exaggerating the effects of CO2 to gain funding …

Storing carbon is yet another con on the taxpayer. Plants are made of the stuff, they thrive under increased CO2 conditions. Carbon is the backbone of all life, the more there is, the more, and healthier, life is. The climate change agenda is nothing more than a funding scam of the CSIRO and other quasi government organizations like the IPCC.

Research defines planting carbon-storage relationship

Research defines planting carbon-storage relationship

DEVELOPING cost-effective methods for estimating carbon in mixed-species environmental plantings – also known as biodiversity plantings – has been the focus of collaborative research between the CSIRO and numerous partners across Australia, including several in WA.

Read more…

Dr David Evans was part of the carbon counting team until he had a second look at the science: Dr David Evans: The Skeptic’s Case

A new brief summary of the reasoning and evidence behind the skeptics case. –Jo

The Skeptic’s Case Who Are You Going To Believe – The Government Climate Scientists Or The Data? Guest Post Dr David M.W. Evans

They could always go here, at CO2 Science, and download it, save us all that funding.

Plant Growth Database
Our latest results of plant growth responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment obtained from experiments described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature are: Barrelclover (Meng et al., 2013) and Purging Nut (Guo et al., 2013).

Major Report
The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production: Several analyses have been conducted to estimate potential monetary damages of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Few, however, have attempted to investigate its monetary benefits. This study addresses this discrepancy by providing a quantitative estimate of the direct monetary benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on both historic and future global crop production. Results indicate that the annual total monetary value of the increase in the air’s CO2 content (since the inception of the Industrial Revolution) for world crop production grew from about $18.5 billion in 1961 to over $140 billion by 2011, reaching the staggering sum of $3.2 trillion over the 50-year time period from 1961-2011. And projecting the monetary value of this positive externality forward in time reveals that it will bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production between now and 2050.

CO2 has virtually no influence on climate change.
Observations show IPCC exaggerates anthropogenic global warming by a factor of 7

A compilation of at least 13 studies based upon satellite and ocean observations demonstrate climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels after all feedbacks is only about 0.4 C, which is 7.5 times less than the 3C claimed by the IPCC.

Note: If the current rate of increase of 2 ppm/yr continues, CO2 concentrations would require about 200 years to double. These climate sensitivity estimates also assume the temperature increase was solely due to greenhouse gases and do not include natural influences from solar amplification, global brightening, ocean oscillations, etc. which can alone account for 95% of climate change over the past 400 years.

Lindzen & Choi [2011]: 0.7 C

Spencer & Braswell: 0.62 C

Bjornbom: 0.67 C

Eschenbach: 0.2 C

Levitus 2012 = 0.39 C

Douglass & Knox [2012]: 0.16 * 1.3 = 0.21 C

Lindzen & Giannitsis: 0.67 C

Douglass et al [2005]: .22 * 1.3 = 0.29 C

Bogdanov: .41*1.3 = 0.53 C

Chylek: .385*1.3 = 0.50 C

Monckton: .12 * 3.7 * 1.3 = 0.58 C

Paltridge: .1 – .3 (based on NCEP trends, figure 10) (ave .2)*1.3 = 0.26 C

Schwartz: 0.3 * 1.3 = 0.39 C

All very similar and averaging out to about 0.4 C climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels

Note: Equilibrium climate sensitivity [ECS] at the top of the atmosphere [TOA] has been determined from the above analyses assuming ECS is 130% of transient climate sensitivity [TCS] per Otto et al.

About Tom Harley

Amateur ecologist and horticulturalist and CEO of Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Inc. (Tom Harley)
This entry was posted in Climate, comedy, Environment, Oz politics, science, weather and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to exaggerating the effects of CO2 to gain funding …

  1. Pingback: exaggerating the effects of CO2 to gain funding … | High on Science & Tech - H.O.S.T

  2. Pingback: weighing village carbon … drinking the kool-ade | pindanpost

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s