. It points out that the "green jobs" that have been created through government subsidies are more than offset by the inefficiency of the resulting energy production:

While employment projections in the renewable sector convey seemingly impressive prospects for gross job growth, they typically obscure the broader implications for economic welfare by omitting any accounting of off-setting impacts. These impacts include, but are not limited to, job losses from crowding out of cheaper forms of conventional energy generation, indirect impacts on upstream industries, additional job losses from the drain on economic activity precipitated by higher electricity prices, private consumers' overall loss of purchasing power due to higher electricity prices, and diverting funds from other, possibly more beneficial investment.

More details on the German experience here.

Why is it that the Governor and Legislature think that California can succeed in creating green jobs with out destroying existing jobs when Spain and Germany have failed. Why do they think a California Cap and Tax program will produce economic growth in California when similar programs in Germany and Spain have done just the opposite? 

I have to agree with Assemblyman Dan Logue, it is time to resend AB32 at least until the economy recovers. 

In future posts I will review some AB32 studies, starting with one by the Legislative Analyst Office in my next post. Stay Tuned!

Latest cartoon from Goredearth.com

Russ Steele

I have been busy writing my Saturday Column for The Union.  I am writing on the green job benefits of AB32 and the Cap and Trade program.  Here is the latest cartoon from Goredearth. Enjoy!

Wikipedia - Climategate not important say true believers

Russ Steele

The Heliogenic Climate Change (HCC) blog has been following the dust up at Wikipedia over Climategate. Early in my global warming monitoring I tried to post information on Wikipedia and it was deleted by the climate change gatekeeper William Connolley.  After several tries I quit posting and lost all confidence in the data on Wikipedia, as we could never know about all the other biased gatekeepers.

Here is the latest hilarious antics of AGW believers at Wikipedia at HCC.

"In the middle of the night on Monday morning, enough believers posted they wanted the [Climategate] article deleted to tie the count evenly between delete and keep. Then the polling was shut down early and the page was deleted. It's now a redirect to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article.

Editor Rd232 has tried to block the ClimateGate author from posting to wikipedia. This isn't the first time this has happened. Wikipedia previously blocked all known skeptics from posting on the ClimateGate article.

The deletion is under review, as it occured less than 12 hours after the delete notice was posted and there was no consensus for deletion. We need wiki editors to get over there and get this reversed.

And Rd232 needs to lose his editor privileges due to abuse." "Climategate page deleted from Wikipedia"

Here is more on Connolley's Wikipedia AGW obsession to make sure only the warmer version of climate change is visible to users.