‘Dodgy’ greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord

From The BBC

By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent

_97209910_jung1[2]

Image copyright JUNGFRAUJOCH Image caption The air monitoring station at Jungfraujoch, in Switzerland, has detected the Italian emissions for nine years

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.

_97236505_stefan1[2]

Image caption Scientist Dr Stefan Reimann has been recording high levels of warming gases over the Swiss Alps

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.

But Dr Reimann told Counting Carbon: “We still see 10,000-20,000 tonnes coming out of China every year.”

“That is something that shouldn’t be there.

“There is actually no Chinese inventory for these gases, as they are banned and industry shouldn’t be releasing them anymore.”

China’s approach to reporting its overall output of warming gases to the UN is also subject to constant and significant revisions.

Its last submission ran to about 30 pages – the UK’s, by contrast, runs to several hundred.

Back in 2007, China simply refused to accept, in official documents, that it had become the largest emitter of CO2.

“I was working in China in 2007,” said Dr Angel Hsu, from Yale University.

“I would include a citation and statistics that made this claim of China’s position as the number one emitter – these were just stricken out, and I was told the Chinese government doesn’t yet recognise this particular statistic so we are not going to include it.”

A report in 2015 suggested one error in China’s statistics amounted to 10% of global emissions in 2013.

The BBC investigation also discovered vast uncertainties in carbon emissions inventories, particularly in developing countries.

Methane, the second most abundant greenhouse gas after CO2, is produced by microbe activity in marshlands, in rice cultivation, from landfill, from agriculture and in the production of fossil fuels.

Global levels have been rising in recent years, and scientists are unsure why.

For a country such as India, home to 15% of the world’s livestock, methane is a very important gas in their inventory – but the amount produced is subject to a high degree of uncertainty.

Read the Full Article Here:

But it ends with this quote which must be shared.

So, without good data as a basis, Paris essentially collapses. It just becomes a talkfest without much progress.

HT Dodgy Greenhouse-gas Geezer

Advertisements

102 thoughts on “‘Dodgy’ greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord

  1. Oh shocking!!
    Politicians lying, dogs and cats sleeping together!!
    Apocalypse !!!
    Send Al Gore money!!!

    Seriously though, did anyone expect people to actually abide by that agreement?
    They should have left the paper used to write it as trees, it would have at least slightly benefited the environment that way.

    • If there’s one thing “climate scientists” know about, it is dodgy data. If they aren’t deleting it, they are adjusting it, and if they aren’t adjusting it, they are making it up. I’m sure they’ll be able to make up some data to show that Paris does not collapse.

      • Well first they need to learn what the principal GHG IS :

        Methane, the second most abundant greenhouse gas after CO2

        Correction: third most abundant, after water vapour and CO2.

      • So the Swiss scientists reckon that they can estimate the volume of a fart by sniffing it 3 miles down wind. Right!

        What they are trying to say is that they can reverse engineer the massively turbulent winds and air flow across the Alps to back project the concentration at the source. They also claim to be able to do this with better than 10% uncertainty.

        I’ll call BS on that claim. ( Even if they are correct about some undeclared releases, they must be making some fairly huge assumptions in their modelling of what happens before the ‘Jungefrau” gets a sniff of it.

    • yes…

      The US govt may be trying to suppress this report:

      “The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.
      The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
      “Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” a draft of the report states”

      • Guess what Griff – Texas is experiencing the COOLEST August in anyone’s living memory. It’s absolutely wonderful! And so is the rest of the central US. There’s some “climate change” for ya!!!

        (my friend in Wisconsin are saying some leaves are already turning, it looks like a very early fall is coming)

      • “……..One government scientist who worked on the report, Katharine Hayhoe, a professor of political science at Texas Tech University, called the conclusions among “the most comprehensive climate science reports” to be published……”.

        Hayhoe, one of the individuals who worked on the report, is a professor of POLITICAL SCIENCE, repeat POLITICAL SCiENCE. From what I’ve read about Hayhoe, she is a dyed in the wool alarmist and would be about as objective in this report as Hitler was about Jews.

