pathology_doc: Ginny Weasley (film) clutching Riddle's diary: Ginny/Horcrux OTP (Default)
You write a smut-laced romance novel, of course!

From the first link: Just when you think things can’t get any more bizarre with the IPCC, having just learned that the IPPC 2007 report used magazine articles for references, head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, provides comedy gold. According to the UK Telegraph, he’s just released what they describe as a “smutty” romance novel, Return to Almora, laced with steamy sex, lots of sex. Oh, and Shirley MacLaine.

The book allegedly tells "the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has “endangered the fragile ecosystem”.

I smell more than a hint of self-insert here, and I think you will too - especially when you learn of the similarities between the good Dr Pachauri and his protagonist Sanjay: Both men are in their 60s, grew up in Nainital and obtained doctorates in the US.

Don't worry, though - according to the article, the relationship between the protagonist and Shirley MacLaine stays strictly platonic.

But I've just realised, dammit: that's why the Himalayan glaciers are melting - it's all that steamy sex going on up there!
pathology_doc: Ginny Weasley (film) clutching Riddle's diary: Ginny/Horcrux OTP (Default)

Calculating Emissions Is Problematic



By SINDYA N. BHANOO
Published: October 22, 2009



My comments in bold.

An accounting problem in the way some greenhouse gas emissions are calculated could critically hobble efforts to reduce them in coming years as nations move to combat global warming, scientists warn in a new report.

Translation: somebody fucked up their computer model badly.

The accounting irregularity even gives the impression that clearing the world’s forests, which absorb and thereby diminish heat-trapping carbon dioxide, is good for the climate, the scientists write in an article published Friday in the journal Science.

Say what?

The problem boils down to this: In emission calculations, all fuel derived from plants and other organic sources — including ethanol — is generally treated as if it has no effect on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even though though biofuels do emit carbon dioxide when burned.

Um... coal is derived from plants, although the refinement process takes millions of years and more pressure than humanity can safely handle.

This might make sense if the source of the fuel were, say, a crop of corn grown on barren land specifically for use as fuel, because the crop would have absorbed carbon dioxide as it grew, offsetting what it emits when ultimately burned.

Makes sense.

But if an existing stand of forest land is cleared for fuel, its ability to absorb carbon dioxide is lost, and the net balance of the gas in the atmosphere goes up.

This is... this may not even be high school science.

An energy and climate bill passed in June by the House of Representatives, the Kyoto Protocol, drafted in 1997, and the European Union’s cap-and-trade law, in which companies trade emissions allowances, all exempt emissions from biofuels, without taking the source of the fuel into account, said Timothy D. Searchinger, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Princeton University.

"It literally means you can chip up the world’s forests and burn them” for fuel without noting the effect on the world’s greenhouse gases, Mr. Searchinger said.

IOW someone's accounting is seriously and terminally fucked, has been fucked for the last twelve years, and it's taken a bunch of academics this long to define the problem? What the fuck were the people who drafted the Kyoto protocol doing when they should have been paying attention to shit like this? Where is it grown? Where can we buy some?

The article traces the problem back to the 1990s, when international organizations worked to create a framework for emissions monitoring. In the mid-1990s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognized that when forests were cleared or when plants were harvested for bioenergy, the resulting release of carbon dioxide should be counted either as land-use emissions or energy emissions, but not both.

To create an international standard and avoid double-counting, the I.P.C.C. chose to classify these emissions in the land-use category.

Mr. Searchinger said the problem arose in 1997, when nations hammered out the Kyoto Protocol, which was eventually ratified by 184 countries. (The United States refused to ratify the agreement.)

Neither did Australia until our current disaster of a Prime Minister was elected. And I can see why.

The protocol imposes no limits on land-use emissions in developing countries. So if a forest is cleared in Indonesia and ends up as biofuel in Europe, Asia does not count the land-use emissions and Europe does not report the tailpipe emissions.

That's some very creative accounting going on, with potentially horrendous consequences. Does anyone not see a GREAT BIG FUCKING FLAW in the Kyoto protocol right about now?

The end result is that the carbon release from bioenergy use is not counted at all.

So IOW if we're calculating the minutiae of cap-and-trade schemes when trying to put a price on carbon permits, the whole scheme is inherently fucked, raped, shafted... deep into its innermost sanctum... from the point of its creation? Gee, bring on the Emissions Trading Scheme, the Paperwork Knight in Shining Armour that will Save Us All! I can hardly wait! /sarc

The Science paper is one of several recently published articles calling attention to the error. Dr. James A. Edmonds, a chief scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, arrived at similar findings in a paper published in Science several months ago.

