Things are worse than we thought...

I read today in the New Scientist that a research team looking at the growth of CO2 emissions over the past few decades have determined that our rate of output of CO2 exceeds the worst-case scenario published earlier this year by the IPCC.

It seems that before 2000, our global population was fairly efficient (measured as amount of carbon emission per unit GDP.) However, since then, we have become much less efficient at using carbon (measured from 2000 to 2004, when the study ended).

Not surprisingly, the reason for that appears to be the accelerated economic development of developing countries, where they account of 73% of the growth of CO2 emissions, but 41% of total global emissions.

Obviously, we need a new round of international agreements to take into account this growth on the part of developing countries.

The shed is DONE!

FINALLY, after busy weekends, we completed the construction of our shed. It might not seem like much, but it's MINE!!! ;-)

I was surprised how littel time it took build the actual shed: Just a couple of days. But of course, we spent more than that just in site preparation, but that's just the way it goes...

I think I can relax now, but Cheryl's already talking about a deck. Maybe I'll go hide.

Inhofe EPW Press Blog Post: Great example of disingenousness...

A friend of mine sent this on to me as part of an ongoing discussion regarding climate change.

To summarize, Marc Morano (whoever he is) published an article entitled "Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics" on U.S. Senator Inhofe's Press Blog on May 15, 2007.

In this article, Mr. Morano states that a "recent and quite remarkable momentum shift [is] taking place in climate science." (Hah. I won't comment on that.) The article then goes on to state that:

"Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. " (my emphasis added.)

The article goes on to list names of scientists who have spoken out recently as being skeptical of climate change. The blog post implies that these scientists are skeptics of recent vintage, and it is clear that this is not the case for some of them.

Drs Tim Patterson, Ian Clarke, Jan Veizer, Tad Murty, were signatories to an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada over a year ago (April 2006) requesting that "balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans."

Mr. Morano is technically correct is saying that the skeptics he mentions are scientists who have "spoken out recently" against Al Gore, but they have been saying that, in some cases, for years.

Mr. Morano chooses to ignore the professional societies that represent thousands of scientists who have recognized man's contribution to precipitating climate change. This blog entry is an example of sensationalist, exaggerated, untruthful and ill-researched "spin". It just goes to show you can put anything up on a blog... Hehehe...

I gauge that Drs Patterson et al are quite conscientious for requesting that public consultation sessions be held to examine the scientific foundations of any climate change plans, under any government. But I suspect that politicians would not want to sink themselves into a morass of scientific discussion - something of which they know nothing about - and would choose to stay away.

Okay, I've spent too much time on this... I gotta get started on that stupid shed...

Excellent summary article on the myths of climate change

I was delighted to receive in my e-mail inbox the New Scientist's newsletter. In it was a brief blurb and the link to Climate change: A guide for the perplexed, which clears up 26 misconceptions ("myths") and offers a guide to assessing the evidence.

 

Here are the 26 myths:

 

• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

• We can't do anything about climate change

• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

• Chaotic systems are not predictable

• We can't trust computer models of climate

• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

• It's too cold where I live - warming will be great

• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

• It's all down to cosmic rays

• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

• The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

• Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

• The oceans are cooling

• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

• Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell

• Mars and Pluto are warming too

• Many leading scientists question climate change

• It's all a conspiracy

• Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

• Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

• Polar bear numbers are increasing

 

While it might be enlightening to the perplexed, I feel it will confirm the beliefs of people at opposite ends of the spectrum: those who believe in the anthropogenic cause of climate change will feel justified, and those who deny the anthropogenic cause will believe believe that the article is proof of mass delusion or of a conspiracy.

 

Well, I believe that 11,000 scientists can't be wrong…

$50 cup of coffee? I think not...

Now, I love my coffee, and will go to considerable lengths to brew a great cup of "joe," but when I saw this story in the New Scientist, I thought it was a bit much.

 

It seems that Indonesian civet cats will ingest coffee beans and pass them through their digestive tract.  These beans are then collected off the forest floor, cleaned, and roasted to create what "the world's rarest and most exclusive coffee." At $1,000 USD per kilo, I would think so.

 

Gah. Is it any wonder that some countries regard Western countries' lifestyles with contempt?

 

All that's missing is for the coffee to be brewed with the most exclusive water available on the planet… until someone imports water from Mars…

 

 

Baby Bubba gets a gun licence

Oh, this is a great story.

The BBC reports that baby Bubba Ludwig (I kid you not, that's his real name), at 10 months, was able to get a gun licence in the state of Illinois. The best part is that the license includes his picture and signature (a squiggle).

The worst part is that his application was rejected – twice – before it was finally accepted.

It appears that age is no restriction for the possession of firearms, in spite of the fact that Illinois has "gun laws that are said to be among the strictest in the US."

Argh. I CANNOT understand this last statement. How can a child be registered as a gun owner? Do we really want to make it easier for new Columbines, Dawnson Colleges, and Virgina Techs?

Shed de/construction photos

As promised, here are some of the pictures for our shed (dis)assemblage. Obviously, the pix are taken in chronological order. As of this writing, I'm ready to assemble the shed, but there still is a bit of site preparation to finish.

A transatlantic Common Market?

BBC News reports that the US and the EU have agreed to a 'single market'.

Could a NAFTA (North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement) be far behind?

Climate models wrong: Arctic melts *faster* than forecast

Now, in my critique of the XTRONICS web page, I had defended the idea of climate modelling. One would think, in light of the news story by the BBC reporting that the Arctic ice mass is melting faster than predicted, that all these models are so much poppycock.

While a "perfect" model would account for all independent variables in a system, this in all likelihood be impossible to achieve in the real world. However, would argue that once that all the important independent variables have been taken into account, it the model would accurately forecast future climate trends.

What is apparent to me in this story, is that we still have not identified all the important independent variables.

It's interesting to note in this is the third time in the last few months that studies have suggested the IPCC's latest major global climate analysis, the Fourth Assessment Report, is too conservative.

Now, Bush / Harper, are you paying attention???