Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord

    Trump was right, by thier own admission the data the Paris accords rely on are +- 100% off!

    Potent, climate-warming gases are being emitted into the atmosphere but are not being recorded in official inventories, a BBC investigation has found.
    Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy.
    However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted.
    Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.
    These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4's Counting Carbon programme.
    Bottom-up records
    Among the key provisions of the Paris climate deal, signed by 195 countries in December 2015, is the requirement that every country, rich or poor, has to submit an inventory of its greenhouse-gas emissions every two years.
    Under UN rules, most countries produce "bottom-up" records, based on how many car journeys are made or how much energy is used for heating homes and offices.But air-sampling programmes that record actual levels of gases, such as those run by the UK and Switzerland, sometimes reveal errors and omissions.
    In 2011, Swiss scientists first published their data on levels of a gas called HFC-23 coming from a location in northern Italy.
    Between 2008 and 2010, they had recorded samples of the chemical, produced in the refrigeration and air conditioning industries, which is 14,800 times more warming to the atmosphere than CO2.
    Now the scientists, at the Jungfraujoch Swiss air monitoring station, have told the BBC the gas is still going into the atmosphere.
    "Our estimate for this location in Italy is about 60-80 tonnes of this substance being emitted every year. Then we can compare this with the Italian emission inventory, and that is quite interesting because the official inventory says below 10 tonnes or in the region of two to three tonnes," said Dr Stefan Reimann, from the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology.
    "They actually say it is happening, but they don't think it is happening as much as we see.
    "Just to put it into perspective, this greenhouse gas is thousands of times stronger than CO2.
    "So, that would be like an Italian town of 80,000 inhabitants not emitting any CO2."
    The Italian environment agency told the BBC its inventory was correct and complied with UN regulations and it did not accept the Swiss figures.
    Another rare warming gas, carbon tetrachloride, once popular as a refrigerant and a solvent but very damaging to the ozone layer, has been banned in Europe since 2002.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449
    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

  • #2

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Did you read the part about China still emitting tetrachloride? A substance banned in the US and Europe since 2002?
      Another rare warming gas, carbon tetrachloride, once popular as a refrigerant and a solvent but very damaging to the ozone layer, has been banned in Europe since 2002.
      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, I'm still waiting for the so-called climate scientists to explain how they got the CFC / hole in the ozone layer completely wrong...

        Comment


        • #5
          The same people who were selling us ice age themed doomsdays books 45 years ago.
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • #6
            Not all the scientists who believe in global warming are frauds. The real problem was that the research was set up to study global warming. It would be interesting what they would have found if they had been tasked to study global cooling :-).
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              My problem is that they have decades of modelling now and neither their predictions or models show actual climate changes as recorded with anything approaching reasonable accuracy. The IPCC has a demonstrated track record of near 100% being wrong on predicting the effects of climate change, and not just recently but over decades.

              It's not that I don't think climate change is real and ongoing, it's that I'm not buying for a second the causes the so-called consensus of climate change "experts" is offering. They haven't proven themselves close to right on any of their models and predictions. Until they can establish a minimally reliable predictive model that tracks climate changes reasonably well, and additionally can demonstrate that the model is based on accurate causes rather than guesses as to causality, I for one will largely ignore what they have to say.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                My problem is that they have decades of modelling now and neither their predictions or models show actual climate changes as recorded with anything approaching reasonable accuracy. The IPCC has a demonstrated track record of near 100% being wrong on predicting the effects of climate change, and not just recently but over decades.

                It's not that I don't think climate change is real and ongoing, it's that I'm not buying for a second the causes the so-called consensus of climate change "experts" is offering. They haven't proven themselves close to right on any of their models and predictions. Until they can establish a minimally reliable predictive model that tracks climate changes reasonably well, and additionally can demonstrate that the model is based on accurate causes rather than guesses as to causality, I for one will largely ignore what they have to say.
                If the consequences of them being even slightly off on their predictions were not so serious you could simply say interesting theory that seems plausible.

                My complaint has always been that you cannot make any predictions unless you know what normal is. Yet very little money has gone into establishment of the background temperature. When they do look at historical data they seem to try and make it fit their models which is an odd way to do science.

                Then of course have the obvious manipulations such as ocean temperatures just in time for the Paris talks. Scientists have a real tendency to inflate the value of their research, you can see the same thing in drug research for example.

                The left latched on to global warming because it was a convenient truth that destroys the hated military industrial complex and gives the "intellectuals" control of the economy. It suits the globalist as well because they know they can profit from government regulations. The banksters can use it to justify huge loans to new industries. It is just too convenient for my tastes.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  If the data collected is +- 100% how does anyone take the models based on the data worthwhile?
                  Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                  Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                    If the data collected is +- 100% how does anyone take the models based on the data worthwhile?
                    Exactly... When all of your data is off by six standard deviations, when there's only three to be had in statistics, you have a serious problem...

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X