Sunday, December 09, 2007

Carbon offset offsets


You may have heard that Al Gore has listened to criticism about his Godzilla sized carbon footprint.

When he and Tipper arrived at the global warmist convention in Bali, they walked to the train rather than take a limousine.

His luggage didn't get the memo, however. It took a Mercedes van.

"It's not my carbon footprint, it was some inanimate naugahyde staffer acting without my knowledge. We've fired the trunk, a 3 suiter, two travel kits and a garment bag."

I understand that he and Tipper probably couldn't carry 3 days worth of clothing in a couple of wheelies, like the rest of us would, but this bit of street theater should be noted as the hypocritical BS it is.

H/T A Dog Named Kyoto


Update 12:47: Related. RTWT
Contaminated data

Scientists who attribute warming to greenhouse gases argue that their climate models cannot reproduce the surface trends from natural variability alone. They then attribute it to greenhouse gases, since (they assume) all other human influences have been removed from the data by the adjustment models. If that has not happened, however, they cannot claim to be able to identify the role of greenhouse gases. Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.

How did they handle this issue? In the first draft of the IPCC report, they simply claimed that, while city data are distorted by urban warming, this does not affect the global averages. They cited two familiar studies to support their position and ignored the new counter-evidence. I submitted lengthy comments criticizing this section. In the second draft there was still no discussion, so again I put in lengthy comments. This time the IPCC authors wrote a response. They conceded the evidence of contamination, but in a stunning admission, said: "The locations of socioeconomic development happen to have coincided with maximum warming, not for the reason given by McKitrick and Mihaels [sic] (2004), but because of the strengthening of the Arctic Oscillation and the greater sensitivity of land than ocean to greenhouse forcing, owing to the smaller thermal capacity of land." Note the irony: Confronted with published evidence of an anthropogenic (but non-greenhouse) explanation for warming, they dismissed it with an unproven conjecture of natural causes. Who's the "denialist" now?

Furthermore, the claim is preposterous. The comparison of land and ocean is irrelevant since we were only talking about land areas. The Arctic Oscillation is a wind-circulation pattern that affects long-term weather trends in the Arctic. It certainly plays a role in explaining Arctic warming over the past few decades. But for IPCC lead authors to invoke it to explain a worldwide correlation between industrialization and warming patterns is nonsense.

2 comments:

RightMichigan.com said...

Ahem. Busted.

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com

RightMichigan.com said...

Ahem. Busted.

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com