Comments on: US at Bottom of G8 Emissions Reduction/Climate Change Action Rankings http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/07/02/us-at-bottom-of-g8-emissions-reductionclimate-change-action-rankings/ News, Resources, and Commentary on Climate Change, Energy, and Sustainability Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:27:04 -0800 hourly 1 By: Rachid http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/07/02/us-at-bottom-of-g8-emissions-reductionclimate-change-action-rankings/#comment-14543 Rachid Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:35:14 +0000 http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/?p=3738#comment-14543 Human being is destroying himself by his own hands: http://inspirationwriting.blogspot.com/2009/07/scientific-studies-showed-where-there.html Human being is destroying himself by his own hands: http://inspirationwriting.blogspot.com/2009/07/scientific-studies-showed-where-there.html

]]> By: Thomas Schueneman http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/07/02/us-at-bottom-of-g8-emissions-reductionclimate-change-action-rankings/#comment-14289 Thomas Schueneman Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:02:22 +0000 http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/?p=3738#comment-14289 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/22/deniers-are-winning-in-uk-too/ http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-science-by-letter-is-not-science http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/03/who-heck-is-piers-corbyn-and-why-has.html http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/22/deniers-are-winning-in-uk-too/

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-science-by-letter-is-not-science

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/03/who-heck-is-piers-corbyn-and-why-has.html

]]> By: Dan Pangburn http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/07/02/us-at-bottom-of-g8-emissions-reductionclimate-change-action-rankings/#comment-14285 Dan Pangburn Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:24:33 +0000 http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/?p=3738#comment-14285 The AGW mistake: In 1984 Hansen et al published a paper that showed a method to calculate control loop feedback from temperature using separate calculations of feedback factors for each phenomenon. Climate Scientists calculated feedbacks for phenomena that they knew about and added them together. The calculation resulted in a net positive feedback from temperature. With net positive feedback the climate models predict significant future global temperature rise. The method assumes that the calculations of feedback factors are correct and that all feedbacks have been accounted for. The assumption is wrong. This mistake has propagated through most of the Climate Science community. Many Climate Scientists appear to understand some relevant science poorly (it’s not in their curriculum) and therefore do not recognize the significance of accepted paleo temperature data. With understanding of the missing science and knowledge of the data it is trivial to show that NET feedback on temperature can not be significantly positive. Thus Climate Scientists have not calculated feedback correctly and/or all feedbacks have not been accounted for. Without net positive feedback, added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. See the pdfs linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the evidence, to identify the missing science and to see the cause of the temperature run-up in the late 20th century. There is still the certainty of peek oil given the finite resource. Research money would be far better spent to modify the dna of some algae that are high oil producers to make them more robust and/or other algae that are robust to make them higher oil producers. (There was Government sponsored research to identify high oil-producing algae in the 90s that was not exploited because of cheap oil at that time) Calculations based on that work show that an open facility (which could be located in the desert) 120 miles on a side using only sunlight, sea water and genetically engineered algae could produce enough oil to meet all liquid fuel needs in the U.S.A. Alternatively fast breeder reactors with established technology could meet all of humanities needs for energy for millions of years. The AGW mistake: In 1984 Hansen et al published a paper that showed a method to calculate control loop feedback from temperature using separate calculations of feedback factors for each phenomenon. Climate Scientists calculated feedbacks for phenomena that they knew about and added them together. The calculation resulted in a net positive feedback from temperature. With net positive feedback the climate models predict significant future global temperature rise. The method assumes that the calculations of feedback factors are correct and that all feedbacks have been accounted for. The assumption is wrong. This mistake has propagated through most of the Climate Science community.

Many Climate Scientists appear to understand some relevant science poorly (it’s not in their curriculum) and therefore do not recognize the significance of accepted paleo temperature data. With understanding of the missing science and knowledge of the data it is trivial to show that NET feedback on temperature can not be significantly positive. Thus Climate Scientists have not calculated feedback correctly and/or all feedbacks have not been accounted for. Without net positive feedback, added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. See the pdfs linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the evidence, to identify the missing science and to see the cause of the temperature run-up in the late 20th century.

There is still the certainty of peek oil given the finite resource. Research money would be far better spent to modify the dna of some algae that are high oil producers to make them more robust and/or other algae that are robust to make them higher oil producers. (There was Government sponsored research to identify high oil-producing algae in the 90s that was not exploited because of cheap oil at that time) Calculations based on that work show that an open facility (which could be located in the desert) 120 miles on a side using only sunlight, sea water and genetically engineered algae could produce enough oil to meet all liquid fuel needs in the U.S.A. Alternatively fast breeder reactors with established technology could meet all of humanities needs for energy for millions of years.

]]>