        Claiming a political scientist is somehow qualified to contribute to a report on climate change is nothing short of hilarious.

      • Griff this is a draft of the next National Climate Assessment (NCA). I examined every single example used in the opening chapter of the 2014 NCA. Essay Credibility Conundrums in ebook Bloking Smoke. Every single one was misrepresented, simply false, or a regional temporal weather cherry pick. Every single one. No reason to think the next will be any better, since put together by the same deep state civil servants that infested these agencies under Obama.

      • Leave it to the Grifter to push the latest alarmist tripe – as if it wasn’t already smeared across the entire Internet.

        Pretty much the only thing that gets ‘suppressed’ is any information damaging to AGW alarmism, or any Progressive agenda item or individual in general.

      • Rud is absolutely correct. How any scientist could read past Assessments and not puke is beyond me. Wild speculation.

      • “The draft report by scientists……. ”
        Who are those scientists and what are their fields?
        “One government scientist who worked on the report, Katherine Hayhoe, a Professor of POLITICAL Science (my caps)………..”
        Readers of this blog are well acquainted with Dr Hayhoe. I’ll leave it at that.

        “It was uploaded to a non-profit digital library in January and went un-noticed (much to Katherine’s chagrin I suppose) and received little attention until it was published by the NYTimes.”

        Amazing; the NYT resurrected a report that gained NO notice by the MSM and by other scientists, that just happened to contradict Donald Trump. Go figure.

        The so called “report” does nothing but rehash alarmist talking points.
        All you need read is “the average temperature in the US has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980….”
        OK, temperatures rose in the first 15 years of that period; but what happened in the next 20?

        “Scientists Fear Trump will Dismiss Blunt Climate Report”. I certainly hope so.

      • George, what most concerns me about the National Assessment Reports is that they are obviously written as “sales jobs.” Every fact and conclusion are selected with that goal in mind. Anything that detracts from the sale is omitted or misstated.

        There is no balance. The documented failures of climate models are not presented. Studies that show no worsening of weather phenomenon (e.g. Dr. Pielke, Jr.) are not addressed.

      • Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for maliciously attempting to discredit her by lying about her professional qualifications yet, Skanky? Don’t you think you ought to?

      • Griff. . .Griff. . .you have to understand. Sometimes the government fibs to you through carnival barkers who serve as megaphones to amplify the fib. Take the New York Times for example. The grey lady has problems Griff. She’s circling the drain . . . . . . quarterly decline in profits . . print ads headed south . . . disappearing readers. Mexico’s richest billionaire was tapped to keep her afloat. Why Griff? Why is this happening? It’s because the Internet turned Oz’s ever-seeing eye around and everyone is looking at the boys behind the curtain and all the news that’s fit to print differently now Griff. And what they’re seeing are things like pandemics that weren’t, terrorists that aren’t, global warming that isn’t. Careful where you hang your information hat Griff.

      • Griff;

        When the Pleistocene-Quaternary Ice Age ends, the temperatures will go back to normal– 5 degrees C warmer than it is right now.

        If there is a climate “tipping point” when further climate change only gets worse, and we can reach that tipping with less than 5 degrees C of warming, how did it get as cool as it is now?

        In addition, if there is such a climate “tipping point”, why do ice ages happen, at all?

        My final question to you, Griff, is if any of the climatologists included in the purported 97% consensus are paleoclimatologists?

  2. Fortunately, it would appear that there is little, if any at all, Climate Sensitivity to any of these gases.

    • Just because the level is to small to discern from the background noise is not proof that there is no affect.

      • No one can prove a negative, Mark. The research that cannot find a CO2 “signal” proves that the effects, if any, of CO2 on the climate are much smaller than the noise in the data. From some reports, just using the average of daily max/min temperature readings, instead of much finer grained hourly or b y the minute averaging introduces enough uncertainty that the CO2 signal can ever be found using the data we have. We need a hundred years of better data from100 times as many carefully located temperature sensors to get that.

      • Just because the level is to small to discern from the background noise is not proof that there is no affect.

        True but it does suggest that the effect is inconsequential. It also indicates that the null hypothesis has not been rejected.

