Category: Uncategorized

The Vostok Ice Core and the 14,000 Year CO2 Time Lag

The Vostok Ice Core and the 14,000 Year CO2 Time Lag

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

A detailed analysis of temperature, CO2 and methane variations from the Vostok ice core is presented for the time interval 137,383 to 102,052 years ago.

This captures the termination of the glaciation that preceded the Eemian interglacial and the inception of the last great glaciation that succeeded the Eemian. At the termination, CO2 follows dT exactly, but at the inception CO2 does not follow temperature down for 14,218 years. Full glacial conditions came into being without falling CO2 providing any of the climate forcing. This falsifies the traditional narrative that dCO2 amplified weak orbital forcing effects. It is quite clear from the data that CO2 follows temperature with highly variable time lags depending upon whether the climate is warming or cooling.

Methane on the other hand lags temperature by about 2,000 years at the termination but follows temperature down exactly at the inception. It therefore follows that methane and CO2 are not coupled. Each responds in their own time to changing climate. The absence of coupling may be explained by the different bio-geochemical pathways these gasses have in the biosphere – ocean – atmosphere system.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

June 21, 2017 at 05:13AM

Claim: Carbon Taxes are Not Punitive, they Just Change Behaviour

Claim: Carbon Taxes are Not Punitive, they Just Change Behaviour

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Apparently carbon taxes are not punitive, because anyone who wants to save money on carbon taxed gasoline can always purchase an electric car.

Are Carbon Taxes The Solution To Global Warming?

Quora , CONTRIBUTOR

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Am I correct to say that carbon taxes are not a solution to global warming? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Michael Barnard, low-carbon innovation analyst, on Quora:

There is a belief that taxes (such as carbon taxes) are punitive or punishing, hence the misconception that carbon taxes aren’t part of the solution set useful for climate change.

This is a common misconception, especially in the USA where taxes have been demonized and cut for decades, and politicians bend themselves into all sorts of silly shapes to avoid putting a tax on something. However, it’s a false assertion.

Taxes are a necessary mechanism for governments to raise money for their actions. They are also a key lever for changing consumer and corporate behavior, along with regulations. In behavioral economics, there’s something referred to as induced demand. This is a directly observable behavioral trait of groups. If something is cheap, people will figure out how to use it and more of it will be used. You can see this with building new roads which become congested almost immediately and you can see it with dumping sewage into rivers instead of treating it where that is allowed by lack of regulation and penalty.

Let’s look at a couple of examples.

A couple are considering the purchase of a car, the second largest single expense most people have after their home. They want the most car for the money, they need to balance status with practicality, they need to balance her desire for an insanely fast corner carving beast with his relative timidity behind the wheel and the like. The price of gasoline and projected future price of gasoline is part of the conversation. A 20 mile per gallon car might cost a couple close to $1,600 in annual gas bills at $2.40 a gallon. A carbon tax might raise that to $3.00 a gallon which would increase their annual gas costs to perhaps $2,000, about $400 more. Meanwhile, a 50 mpg PHEV or a full electric car could drop their annual gas expenditure substantially. Filling up with electricity is half as expensive as filling up with gas at $2.40 a gallon on average in the USA, and closer to a third as expensive at $3.00. That means that buying an electric car might save them $800 without a carbon tax or up to $1,200 with a carbon tax. $1,200 is $100 a month. For most couples that’s material. They’re more likely to make a decision to buy a Chevy Bolt or a Nissan Leaf or a Tesla Model 3 instead of a gas car. They have a choice and are incentivized to make one choice over the other. This doesn’t penalize them, but it does shift behaviors to preferential ones.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2sPw53y

Why didn’t we climate skeptics think of that? Poor people won’t suffer from high carbon taxes, all they have to do is dump the $500 jalopy and produce USD $22,000 or so to buy a cheap electric car, and whatever additional money is required to replace the electric car battery every few years.

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

June 21, 2017 at 04:49AM

Top Pictures From Yesterday’s Bicycle Commute

Top Pictures From Yesterday’s Bicycle Commute

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O

June 21, 2017 at 04:48AM

Battering The Bats

Battering The Bats

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

The negative impact of windfarms on birds – and particularly raptors – has been fairly well documented over the years. There has also been quite a lot of discussion of the impact on bats, with gory discussions of how the pressure waves from the turbines cause the poor beasties’ lungs to explode. This is apparently all done in aid of the environment.

Hoary bat, by Justin Lindsay http://ift.tt/2ts5RC0

However, there is now a suggestion that windfarms might be even worse for bats than we thought. A new paper in the journal Biological Conservation claims that the impact could be so severe as to affect population levels of migratory bat species:

Using expert elicitation and population projection models, we show that mortality from wind turbines may drastically reduce population size and increase the risk of extinction. For example, the hoary bat population could decline by as much as 90% in the next 50 years

OK, it’s a computer simulation, and we know how cautious you have to be about those, but governments and environmentalists need to note the risks that they may be taking.

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

June 21, 2017 at 04:43AM