IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Chinese Blamed For Lack Of Global Warming...

André
post Jul 13 2011, 02:19 AM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,689
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



Chinese coal linked to global warming standstill

In the past decade, it seems that greenhouse has emissions have remained constant each year, despite no important improvements were made – on the contrary CO2 levels have increased dramatically. The reason, reports a team of academicians who sought to explain the bafflement, after tweaking a statistical model to include sulfur emissions, is that coal power stations in China may be to blame for a lack of global warming since 1998.

As China entered a prosperous economical expansion, the countries industrialization process only accelerated. As such, Chinese coal consumption to produce power jumped to double between 2002 and 2007, which is an increase of around 26 percent in global coal consumption. Burning coal releases carbon dioxide and sulfur particles. Carbon dioxide traps heat from the Sun, raising temperatures. Sulfur particles in the air deflect the sun’s rays and can temporarily cool things down a bit.

“During the Chinese economic expansion there was a huge increase in sulphur emissions,” Dr Robert Kaufmann, of Boston University, told the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Although it’s a double masking effect, scientists warn that this is a dangerous game to play. While CO2 and sulfur block each other out in the warming/cooling dance, sulfur particle pollution is dispersed a lot easier than CO2, which stays into the atmosphere much longer.

There are other factors linking to the plateau, however. Other studies argue that a combination of pollution, particular natural phenomena events (El Nino and La Nina, volcano eruptions etc.) and the sun’s natural cycles, all factor in to account for the past decade’s global warming pacing.

The report was made by a team of two geographers and two economists headed by Professor Robert Kaufmann at the Department of Geography in Boston, who publish their results in a new paper titled Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008 [PDF].

Meanwhile, a new research publish this week shows how warming oceans account for a much rapid ice caps melting than previously thought.

http://www.zmescience.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jul 13 2011, 09:29 AM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,076
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



So even the PNAS already acknowledged that there was no warming last decade... finally

The rest as I read the paper is just a blahblah1.gif again based on dusted models to fit the preconceived catastrophic vision on the quite new reality for the globalwarmingscaremongers - that it is no longer possible to conceal the reality that although the emissions of CO2 rise significantly it doesn't much correlate with the temperature (non-)change.
So they when they no longer can deny it they invent "uncertain sulphur" and China and it now even looks like they turned 180° and claim now suddenly that the more coal usage the more stable the temperature is (-do they want even more money from the fossil lobby?), while they use uncertain language as "Model simulations are used to suggest..." (shouldn't the model simulations be rather used for something else than suggestion? At least in field which is called science not just by itself..), "recent changes in stratospheric water vapor may account"... etc.
Especially funny is when they end the paper with: "Both of these effects, along with changes in natural variables must be examined explicitly by efforts to understand climate change and devise policy that complies with the objective of Article 2 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilize “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphre at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system.” (emphasis mine), they send it to the PNAS, and expressly declare no conflict of interest.
Very nice. Isn't this in legal terms called perjury? whistle.gif

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jul 13 2011, 09:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2014 - 10:30 AM