  3. “China’s approach to reporting its overall output of warming gases to the UN is also subject to constant and significant revisions.

    Its last submission ran to about 30 pages – the UK’s, by contrast, runs to several hundred.

    Back in 2007, China simply refused to accept, in official documents, that it had become the largest emitter of CO2.”

    If these statements alone don’t make it obvious how worthless the so-called Paris Agreement is then what does…..and that’s without all the other scams that have gone on around this GHG nonsense?

    Back in 2010, there were numerous reports of companies in China & India “gaming” the system, reporting destruction of materials like HFC-23 and then claiming huge amounts of “carbon credits”. They could then sell these to emitters in western countries since the destruction of 1 ton of the incredibly potent HFC-23 was worth 11,700 tons of CO2 (at that time) through the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism and the EU’s carbon trading scheme. So reporting the destruction of a ton of a waste product could fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Based on the above article, it seems they weren’t even bothering to destroy it anyway but that particular scam may have run its course now! As usual however, clever, unscrupulous people will always find new ways to steal when the piggy bank is full of other people’s money.

    • I read that the amount made by that factory ‘destroying’ HFC’s was $2.7bn. They destroyed it by feeding it back into the process making a ‘different’ HFC. Strangely, the process always created more of the banned version.

      Nice work if you can get it.

      • That’s my recollection of that episode – they were deliberately producing the stuff in order to be paid to destroy it, a wonderful example of playing the system to most advantage.

  4. Funny thing is that the less of any gas there is in the atmosphere the more ‘potent’ it is for climate change alarmists.

    • The potency is empirical. It is taken form spectroscopy measurements in a lab.
      And it makes sense that carbon to chlorine bonds would absorb and emit energy in that sort of wavelength. It’s related to their relative atomic masses.

      Of course, in the real world this doesn’t mean that all other things will stay the same leaving trace gases to control the weather. But that is a useful simplification for climate models and policy making.

    • Most “greenhouse” gases are semi-logarithmic in affect. That is as the amount increases, each additional unit has less affect. Because of this, gases with low levels in the atmosphere do tend to have outsized impacts.

      • All additions of a given substance are logarithmic in effect. That is why climate sensitivity is stated in terms of doubling of the the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        All of that is because the effect of an additional unit of anything (money, gas, whatever) is 1/n+1 which is for the jth unit 1/n. The total effect is the integral of 1/n which is the natural logarithm of n. This is the law of diminishing returns.

        If the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere has any effect on the climate, the total process is logarithmic and is never a cause for alarm.

  5. So you have a football field.
    Lots and lots of players running around the field.
    Some are oxygen, some are nitrogen and some are ‘Green House Gasses’ (GHGs)
    There are also many footballs out on the field.
    Consider the balls as packets of energy.

    GHGs are distinguished (move over Michael Mann) in that they like to throw & catch the ball much more than the other players.
    We know they like to ‘catch the ball’, that is what Tyndall said.
    But they cannot keep catching forever, for every ball they catch, they must throw one away.
    In other words, good absorbers (catchers) are, by definition good emitters (throwers)

    Keeping throwing the ball is risky because sometimes it may not be caught – it will keep going and go ‘out of play’
    Therefore, the more throwing you do, the more balls leave the game.

    Back to O2, N2 and CO2
    O2 and N2 play as if in a rugby game and like keep tight hold of the ball (the energy) and run with it.
    They may be regarded as ‘savers’ or ‘insulators’
    CO2 plays cricket, lots of throwing and catching but that comes with the possibility (with a finite sized playing field which the atmosphere is) of missed catches.

    And whenever a ball is not caught and leaves the field, it does not come back because for the atmospheric gases, out-of-play is outer space and there are no throwers or catchers out there.
    Missed catches are a loss of energy.
    O2 and N2 don’t run that risk. They are poor emitters, they don’t throw the ball very much so simply don’t even run the risk of the attendant failed catches.