Has anyone shown this to Kevin Rudd yet? I think I'll forward the link to this article to my local Federal Member of Parliament - his party doesn't stand for this shit, and I'm sure they can do something with it... if the Government will give them leave to table it (which I suspect it won't).

His study found that under current accounting methods, a commonly cited global target of limiting carbon dioxide to 450 parts per million in the atmosphere could result in a vast expansion of bioenergy crops, displacing nearly all of the world’s natural forests by 2065.

Talk about unintended consequences. Or are they?

"The basic point is that if humans set up systems that don’t share nature’s value system, we’re setting up the wrong incentives," Dr. Edmonds said.


Um. No. The basic point is that when your models are an artificial construct that aren't implicitly linked to applied common sense, the results they churn out tell you that you can get away with doing some really fucking stupid shit.

There's a wonderful book I've read about the early days of guided missile development (relevant, I promise) in which the calculations that came out of the missile trials (flight data as measured by theodolite angles and some telemetry) had to be ground out on mechanical desk calculators, generally operated by mathematically-minded young women in their first jobs. While they understood exactly what to do with the figures and how to put them into the machines, they weren't qualified aerodynamicists or aeronautical engineers and thus frequently did NOT understand (through no fault of their own) that some of the answers they were churning out were nonsense when placed in the context of the real-world behaviour the equations were actually describing.

It seems to me that a similar thing has happened with the Kyoto accords and what is allowed to flow therefrom. Certain things have been allowed which ought not to have been allowed, and the consequences to the developing world (if not the rest of us) could be grave.

Meanwhile, Australia has millions of hectares of empty desert which, with the appropriate determination on the part of government, could be irrigated and farmed for said biofuels (among other things), dragging CO2 out of the air until it's time to burn them, and without displacing a single tree in a single third-world forest. And the gains could be incalculable, especially to the landholders (on which note, see my previous post).

So, Mr Rudd, what about it? Ready to repudiate Kyoto and do what ought to have been done before you spent forty billion precious dollars on not much of anything?
pathology_doc: Ginny Weasley (film) clutching Riddle's diary: Ginny/Horcrux OTP (Default)
There are links within this article, which I have attempted to reproduce. In the throes of getting over something I've spent the last week coming down with, I might potentially have missed one, but they're all accessible from the original article anyway.



How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie.

For the growing band of AGW “Sceptics” the following story is dynamite. And for those who do believe in Al Gore’s highly profitable myth about “Man-Made Global Warming”, it will no doubt feel as comfortable as the rectally inserted suicide bomb that put paid to an Al Qaeda operative earlier this week.

Now read on.

Those of you who saw An Inconvenient Truth may remember, if you weren’t asleep by that stage, the key scene where big green Al deploys his terrifying graph to show how totally screwed we all are by man-made global warming. This graph - known as the Hockey Stick Curve - purports to show rising global temperatures through the ages. In the part representing the late twentieth century it shoots up almost vertically. To emphasise his point that this is serious and that if we don’t act NOW we’re doomed, Al Gore - wearing a wry smile which says: “Sure folks, this is kinda funny. But don’t forget how serious it is too” - climbs on to a mini-lift in order to be able to reach the top of the chart. Cue consensual gasps from his parti pris audience.

Except that the graph - devised in 1998 by a US climatologist called Dr Michael Mann - is based on a huge lie, as Sceptics have been saying for quite some time. The first thing they noticed is that this “Hockey Stick” (based on tree ring data, one of the most accurate ways of recording how climate changes over the centuries) is that it seemed completely to omit the Medieval Warming Period.

According to Mann’s graph, the hottest period in modern history was NOT the generally balmy era between 900 and 1300 but the late 20th century. This led many sceptics, among them a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre to smell a rat. He tried to replicate Mann’s tree ring work but was stymied by lack of data: ie the global community of climate-fear-promotion scientists closed ranks and refused to provide him with any information that might contradict their cause.

This is the point where British climate change scientists appear - and in a most unedifying light. As Christopher Booker has reported the Met Office, its Hadley Centre in Exeter and the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia are among the primary drivers of global climate change alarmism. Their data has formed the basis for the IPCC’s “we’re all doomed” reports; their scientists - among them Professor Phil Jones and tree ring expert Professor Keith Briffa - have been doughty supporters of Mann’s Hockey Stick theory and of the computer models showing inexorably rising temperatures.

