新足迹

 找回密码
 注册

精华好帖回顾

· 不一樣的Canberra (2016-4-20) silvia · 宝宝趣事--小花生妙语 (2007-9-28) 花生
· 就昨天的话题聊一聊幼儿园的“好坏”与选择 (2018-3-28) imzoe · 甜蜜的11月 -- 冰激凌味果仁酥卷~~ (2007-11-11) datou2z
Advertisement
Advertisement
查看: 837|回复: 4

【碳排放税】 - 资料库 - 请把所有的资料贴在这里 - 方便集中阅读 [复制链接]

发表于 2011-7-13 23:28 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yuxuanlin 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yuxuanlin 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
MIT工学院的地球、大气科学专家Richard Lindzen对此观点持怀疑态度。其实,早在1991年,Lindzen就曾和美国前副总统、诺贝尔和平奖获得者戈尔在美国国宝质询会上爆发过一次激烈的争论。
当时的戈尔还是个年轻气盛的参议员,列席了国会关于气候环境问题听证会,Lindzen则是接受听证的学术专家。会上,Lindzen猛烈批评戈尔关于全球环境的问题认识极为片面且缺乏某些必要的研究常识。
首先,Lindzen认为地球气候长久以来一直处于不断变化的过程中,期间存在各种复杂的原因,而不是如“全球变暖”支持者所说的那样仅仅是由于二氧化碳排放的原因。他在2007年曾在News Week 杂志撰文指出20世纪全球温度上升最快的阶段是1910至1940年,此后则迎来长达30年的全球降温阶段,直到1978年全球温度重新开始上升。如果工业二氧化碳的排放是导致全球暖化的主要原因,那么如果解释1940年至1978年间的降温阶段。众所周知,这三十年是全球绝大部分地区开始大规模工业化大跃进的时代即所谓战后景气时代。   

加拿大首位气候学博士蒂莫西将自己的疑问写成《全球暖化:有硬数据支持吗》一文,他说:“有人提到地球平均气温上升会‘超出地球恒温的安全警戒线’,有地球恒温这样的东西吗?难道他没有听说过冰期吗?在20世纪70年代,热门话题是全球冷化,现在是全球暖化,低几度和高几度都会有灾难,难道目前地球的温度就是最理想的?   

2007年3月8日英国广播公司播出了纪录片《全球暖化大骗局》,以全然迥异于当前主流观点的态度,讨论全球暖化的议题。这部影片不断提出“暖化现象并非人类活动所致“的说法,并访问多名气候学家,最后结论认为太阳活动才可能是暖化的主因,人类对气候的影响微不足道。   

《全球变暖》作者(美)S.弗雷德·辛格 / 丹尼斯·T.艾沃利在书中同样阐述了这种观点,本书最后以‘《京都议定书》将以失败告终’结尾。   另外在09年末曾爆出新闻,东英吉利大学的邮件系统被黑客破解,并有1000多封邮件被曝光。美联社报道称有封邮件包括一张过去一千年间全球气候变化的曲线图。琼斯在正文中写道,在汇总气温数据时,他“使用了迈克的窍门,使每20年的平均气温(变化趋势)符合基思掩饰(气温)下降趋势(的立场)”。美联社说,琼斯提及的“迈克”,正是美国宾夕法尼亚州立大学气象学教授迈克尔·曼。

[ 本帖最后由 黑山老妖 于 2011-7-14 10:41 编辑 ]
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2011-7-13 23:43 |显示全部楼层

所谓《气候门》-转

此文章由 yuxuanlin 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yuxuanlin 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
“气候门”事件源于英国东英吉利大学气候研究中心电脑服务器被黑客入侵事件,网络黑客上个月17号,在一个气象科学家网站上传了一份东英吉利大学气候研究中心的文件,披露在英国气象学家之间交流的电子邮件证明,气候变暖是不可靠的。随后,多达16兆的这些科学家的电子邮件和其它文件在网上公开。东英吉利大学随后发表声明,确认本校服务器被入侵,上千封电子邮件和三千多份有关气候变化的文件被盗载,从被公布出来,并在网上传播的文件中,人们发现在气候变暖派科学家交换的邮件里面,暴露了一些令人震惊的现象,有关气候变化的重要原始数据,特别是不利于气候正在变暖的数据,可能已经被销毁,科学家自己对气候是否变暖也表示怀疑,现存用于证明气候变暖的数据被人为修改等等。