    And each ball that leaves takes its little load of energy with it, never to return and if that is not a cooling effect….
    sigh

    • The Earth’s Climate is not a univariate system. IMHO, it is also improper to aggregate all improperly called GHGs (I prefer to call them insulating gases) as some sort of aggregate variable that dominates climate. I don’t think we have either enough good quality data nor good enough understanding of the climate system to be able to make the representations that are being made.

    • “Therefore, the more throwing you do, the more balls leave the game.”
      Actually, no, because more throwing means more catching. It’s a reasonable analogy, except that O2 and N2 aren’t doing much. Balls were flying through on long trajectories, and GHGs keep catching them and kicking them around.

      But the main thing is the temperature gradient. Balls get kicked both ways. Some get to the far end, the weary GHGs can barely kick them out (cold TOA). Some end up back at the start, and the warmed up GHG’s kick them with vigor. That’s the DWLWIR. It’s a bigger down flux just because BOA is much warmer than TOA.

      • First and Second Law by Flanders & Swann

        The first law of thermodynamics Heat is work and work is heat.
        The first law of thermodynamics Heat is work and work is heat.
        Very good

        The second law of thermodynamics Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.
        The second law of thermodynamics Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter.
        You can try it if you like but you far better notter. You can try it if you like but you far better notter.
        ‘Cause the cold in the cooler will be hotter as a ruler.
        ‘Cause the cold in the cooler will be hotter as a ruler.
        Because the hotter body’s heat will pass through the cooler

        Heat is work and work is heat and work is heat and heat is work Heat will pass by conduction.
        Heat is work and work is heat and work is heat and heat is work Heat will pass by conduction.
        And heat will pass by convection.
        And heat will pass by convection.
        And heat will pass by radiation.
        And heat will pass by radiation.
        And that’s a physical law

        Heat is work and work’s a curse And all the heat in the universe It’s gonna cool down as it can’t increase Then there’ll be no more work And they’ll be perfect peace Really? Yeah, that’s entropy, man! And all because of the second law of thermodynamics, which lays down

        That you can’t pass heat from the cooler to the hotter Try it if you like but you far better notter ‘Cause the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler ‘Cause the hotter body’s heat will pass through the cooler

        Oh, you can’t pass heat from the cooler to the hotter You can try it if you like but you far better notter ‘Cause the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler That’s the physical law

        Ooh, I’m hot!

        What? That’s because you’ve been working

        Oh, Beatles? Nothing!

        That’s the first and second law of thermodynamics

      • The problem with the analogy Nick is that
        (1) Any IR -the ball- that hits the surface has no effect if it impacts a water molecule apart from liberating that water molecule that carries with it more energy (balls) than the CO2 is kicking about. And the chance of hitting water on the Earth’s surface is well more than 70%
        (2) This is not a slow game a photon of infrared traveling at the speed of light still exits the game inside a second unless it is carried as many ‘balls’ of energy in convection to where it again is released on the change of state of water to a lower energy level a lot closer to the ‘pitch boundary’. But this slower transport is in fact the main way out of the Earth’s system for energy
        (3) You do appear to be equating heat (IR Photons) with hot (average kinetic energy of gas molecules). A CO2 molecule near the TOA that is impacted by an infrared photon (very very rare) vibrates but although its kinetic energy may be low it will still emit the photon – some even call it scattering – and it has less chance of finding an N2 or O2 player to have a collision with to convert the vibrational energy to kinetic energy.

      • A gradient which remains more or less linear with no tropical hotspot, your radiative myopia is getting the better of you again Nick. The atmosphere up to what you refer to as TOA is a heat pump dominated by water borne non-radiative transfer. The significant radiative interplay (diffusion) between incoming and outgoing IR takes place above the tropopause, which is why the temp gradient beyond it is the way it is with a spike in the middle – two lamps facing each other in the fog. And why the tropopause varies with latitude, moves up and down and the upper atmosphere expands and contracts as necessary. Compare that to the temperature gradient on Venus and ask yourself why they are so different.