Hence their misleading predictions of that “barbecue summer” we never had. As Booker says: “Part of the reason why the Met Office has made such a mess of its forecasts for Britain is that they are based on the same models which failed to predict the declining trend in world temperatures since 2001.

When McIntyre approached the Met Office and the CRU for more information they refused, claiming implausibly that it would damage Britain’s “international relations” with all the countries that supplied it. Later they went a step further and claimed the data had been mislaid.

And there McIntyre’s efforts to uncover the mystery of the Hockey Stick might have ended, had he not had a stroke of luck, as Chris Horner explains at Planet Gore.

“Years go by. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.”

This sounds esoteric, but here’s the important bit: what McIntyre discovered was that Professor Briffa had cherry picked his “tree data sets” in order to reach the conclusion he wanted to reach. When, however, McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples from exactly the same area, the results he got were startlingly different.

Have a look at the graph at Climate Audit (which broke the story and has been so inundated with hits that its server was almost overwhelmed) and see for yourself.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif

The scary red line shooting upwards is the one Al Gore, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and their climate-fear-promotion chums would like you to believe in. The black one, heading downwards, represents scientific reality.

We “Global Warming Deniers” are often accused of ignoring the weight of scientific opinion. Well if the “science” on which they base their theories is as shoddy as Mann’s Hockey Stick, is it any wonder we think they’re talking cobblers?



If this is true, then "climate change scientists" are guilty of one of the biggest scientific frauds in history - first for the incomplete picture they deliberately sold us, and second for withholding the data and precluding or inhibiting genuine peer review (and such distortion and obfuscation is the very antithesis of science). They will certainly have trashed their credibility, and if they did it for money then that's the worst scientific fraud of all. Al Gore should do the decent thing and hand his Nobel Prize back, and the people who gave it to him should resign in disgrace.

It is even more worrying when you put it together with my previous post on this issue - namely that huge sums of money stand to be made from trading on this, and in the same way that led to the Global Financial Crisis last year.

The major issue for the world is the finite supply of fossil fuels - this is why we have to go over to finding other ways to generate the bulk of our electricity ASAP. The "carbon problem" will then fix itself, if indeed it actually exists. This is the sort of thing on which huge sums of money should be spent. If we have to introduce an energy levy to afford to build the technology, then so be it; but IMO the way things are being set up now, I can't help but think it's a massive con job. God help any party in government that is caught putting its share of emissions-trading revenues into consolidated funds instead of research, development and construction, because if the electorate has half a brain then that government will be obliterated at the polls and can probably forget about holding power again for at least a generation.
pathology_doc: Ginny Weasley (film) clutching Riddle's diary: Ginny/Horcrux OTP (Default)
BUSINESS leaders are struggling to understand what Kevin Rudd's new Global Institute on Carbon Capture and Storage will actually do, despite hearing a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation from the Prime Minister last Friday on the initiative he says will be the "cornerstone" of his address to the UN on Thursday.

I wrote about this a few days ago, and more details are to light. Let's have a look at the full text of this report.

Cut for length, spork in bold. )
=============================================================================
In short, I'm seriously worried that this will be another of Kevin Rudd's "Watch" projects - a bloated oversight committee set up to report findings, but not actually empowered to take action (look up "Grocery Watch" and "Fuel Watch" as examples of existing debacles) or accomplish a concrete goal. If this is what the Greens saw coming when they objected to the scheme, then they're right - the whole thing ought to be given the bullet, the LECC (see article within cut) expanded to handle the task instead, and the money put into construction of non-fossil power sources (including nuclear).

Mr Rudd ought to commit himself to at least a dozen tidal or solar powerplants finished or well advanced by the time the next election comes around, with proceeds of his emission-trading scheme inextricably linked to paying for their construction. He might also take the focus off "climate change" and put it more onto "alleviating dependence on fossil fuels for energy-generation requirements", which would have the double benefit of stretching out petroleum reserves and meeting his precious carbon emission/reduction targets. Then I might believe he's serious about saving the world.

Profile

pathology_doc: Ginny Weasley (film) clutching Riddle's diary: Ginny/Horcrux OTP (Default)
pathology_doc

March 2015

S M T W T F S
1234567
89101112 1314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 06:21 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios