FROM- Climate Depot
Analysis: Climate Bill is 'Scientifically Meaningless' – Temp Reduction By 2050 of Only 9/100 of one Degree F – Avoids only 5 years' worth of warming by 2100!
For Master Resource's complete May 6, 2009 scientific analysis see: "Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain)"
Key Master Resource Excerpts: Mr. Chip Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 with a 83% emissions reduction (the aspirational goal of Waxman-Markey, the beginning steps of which are under vigorous debate), the temperature reduction is nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit, or two years of avoided warming. A more realistic climate bill would be a fraction of this amount. [...]
No matter how the economic and regulatory issues shake out, the bill will have virtually no impact on the future course of the earth's climate. And this is even in its current “pure” form, without the inevitable watering down to come. [...]
By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature “savings” of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC scenario used—this is equivalent to about 2 years' worth of warming. By the year 2100, the emissions pathways become clearly distinguishable, and so to do the impacts of Waxman-Markey. Assuming the IPCC mid-range scenario (A1B) Waxman-Markey would result in a projected temperature rise of 2.847ºC, instead of 2.959ºC rise— a mere 0.112ºC temperature “savings.”
Under the IPCC's high-emissions scenario, instead of a projected rise of 4.414ºC, Waxman-Markey limits the rise to 4.219ºC—a “savings” of 0.195ºC. In either case, this works out to about 5 years' worth of warming. In other words, a full implementation and adherence to the emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years—a scientifically meaningless prospect.
For Master Resource's complete May 6, 2009 scientific analysis see: "Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain)"
More...
No comments:
Post a Comment