NASA study on CO2 warming finds cooling effect

UN climate conferences obsolete

New study considers vegetation cooling

A new NASA computer modelling effort has found that the additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback — a cooling effect — on the Earth’s climate system that could work to reduce future global warming to only +1.64°C if carbon dioxide was doubled. The IPCC had assumed a +3°C warming in that case.

The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius globally and -0.6 degrees C over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on the paper that was published Dec 7, 2010, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

With the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.64 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled.

Doubling the CO2 contents in the atmosphere from 390 ppmv to 780 ppmv would require some 195 years with the present growth rate of 2 ppm/year. This means, however, that until the year 2100 we have to expect a temperature increase of only 0.75°C. Also, with the higher IPCC value, the resulting temperature growth would be well below the limit of 2°C which has been decided as a limit by the recent conference in Cancun.

Apparently none of the 15,000 participants in Cancun has recognized this fact (or, rather, did not want to do so) since this means that the political UN conference-circus is indeed obsolete. No new post-Kyoto agreement is required, nor a reduction of CO2 emissions at all.

However, we must expect that the expensive annual mega-meetings will continue, since no participant wants to give up these free vacation weeks in one of the more beautiful places of this planet (Kyoto – Bali – Nairobi – Rio de Janeiro – Geneva – New Delhi – Marrakesh – Buenos Aires – Copenhagen – Cancun – and next year Durban, South Africa).

The most important decision at each of 16 conferences was to meet again next year. And if it were only for that reason, then the “fight against climate change” must be continued.

sourced from the Climate Sceptics group in Yahoo Groups

Snowfalls a thing of the past

Oh, how Charles Onians must regret penning those words!

In March 2000, The Independent carried a story titled Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past, which opened with a surprising claim:

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Charles went on:

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east… Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community… According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said… Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

No, Dr Viner, it was only eight years before snow caused chaos in Britain, and then not for being merely present, but for its great magnitude.

The Northern winter of 2008/09 was very cold, 2009/10 was even colder, with chaos, and now 2010 is breaking records, with greater chaos.

Your prediction was useless.

False commodity, false trades, false climate cure

Carbon trading: Sell a product you don’t have and can’t deliver to a buyer who doesn’t want it.

That is the very definition of easy money, yet the NZ Government has proposed that process and legalised it in what they call the “Emissions Trading Scheme.” Though they created it to “fight climate change” they now openly admit it will have no effect upon the climate. But, persuading us to agree to something on grounds later admitted to be false is the definition of fraud. And, since they claim to be “fighting climate change” while admitting the climate will be unaffected, they reveal a distinct denial.

So, regrettably, our Government is controlled by fraudsters and climate deniers.

Since the Government knows about the climate through the climate specialists in NIWA, is NIWA’s scientific advice also controlled by fraudsters and climate deniers? Since the climate specialists in NIWA are also the climate specialists in the NZ Royal Society, is the Royal Society, too, controlled by fraudsters and climate deniers?

The following quotes are from a NZ Herald article, The Carbon Detectives, published Dec 20, 2010.

Bart Chilton, a commissioner at the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, says if the US creates a nationwide cap-and-trade market, carbon could become the world’s most widely traded commodity.

But it’s a “commodity” in fiction, not truth. The commodity of “carbon” is unlike oil, pork bellies or platinum. You don’t possess the commodity you sell, it’s impossible to deliver and anyway the buyer has no reason to receive it.

Such a contract is witless, created only to extract money from the unwitting. If you’re awake, you might become rich, but at the expense of your fellow citizens, who don’t really get a poor bargain: they get no bargain, for the price of everything connected with “carbon” emissions rises and they must pay the increase or go without. There is no benefit.

In a society where getting to work needs a few litres of petrol and keeping the house liveable in winter needs a few kilowatts of electricity, going without is not an option.

Gregg Marland, a staff scientist at the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, says, “If you’re selling oil, you’re actually transferring something tangible. If somebody lies, somebody loses,” he says. “In a CO2 transaction, you can lie and both win.” The seller gets paid, and the buyer has his credit for compliance. “We’re going to create a situation where both sides can win by cheating,” Marland says.

The consequence of this spectacular foolishness cannot be a reduction in atmospheric levels of CO2. Not that that’s a tragedy, because nobody cares and the climate won’t notice. But the money it’s costing us to not reduce CO2 is perfectly scandalous!

The only precedent for such willing self-delusion lies in the Dutch tulip bulb craze, the South Sea Company bubble and the original 1920 Ponzi scheme.

Wake up, my people!

Cold facts crush green dream

Wind power fails freezing Britons

Richard Littlejohn, of Climate Realists, describes Britain’s alarming winter which has exposed the practical impossibility of ever relying on wind turbines for electricity generation. Three days ago, their 3150 turbines were contributing only 1.6% of the nation’s power supply; some days it’s been zero. But Richard says:

It gets better. As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.

So it was just a bad day for them? No, because, sadly:

Even on a good day they rarely work above a quarter of their theoretical capacity.

The combined output of all 3150 of these landscape despoilers is equal only to that of a single, medium-sized, gas-fired power station. And they cannot even replace that power station, because they need constant backup — that means constant running, because you have seconds to react when the turbines (which are exempt from forecasting their production) shut down. Consider the myth that wind turbines eliminate emissions of carbon dioxide destroyed.

What more does Nick Smith need to know?

The British Government still clings to plans to erect 12,500 of these “War Of The Worlds windmills” in the sea and across the land. The evidence was already available from power engineers before the turbines were proposed by misguided, starry-eyed greenies — but this winter alone proves the desperate folly of believing that the nation’s power supply could ever depend upon them.

More than desperate — it’s dangerous, because cold weather is dangerous. It will kill people. Does Nick Smith care? If he does, he will stop this nonsense from occurring in New Zealand.

It’s different if you’re installing small turbines to give the gift of electricity far from population centres. Catering for a tramping hut or beach resort, where people don’t mind occasionally doing without, is a completely different kettle of fish.

Listen to the good sense of this, Nick — don’t sink a king’s ransom into wind turbines and stop trifling with our energy security.

Finally from Mr Littlejohn:

According to the BBC, Town Halls across the country have been appealing to owners of 4x4s to offer lifts to ‘essential staff’ during the cold snap.

These would be the same 4x4s which these very same councils want to ban, because they cause global warming and kill polar bears.

You couldn’t make it up.

I couldn’t agree more.

Read more here…

King Coal and Mighty Nuclear

We all know that the becalmed wind turbines produced a derisory trickle of power during this wicked northern winter.

But who is climbing up to clean the snow off the solar panels so they can collect another derisory trickle of energy, around midday only, from the pale winter sun?

Meanwhile, quietly, efficiently and unseen by the green dreamers, King Coal and Mighty Nuclear are keeping the lights on and the heaters glowing.

Viv Forbes