        We saw the mechanisms at play when volcanoes like Agung, El Chichón, Pinitubo/Hudson injected large quantities of ozone destroying SO2 into the stratosphere, significantly altering the long term radiative interchange and subsequent evolution of everything below it. Including step changes in the rate of change of atmospheric CO2. There is no such thing as climatic equilibrium; everything is in a state of flux all the time and outcomes evolve over indeterminate timescales from hours to centuries. No amount of linear-think bell-curve numerology can have any long term predictive skill or legitimacy in an evolving chaotic system subject to large random events.

      • Phillip Bratby
        “The second law of thermodynamics Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.”

        No it’s not. The problem with “Climate Science” is that people are perpetually talking about things they do not understand. The second law is actually a mathematical integral. dS = INT(dq/T) Kindly discard your copy of Flanders & Swann.

      • Phillip, heat isn’t flowing. Radiation is.
        Radiation doesn’t care what the relative temperature of the respective objects is.
        Objects radiate based on their temperature, period.
        Objects absorb radiation that hits them, period.
        (yea, I know that I’m ignoring issues of energy levels and such)
        If a cooler object warms up a little bit, it will radiate more energy. Some of this extra energy will be absorbed by the warmer object. The result of this being a cooler body warming a warmer body.

      • … a cooler body warming a warmer body? — No way. NOT by “adding heat” and NOT by “slowing cooling”. Both are second law violations. See you in physics court.

        Radiation is not heat.
        All radiation does not result in heat.

      • So Pochas you claim the Clausius statement is wrong?

        His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement: Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.

      • @mkelly;

        If “heat” is taken to mean “net flow of energy”, then yes, heat cannot pass from a colder object to a warmer one without injecting some work into the system. Any particular photon of radiation will go where it darn well pleases.

      • ” It’s a reasonable analogy, except that O2 and N2 aren’t doing much.”

        Actually, no. O2 and N2 are carrying the balls until they get tackled, and fumble them to others. There are so many players about that they get tackled quite often. The only difference really is that the O2 and N2 get their balls from handoffs instead of passes.

      • Phillip Bratby,

        Look up for what a CO2 laser does: it may get “warm” and need a lot of (water) cooling, but let’s say its maximum temperature is at 100ºC. With all the radiation flowing out of the laser, one can melt (and cut) steel at 1200ºC…

        Radiation is transfer of energy and it doesn’t matter for one photon what the temperature of the source or the destination is. It only does matter for the total number (and energy content) of all photons together.

        Still the second law of thermodynamics applies: a colder body can’t heat up a warmer one by its own radiation, as the amount of energy by radiation hitting the colder one from the warmer is higher than reverse. Thus in overall balance, the warmer one warms the colder one more than reverse, but both are cooling down less fast in space than if they were alone.

        In both cases, the CO2 laser and the earth, there is an external source of energy at work that supplies the energy radiated out. In both cases the overall total energy out = energy in or the temperature will change…

      • Ummm Nick, We do all realise that the spectrum of what is “caught” is different to the spectrum of what is subsequently “thrown”, don’t we? Then you really go off the rails.

        Maybe communicate using grown up words next time.

      • How much has the Water Vapor Emission Level (WVEL) changed? Compared to models?

        CO2 emits at colder conditions vs water vapor.

    • A ball that isn’t caught quickly goes out of bounds. On the other hand, balls that are caught are then thrown again randomly. A non-trivial percentage of these random tosses go back into the field of play. This results in a higher density of balls than would exist if none of the balls were being caught.

    • Someone named Nick thinks the upper atmosphere is colder than the lower atmosphere.

  6. Its really hard to now what statistics are accurate in China.
    We don’t even now know if it is the most populous on earth.
    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2095311/china-population-much-smaller-you-think-researchers-say
    It could be less than India’s population.
    As for economic output
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11930766/The-truth-behind-Chinas-manipulated-economic-numbers.html
    who knows? Wikileaks shone some light on their problem.
    “” ‘Li Keqiang’s eponymous growth index has come under fire from analysts Photo: Reuters

    GDP numbers were merely a “man-made” and “unreliable” construct, Mr Li was quoted as saying in diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks in 2010.

    The depths of China’s economic downturn have become almost palpable
    Fathom

    Instead, he chose to focus on a trio of real economic indicators – bank lending, rail freight volumes and electricity production.