关于气候变暖的阴谋论说,已经不是这次,持续了很长时间,包括美国很多石油公司资助的一些科学家在说,现在大家拿了一个比较短的尺度,50年的尺度,100年的尺度,比如说1906年到2005年这一百年间,地球的温度上升了0.74度,如果说这一段时间,他们后来又拿了后50年,就是工业化程度比较高的50年,测算了一下二氧化碳排放量,当然二氧化碳不仅仅是温室气体的全部,还有甲烷、氮氧等等,二氧化碳排放,现在公布出来的是由于人类活动主要是化石燃料造成的二氧化碳排放造成的地球变暖。但是另外有一批人,不是这个原因,还有其它的原因,大自然本身碳循环很大,人类占了很小,这是第一。还有一种认为地球和太阳之间的轴线发生了变化,原来照射地球的角度发生了变化,使得地球变暖,而并不是人类排放的二氧化碳。
  

[ 本帖最后由 yuxuanlin 于 2011-7-13 22:46 编辑 ]

发表于 2011-7-13 23:54 |显示全部楼层

New Theory Explains Climate Changes

此文章由 yuxuanlin 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yuxuanlin 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
SCIENCE NOTES

1.  THE 60 YEAR CYLE:   Dr Nicola Scafetta. John Dodds and others have observed the 60 year cycle. Mathematical statistical analysis of the data (using Fourier transforms) confirms its existence.   John Dodds explained why it is due to variations in the gravitational energy from planets leading to irregularities in the pattern, and Dr Scafetta also found a correlation with gravitational forces.  These irregularities also help to confirm the existence of the cycle because, when several nodes match with a high statistical probability the evidence is very compelling.  Furthermore, application of the 60 year cycle predicted the maximum (1999-2000) above the long term 934 year cyclical trend.  There should be one more 60-year maximum in about 2059 and then we can expect the long-term trend to decline for about 450 years.

2.  THE PLANETS CAUSE THE CYCLES:   Why are temperatures on Earth apparently following cyclical patterns that correlate with certain orbital events of the moon and the planets, primarily Jupiter, Saturn and to a lesser extent Venus?  Consider, firstly, the effect of gravitational energy which the Earth receives from the moon.  It pulls ocean waters forming tides and ocean currents.  Recent research into wave generators shows that these could easily supply all of Australia's power requirements three or four times over - and that's from just a minute proportion of the waves hitting our shores, let alone the world over.  The total energy received from the sun's heat and light is almost insignificant compared with the energy coming from the force of the sun's gravity upon Earth.  There is also a gravitational force coming from each of the planets and these forces fluctuate as the distance varies.  Now the Earth's distance from the sun does not vary anywhere near as much relatively as its distance from Jupiter in particular.  The latter distance varies from about four times the distance of the Earth from the sun to about 6.5 times that distance.  So, even though Jupiter is further away and smaller than the sun, the amplitude of the variations magnifies the effect of changes in the gravitational energy it imparts upon the Earth, and it is these changes that cause temperature variations partly through variations in frictional heat generated at the molecular level and partly through variations in the energy in the magnetic field and, possibly, solar winds.  (See Science Notes 5 to 8.)  It can be shown scientifically that a small portion of the energy coming from the gravitational force of the sun and planets is converted to heat and magnetic energy at the molecular and atomic levels.  Probably less than 10% of all heat comes from the sun's radiation, or insolation as it is called.. Now, when Saturn is pulling in exactly the opposite direction to Jupiter, its gravity will reduce the effect of that from Jupiter.  Then, as they continue in their orbits, there will be less of a reduction until, about 15 years later, Saturn will start to pull together with Jupiter, producing the strongest combined effect another 15 years later.  Then, about 30 years later, the Earth will again be aligned between Jupiter and Saturn.  This complete cycle is currently happening about every 59.6 years causing our "60-year" cycles which are superimposed on the 934 year long term cycle.  Note that sunspots appear to correlate, but they are also caused by gravitational variations.

