Given Mr. Stelmach's previous remarks re such schemes
"A cap-and-trade scheme is a money transfer that does nothing to reduce pollution. In fact, it just allows companies to pay to pollute."
...his lack of outrage at John Baird's "Turning The Corner" plan is most interesting.
The EcoLibertarian has the best thing I've read on the plan, which he describes as Kyoto-esque.
10 comments:
Roy Spencer to warmers: It's the sun stupid.
"Climate modelers and researchers generally believe that an increase in the greenhouse effect from manmade greenhouse gases causes a warming effect that is similar to that from an increase in sunlight.
I believe that this is incorrect.
It is now reasonably certain that changes in solar radiation cause temperature changes on Earth. For instance, the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo caused a 2% to 4% reduction in sunlight, resulting in two years of below normal temperatures, especially over Northern Hemisphere land areas.
But the Earth's natural greenhouse effect (again, mostly from water vapor and clouds) is under the control of weather systems -- especially precipitation systems -- which are generated in response to solar heating. Either directly or indirectly, those precipitation systems determine the moisture (water vapor and cloud) characteristics for most of the rest of the atmosphere.
Precipitation systems could, theoretically, cause a much warmer climate on Earth than is currently observed. They could allow more water vapor to build up in the atmosphere, but they don't. Why not?
The reason must ultimately be related to precipitation processes. I believe that precipitation systems act as a thermostat, reducing the Earth's greenhouse effect (and thus causing enhanced cooling) when temperatures get too high, and warming when temperatures get too low. It is amazing to think that the ways in which tiny water droplets and ice particles combine in clouds to form rain and snow could determine the course of global warming, but this might well be the case.
I believe that it is the inadequate handling of precipitation systems -- specifically, how they adjust atmospheric moisture contents during changes in temperature -- that is the reason for climate model predictions of excessive warming from increasing greenhouse gas emissions. To believe otherwise is to have faith that climate models are sufficiently advanced to contain all of the important processes that control the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.
I predict that further research will reveal some other cause for most of the warming we have experienced since the 1970's -- for instance, a change in some feature of the sun's activity; or, a small change in cloudiness resulting from a small change in the general circulation of the atmosphere (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, 'PDO'). In the meantime, a high priority research effort should be the study of changes in precipitation systems with changes in temperature -- especially how they control global water vapor and cloud amounts.
Fortunately, we now have several NASA satellites in Earth orbit that are gathering information that will be immensely valuable for determining how the Earth's climate system adjusts during natural temperature fluctuations. It is through these satellite measurements of temperature, solar and infrared radiation, clouds, and precipitation that we will be able to test and improve the climate models, which will then hopefully lead to more confident predictions of global temperatures."
(go to www.weatherquestions.com scroll down to "Roy Spencer on global warming)
Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. in meteorology. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center,
Instead of plagiarizing Roy spencer, explain why the stratosphere is cooling, when increased solar activity would make the stratosphere warmer. Here's a hint: it's not the sun, it's the greenhouse effect.
It's not plagiarizing dick head when you give attribution. And your qualifications against Mr Spencers'?
I didn't say you plagiarized dick head, did I? And Spencer isn't here while you are. Why don't you answer my request for an explanation in your own words?
Probably I should not have called it "plagiarism"; however, you cannot make an intelligent argument simply by cutting and pasting someone else's words. Can't you think for yourself? Don't you understand the issues enough to explain in your own words why you hold that opinion?
Holly . . . cooling?????
That's an absence of warming, the globe has cooled .5 degree since 2000.
Remember the 3000 sensors in the southern oceans last year, the scientists checked them regularly, and they showed the oceans were cooling. The scientists were wringing their hands looking for the warming. They said did it go down, did it go up. Imagine the facts getting in the way of your belief system.
Such is the GW nonsense, politicised non-science, based on ridiculous computer models.
The rare gas CO2 is plant food, nothing more.
Go to "ICECAP.com" read what real scientists, climate scientists have to say. Gorbull Warming, aka Climate Change is just nonsense. We could no more control the weather than we could controll a volcano.
SD,
Cut and pastes are cheap.
Oldschool, you never change, do you? Totally unteachable.
Just can't lay you hands on the PROOF bigcity.
Or was it Maurice's scarrey quote that upset you.
When you grow up . . . you will be able to put the GW nonsense in perspective.
Jacque Chirac in 1998 said "globull warming is the first step to Global Governance"
Check it out . . . he really said it, and he is a lefty.
I could list numerous real "Climate Scientists" who say GW is a scam.
You believe the Suzz, Goar and James (always wrong) Hansen.
"SD,
Cut and pastes are cheap."
BigCity, most of your blog is cut 'n paste. The only original commentary you do are your anti free speech and Christophobic rants.
At least I bring some cut 'n pastes from credible sources representing the other side of the GW debate. The side you don't get on the CBC or in The Star or on this blog.
GW, it's over, break open the bubbly.
(From Planet Gore, Aug 11)
"It Don’t Add Up! [Marlo Lewis]
There’s been no net global warming in the 21st century. Although seldom reported by the mainstream media, it’s quite a story, because no climate model predicted it.
What’s really rather remarkable, is that since 2000, the rates at which CO2 emissions and concentrations are increasing have accelerated.
According to a study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fossil fuel and cement emissions increased by 3.3 percent per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.3 percent per year in the 1990s. Similarly, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1.93 parts per million per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.58 ppm in the 1990s.
And yet, despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there's been no net warming in the 21st century. It don’t add up!
Skeptics have long said climate models aren’t accurate enough to base policy decisions on. That may be truer now than ever."
Post a Comment