    Taking their cue from the premier, economics consultancy Fathom compile the Li Index as the “true” reflection of what the Communist party’s senior officials are most worried about.

    It suggests the economy has come to a standstill. Growth will reach just 3pc this year, according to Fathom.

    “The depths of China’s economic downturn have become almost palpable” they said. “”
    So why should we believe any other statistic, such as greenhouse gas emissions?

  7. So let me get this straight, there is even more CO2 being emitted than they thought but climate is not observably worse, so the sensitivity to GHGs is even lower than they first suggested. Colour me completely unworried.

  8. Shock horror – not all countries play fair. Well surprise, surprise. Did anyone with half a brain think that India, Africa or China would play by the rules of cricket?? Ditto Italy, which has manipulated every EU rule for the last 30 years.

    R

    • Asmilwho 
      “Methane, the second most abundant greenhouse gas after CO2,”

      The BBC never misses an opportunity to mislead by language – methane abundant?

  9. “There are lies, damned lies, and (official) statistics.”

    Official statistics about anything, such as global temps, etc, etc, have no credibility. All the numbers thereof appear to be plucked out of thin air.

    • Minor correction – plucked out of somewhere lower and darker where the sun don’t shine.

  10. So, without good data as a basis, Paris essentially collapses. It just becomes a talkfest without much progress.

    My first reaction: The irony, it burns.

    Here’s a link to some pictures of irony in action. link My favorite looks like a screen capture of a guy’s web page with the following quote:

    Life it though, but it’s thougher if you are stupid.

      • Gas cylinders in general have a low-melting alloy plug that’s designed to fail if the cylinder is exposed to excessive heat. In this case, ironically putting out the fire.

  11. The BBC’s ” Counting Carbon” programme ? What the hell ! Trust the ever more ridiculous BBC to take stupidity to even more absurd extremes. As a captive licence fee payer I think the sooner the BBC monopoly is ended and the Corporation has an axe taken to its self-appointing, daft extreme left agenda, the better.
    In the meantime perhaps I should send the black residue from my toaster to them so they can count the carbon.

  12. When Chinese and other figures are as huge and unreliable as they are it makes a joke of any attempt to curb and reduce emissions in the western world.

    The Paris Climate Agreement – hyped to be about reducing global CO2 emissions – actually allows a 46% increase (predominantly China and India) by 2030 and 32 times greater than the UK’s 2015 CO2 emissions !!

    Seems to me that Paris shows that there is little or no real concern about the effect of CO2 emissions on global temperatures – the only concern is about the perception and maintaining the CO2 scare and the wealth it redistributes to the favoured few.

  13. Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy.

    Yeah, sorry about that. The wife’s been complaining too. We’re leaving at the end of this week, though…

  14. The contributions of GH gases are: H2O 81 %, CO2 13 %, O3 4 %, CH4 & N2O 1.2 %, clouds 1 %.. The total absorption in the present climate is about 80 % from the maximum. The cloudy sky absorbs 100 % the emitted infrared radiation (= full GH effect) , and the average cloudiness is 66 %. The other GH gases have no practical effect. In many cases the strengths are calculated as GWP-values which are theoretical and they cannot be used in warming calculations. Should we forbid clouds because they are the most “dangerous” GH gases?

    • Should we forbid clouds because they are the most “dangerous” GH gases?

      Point of order – clouds are not a gas. They are the liquid/solid form of the gas “water vapor”.

  15. ‘Dodgy’ greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord

    No wonder if accord parties start measuring neighbours based on the assumption molecules fly around with a ‘made in xxx’ label on them.

  16. And why is IPCC headquarters in Switzerland, overloading Geneva airport within stone throw from France? A small-scale, transboundary GHG emission reduction test could be organised by dissolving IPCC.

  17. What does the CO2-monitoring satellite have to say about this divergence? Why haven’t we heard about it lately?

  18. The dying gasps of Warmunism involves even more prodigious, more convoluted, and bigger lies.

  19. You mean like VW cheating or consultant-facilitated oil deal bribery or maybe TOTAL Energy’s undermining of all international sanctions for profit, or back dealing around sanctions against Saddam Hussein, etc. etc.