3.  NO EVIDENCE OF EXTRA WARMING DUE TO CO2:  Carbon dioxide continues to rise as shown here but temperature movements can be fully explained by the cycles which predicted the level or slightly downward trend we are now seeing here since 2003.  The two 60-year cycles 1883-1943 and 1943-2003 exhibited exactly the same gradient with temperatures rising 0.3 deg.C in each 60 year period, even though there was much more CO₂during the second cycle.  (The 934 year cycle explains the 0.3 deg.C rises.)  Hence there is absolutely no empirical evidence of any effect on temperatures caused by man-made carbon dioxide at any time in the last 128 years.  So the Greenhouse Gas Theory must be incorrect.  

4.  THE GREENHOUSE GAS FALLACY:  The GHG theory considers heat (actually photons of electromagnetic radiation) coming from the sun.  Some photons get through the clouds and heat the earth, or get reflected.  Others from the surface are also sent into the atmosphere.  These photons that go up from the surface have varying frequencies and some will encounter CO₂molecules though many more will encounter water vapour molecules.  Warming occurs when the photon is delayed: in effect it is caught and released.  The number of photons available will determine the amount of energy available, and thus the maximum amount of heat energy that can be generated.  There is already more than enough CO₂and so any additional CO₂will not cause extra warming.  The excess greenhouse gases cannot lead to any additional warming simply because energy cannot be created.  If this were not so, then whenever it rains and humidity rises, warming would occur.   This paper explains how the basic Greenhouse model has been grossly oversimplified because so much greenhouse gas is actually close to the surface and the heat captured there gets swept up by winds which take it to higher levels where it escapes to space.  Professor Lindzen concludes that there is no cause for alarm.  The whole picture is, however, even more  complex due to energy from gravity which is discussed in the remaining notes below.

全篇报告的链接如下:
http://earth-climate.com/

[ 本帖最后由 yuxuanlin 于 2011-7-13 22:56 编辑 ]

发表于 2011-7-14 00:12 |显示全部楼层

这是澳洲参议员Steve Fielding 关于反对政府碳税的文章

此文章由 yuxuanlin 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yuxuanlin 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
The real reason I’ll fight in the Senate on climate change

That might come as a shock to some of those on the left side of politics, but it’s the truth.

The question that concerns me, however,  is what is driving it? Is it increasing levels of human made carbon dioxide emissions, variations in solar radiation or something else?

Around three months ago one of my advisors pulled me aside and asked me what I thought was driving climate change. I smiled and said automatically that it was obviously a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

I had never really looked at the science and just assumed what was reported in the media to be true. Well wasn’t I in for an enormous shock.

My advisor presented me with data and some comments from a number of scientists which suddenly had me asking many questions. This led me to do some further reading and I ultimately decided to head over to Washington on a self funded trip so I could find out more about the science behind climate change.

In the US I met with numerous scientists on both sides of the debate. Some media outlets would have you believe that I met only with climate skeptics who they accuse of being paid off by the fossil fuel industry. These claims are wholly inaccurate.

Moreover,  I strongly believe in giving everyone a fair hearing even if it isn’t the most popular view. I believe it’s my role as a a politician, to wade through all of the spin and come up with my own conclusions after hearing all of the facts.

Some of the data led me to question whether the Rudd government had got the science right. I then took some of the information and questions I had to the White House where I met with one of President Obama’s senior climate change advisors. While these discussions were fruitful, I was left at the end with even more questions than when I had started.

