Saturday, September 13, 2014

Article: Here's How Little Time We Have Until Global Warming Is Out Of Control

[Note: I refuse to use "carbon emissions" or "carbon pollution." It is carbon dioxide, a natural by-product of respiration, fires, and decay.]

This article is a lovely example of what happens when a company (PWC) and a person (a writer for Yahoo's "Business Insider" page) venture into places where they have no expertise and no training. 
The news is in: humans are totally failing in the global effort to stop climate change. And we don't have much time left. 
This is the conclusion of a report released this month by multinational accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC). 
Why is a "multinational accounting firm" issuing a report on a scientific topic? Where is their expertise? Because they can crunch numbers and assess risk? (And badly, if some of the lawsuits against them listed on Wikipedia are any indication.)
The "Low Carbon Economy Index" evaluates the progress of G-20 countries in keeping global temperatures within 2 degrees Celsius of their pre-industrial levels — the target agreed upon at the 2009 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — and finds that almost everyone is falling short.
The "2 C" goal isn’t just a random number: experts agree that anything higher could lead to a disastrous series of effects, including catastrophic sea level rise, extreme weather events, famine and mass extinction.
Actually, it is a nice, round, random number agreed to by bureaucrats with a vested interested in keeping people scared ("catastrophic sea level rise, extreme weather events, famine and mass extinction!") and the monies flowing to them and to the NGO's they will work for when they retire from "public life." A major aspect of the "Framework" is the transfer of money from the G20 countries to poorer countries. The countries, in fact, that the bureaucrats come from. 
As it stands, G-20 countries are largely liable for keeping this from happening, as they contribute about 85 percent of global carbon emissions. This chart shows the breakdown by country, with China coming in at a whopping 27.6 percent, and the U.S. trailing close behind at 16.7 percent.
"The U.S. trailing close behind at 16.7 percent"..." We are more than 10 percentage points behind, and falling behind quickly. Another way of putting it is that the US's emissions are 60% of China's. We are not close to China, not by this measurement. Do not assert things that are obviously false. 
At the rate we're going, we'll shatter our goal by a hefty 2 C by the end of the century (reaching a total of 4 degrees Celsius increase) with potentially disastrous effects.
And herein lies the problem. They author, and presumably the report, confounds with increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with increased temperature. She, or they, have taken the global warming models as fact. In fact, the models that their numbers are based on have been shown to be wrong. They have publicly demonstrated their failure by predicting 20 years of warming that has not happened. 
Australia, for example, decreased its carbon emissions by a stunning 7.2 percent between 2012 and 2013, and the U.K, Italy, and China all managed impressive decarbonization rates between 4 and 5 percent. On the other hand, five countries actually increased their carbon intensity during the same time period, the U.S. among them.
Did any of these countries consciously try to increase or decrease their carbon dioxide emissions? 

During the time that Australia "decreased its carbon [dioxide] emissions," it was getting rid of its carbon pricing scheme. 

China broke records in increasing its carbon dioxide emissions. How could they "manage impressive decarbonization rates" while increasing emissions? This is nonsense. 

Carbon dioxide emissions? Or carbon intensity? Or "decarbonization?" They are not same thing, according to the graphs pictured. And what is "carbon intensity?" It is not explained. It has something to do with "millions of dollars," but no other explanation.  US emissions are supposed to be down. How can they be up at the same time unless there is some sort of statistical chicanery going on? 

The numbers used in the article are some kind of "lies, damned lies, and statistics" type of lies. 

No comments:

Post a Comment