  20. Doesn’t come anywhere near the amount of greenhouse gases that nature produces. If scientists are so damned worried about CO2, they should be advocating for the elimination of nature.

  21. So with all the extra CO2, CH4, CCL4, etc etc etc, the known warming is now spread so thin the effect due to CO2 is “even less than we thought!” LOL!

    • They are working on the calculation as we speak. They expect agreement on that calculation by 2050.

      Due to unforeseen problems that date will be moved out to 2060. That will then result in a double celebration, as the ozone hole will be repaired that same year.

      Now we are making progress.

  22. The First Law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy. In ordinary talk, this means that “It is going to get worse before it gets better.”
    The Second Law treats with enthalpy, which becomes “Who says it is going to get better?”

  23. Surely no one can be understating their emissions or we would see enormous increases in global warming/ climate change unless of course we accept the unthinkable that the scientists involved in climate studies are overselling the problem considerably.

  24. The Italians are famously reluctant to pay taxes, so perhaps it is not surprising if their carbon accountants have adopted some of the practices of their financial accountants. Mind you, the Swiss have a bit of a reputation for hiding money.

    Having seen something of the complexity of carbon accounting that goes on in the UK utility sector it doesn’t surprise me that a national report of hundreds of pages is the end result. The pages of official emission factors (each to 4 decimal places) and the effort required to capture all modes of transport for staff and freight, on top of electricity and fuel use, is all very impressive. If all the effort required were re-directed towards something useful, it could achieve a lot.

  25. Some correction to the BBC story:

    CO2 emissions are not based on counting car miles or similar, they are based on fossil fuel sales, which are much easier to obtain, as that makes one of the main incomes of most countries (sales taxes…).

    Of course, even that will be somewhat underestimated, because of the human nature to avoid taxes by under-the-counter sales and some countries which want to show how “clean” they are… Anyway for CO2, the figures are not too far off, but more underestimated than overestimated…
    CH4 is more difficult, as much CH4 is from natural gas losses at the sources: as byproduct of oil production (without local flares or storage), leaking pipes and also from agriculture (rice paddies) and cattle: more “best guesses” than real figures…
    Other gases like HFC’s are more scam stories than real life facts…

  26. This is actually quite an admission by the BBC. Most countries have agreed to reduce their emissions sometime, but there are no laid down standards for measuring emissions and no independent audits of the emissions estimates. Like with the surface temperature data, there will no doubt be very good reasons in peer-reviewed journals for deviating slightly from any guidelines, which will get the desired results for countries. Like with EU regulations, it will only be Britain who will stick to objectivity – and pay the price.

    But failing to check the data is par for the course for “climate science“. For instance, the RCP8.5 non-policy emissions estimates are manipulated to enable countries merely signing up to a meaningless agreement making huge difference for the future, whilst President Trump tearing up that useless bit of paper endangers the future of the planet.

    Or remember Lewandowsky et al paper “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science“? A check of the data revealed that out of 1145 responses only 10 supported the Conspiracy theory that NASA faked the Moon Landings. Of these, only 3 also supported the “Climate Science is a Hoax” conspiracy theory. Those three also supported all of the 11 other conspiracy theories. No question was asked about the line of reasoning of these three rogue respondents. The headline was not supported by the underlying data.

  27. How can the “science ” be settled when the data is crap . NOAA gets the date then “shapes ” it. Australia
    just eliminates cooler day temperature readings and a little clique of climate “modellers ” amuse themselves by hiding the decline .
    The whole climate cartel is lead by a failed politician with virtually no scientific training , a clique of hide the decline climate modellers and Hollywood hypocrites . What could go wrong ?

  28. “Now the scientists, at the Jungfraujoch Swiss air monitoring station, have told the BBC the gas is still going into the atmosphere.”

    You trust scientists from a place that looks like Ernst Blofeld’s lair?

    • Actually I think that is the building used in that movie, and in that Vin Diesel flick. It is a cool looking structure so it probably gets used in all sorts of video and photographs.

Comments are closed.