In an effort to try to get to the bottom of the issue I started to talk to a number of scientists based in Australia to get a feel for what their views were on the subject. Amongst the many presentations, one item really stood out. I was presented with a graph based on data that IPCC use which showed carbon dioxide emissions sky rocketing over the last 15 years while global temperatures had remained steady.

The chart Senator Fielding says sparked his doubts about climate change
This graph left me nothing short of flabbergasted. Up until this point I had truly believed that human made carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for climate change.

However, this graph basically said otherwise. I was left asking myself how I could vote for a carbon pollution reduction scheme if it appeared as though carbon dioxide emissions were not driving climate change. It is important to point out that the IPCC had predicted in their models that there would be a direct correlation between increasing carbon dioxide emissions and increasing global temperatures. However,  if you look at the graph it is obvious to everyone that this correlation simply does not exist.

Armed with this information I sat down with Minister Wong, the Chief Scientist and Professor Will Steffen of the ANU to hear their explanation. After an hour and a half I left none the wiser.

I received a written response to my questions from the Minister a few days later which had me even more uncertain. According to the Minister, air temperature, a measurement relied upon by the IPCC and the Rudd Government to justify its emissions trading scheme was irrelevant.

Instead, I was told that I should really be concerned with the variability in ocean temperatures. Not only did this contradict all of the information which the Minister had provided me with only a few days earlier but I was also aware of an IPCC report which stated that the measuring of ocean temperatures was not reliable.

I went back to the government with this question but was met with a wall of silence. They had clearly decided it was safer not to engage with me because I had legitimate questions which they probably were unable to answer.

I was left feeling that the only responsible thing to do was to vote against this legislation. At the end of the day, it would be a betrayal of my duty to the Australian people to put at risk the national economy and many thousands of jobs on what is clearly inconclusive science.

But then enter Al Gore. Here was a man who had a lot of power and went around the world preaching about climate change. I thought he might have the answer for me, the ones I couldn’t extract from the Rudd government.

I briefly met Mr Gore at a breakfast in Melbourne attended by more than a thousand people. He was aware of the important role Family First plays in the senate and was keen to catch up.

After a series of phone calls I was met with a stonewall of resistance. I offered to meet Mr Gore at any place at any time but had no luck. Here we had the former Vice President of the United States, a self proclaimed climate change preacher running away from me over a few simple questions. I could hardly believe it.

I would have thought if Al Gore was really committed to the cause he would want to meet with all senators who had concerns about the science if it would help ensure that the CPRS legislation would pass. Obviously I was wrong.

I have written to every senator urging them to look at the graph and ask themselves the key question -  what is driving climate change? If they can’t answer that simple question they shouldn’t be voting for a CPRS. This decision is the biggest economic decision in this country’s history, one which is too important to vote along party lines.

I call on the government to answer my question with a straight answer. If they’re not prepared to do so,  I’m happy to fight the lone battle in the senate until those senators who are honest with themselves break party lines.

发表于 2011-7-14 11:21 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yaoda 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yaoda 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
原帖由 yuxuanlin 于 2011-7-13 22:28 发表
MIT工学院的地球、大气科学专家Richard Lindzen对此观点持怀疑态度。其实,早在1991年,Lindzen就曾和美国前副总统、诺贝尔和平奖获得者戈尔在美国国宝质询会上爆发过一次激烈的争论。
当时的戈尔还是个年轻气盛的参议员 ...


Prof Lindzen has largely being discredited due to his conflict of interest and numerous mistakes.
See here
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

Dr Tim Ball who written the artile works for the Energy sector. See here
Dr. Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg between 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had a climatology department.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

The great global warming swindle 'documentary' has been largely regarded as propaganda by independent journalists and scientists. It misrepresents and misquotes the scientists it interviews and cherry picks evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

The climategate has been shown no wrong doing by the scientists after extensive enquiry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cli ... t_email_controversy
http://www.homelandsecuritynewsw ... doing-email-scandal


I will get to your other articles when I have time.

发表回复

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

Advertisement
Advertisement
返回顶部