|
Written by NEIL REYNOLDS, Globe and Mail
|
|
|
| on Apr 30, 2008, 10:02 AM E.S.T.
|
Torys, the eminent Toronto law firm, distributed a bulletin the other
day that described the cross-border frenzy to develop carbon emissions
policies across North America. Provinces are working with provinces.
States are working with states. Provinces are working with states.
Other states are working with other provinces. These partnerships,
Torys notes, are frequently pursued independently of either federal
government.
The Torys review makes it apparent that provinces and states are
running in all directions in pursuit of contradictory environmental
goals. Looked at from a continental perspective, we will have multiple
carbon taxes, multiple cap-and-trade markets, multiple restrictions on
some industries – and multiple exemptions on others. (Note that British
Columbia will exempt from its carbon tax industrial emissions from the
oil, gas, aluminum and cement industries.) We will have multiple
vehicle emissions standards. (Note that Quebec will adopt California's
standard rather than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]
standard; and note that Ontario will adopt the EPA standard.)
Here are some of the alliances.
|
|
|
|
Written by STEVEN F. HAYWARD, Wall Street Journal
|
|
|
| on Apr 28, 2008, 02:12 PM E.S.T.
|
The usual chorus of environmentalists and editorial
writers has chimed in to attack President Bush's recent speech on
climate change. In his address of April 23, he put forth a goal of
stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.
"Way too little and way too late," runs the refrain,
followed by the claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in
emissions by the year 2050 will suffice – what I call the "80 by 50"
target. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John
McCain is not far behind, calling for a 65% reduction.
We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means. When we do, it
becomes clear that the president's target has one overwhelming virtue:
Assuming emissions curbs are even necessary, his goal is at least
realistic.
The same cannot be said for the carbon emissions
targets espoused by the three presidential candidates and
environmentalists. Indeed, these targets would send us back to
emissions levels last witnessed when the cotton gin was in daily use.
|
|
|
|
Written by Maurizio Morabito
|
|
|
| on Apr 25, 2008, 01:45 PM E.S.T.
|
This being the
age of the Internet, not everybody reads after the second or third
paragraph. So here’s a quick summary explaining why I write that “RealClimate Raises the Bar AGAINST Climate Models“:
(1) In the “RealClimate World”, models cannot be falsified by a single observation (i.e. atmospheric phenomenon). That phenomenon is called ”weather”, and “weather” for RealClimate is “noise”)
(2) In the “RealClimate World”, models cannot be falsified by a set of short-term observations. That set is just part of a “specific trajectory” towards the expected climate change / global warming. And RealClimate is “not too concerned” about a “specific trajectory“.
|
|
|
|
Written by William J Pitterle, American Thinker
|
|
|
| on Apr 24, 2008, 02:22 PM E.S.T.
|
A couple of days ago, AT focused attention on the possible climate effects of sunspots, as solar cycle 23 runs longer than forecast, in Sunspots and a Possible New Ice Age
. There are various measurements that scientists, as well as the
curious, are looking at and updating almost daily, such as the length
of cycle 23, number of days with no sunspots, and the official start of
cycle 24.
All
of it is interesting, though not very well understood. In some circles
there is a theory, increasingly backed up by data, that this extended
duration and low magnitude cycle 23 is the reason for recent cooling,
and that we may be in store for more cooling, maybe much more.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) controversy has exposed much information, old and new. One of the more interesting papers
I have seen recently was written in the year 1999, and has to do with
barycentric analysis (celestial mechanics) of the solar system and its
possible effects on the solar cycle. In some scientific circles
celestial mechanics has already been "ruled out, even disparaged as
"astrology."
|
|
|
|
Written by Dennis T. Avery, CapMag
|
|
|
| on Apr 20, 2008, 01:00 AM E.S.T.
|
The Earth’s warming since 1850 totals about 0.7 degrees C. Most of this occurred before 1940.
The cause: a long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle first discovered in the Greenland ice cores in 1983. The cycle abruptly raises our temperature 1 to 3 degrees C above the mean for centuries at a time--as it did during the Roman Warming (200 BC to 600 AD) and Medieval Warming (950 to1300 AD).
Between warmings, Earth’s temperatures shift abruptly lower by 1 to 3 degrees C--as they did during the 550 years of the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1850. The ice cores and seabed fossils show 600 of these 1,500-year cycles, extending back at least 1 million years.
|
|
|
|
Written by Ed Ring, EcoWorld
|
|
|
| on Apr 17, 2008, 02:03 PM E.S.T.
|
That
is the relevant question, when you read alarmist stories about ice melt
in Antarctica. On March 25th, for example, the BBC dutifully reported “Antarctic Shelf Hangs by a Thread”
in a report by science correspondant Helen Briggs. Here is the tag
line below the title: “A chunk of ice the size of the Isle of Man has
started to break away from Antarctica in what scientists say is further
evidence of a warming climate,” and then a few paragraphs below that,
also in bold “Unprecedented Warming” sets off the remainder of the
story.
This report doesn’t make terribly clear the fact that this breakup
is in the Antarctic Peninsula, a finger of land that stretches for
several hundred miles into the South Atlantic. There is evidence the
ocean in this region is somewhat warmer in recent years - true enough -
but this fact is dwarfed by the mounting evidence the overall ice mass
of Antarctica is increasing.
|
|
|
|
Written by Roger Highfield, Telegraph.co.uk
|
|
|
| on Apr 17, 2008, 10:47 AM E.S.T.
|
The world's oldest tree has been found in Sweden, a tenacious spruce
that first took root just after the end of the last ice age, more than
9,500 years ago.
| |
 |
| The tree has rewritten the history of the climate in the region |
The
tree has rewritten the history of the climate in the region, revealing
that it was much warmer at that time and the ice had disappeared
earlier than thought.
Previously, pine trees in North America were thought to be the oldest, at around 5,000 years old.
But Swedish scientists report that in the mountains, from Lapland in
the north to Dalarna in central Sweden, there are much more ancient
spruce trees (Picea abies).
Prof Leif Kullman at Umeå University and colleagues found a cluster of around 20 spruces that are over 8,000 years old.
The oldest tree, in Fulu Mountain, Dalarna (“the dales”), was dated by
carbon dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida to 9,550 years old and
around it were generations of clones 375, 5,660 and 9,000 years old
that have the same genetic makeup.
|
|
|
|
