The normal dry-but-cold months of November-December have become wet-and-cold, thanks to "man-made global warming". Many UN and government bureaucrats, plus climate rent-seekers among big international NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace, and corporate rent-seekers are in Durban, S. Africa now to "fight global warming and man-made climate change."
Here's the November 2011 air/tropospheric temperature anomaly. See the trend towards global cooling. Data from Real Science
Air temperature, land surface temperature, sea surface temperature, all experiencing declines in temperature anomaly (meaning "colder than normal") while global CO2 concentration keeps rising, see below. That is why the warmers change tune and say that "more CO2 causes more warming and more cooling." Cool guys.
Here's the growth of CO2 emission in major economies around the world, from 1950 to 2010. Data is from Updated carbon emissions defining the history of the global economy, November 14, 2011 by Warwick Hughes.
So if one will plot recent global air/tropospheric temperature vs. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, this is how it looks like. Data from the Friends of Science.
------
Meanwhile, I wrote several short papers on climate in 2009, posting 5 of them here:
(1) Market Solution to Emission Problems
February 10, 2009
I favor market-driven climate change (CC) mitigation via innovation and business. This is because they are still part of human adaptation to CC. What I am against is additional government intervention, regulation and taxation, to "fight and mitigate" CC and global warming. If more companies will join the race to produce more effective solar panels, more efficient windmills, etc., fine. Then let governments abolish corporate income tax, dividend and capital gains tax, documentary stamp tax, etc. on those firms, in exchange for government not giving them "incentives" and subsidies. As demand for green and renewable energy sources increase, and as government distortion through multiple taxation and regulation decrease, suppliers of those commodities will find the sector highly profitable, and more players will come in, and the Greens, adaptationists and alarmists will both be happy.
The volume of human-induced CO2 in the atmosphere and in the planet is directly a function of economic activities. That is, we can say that
(human-induced) CO2 emission = GDP size x Emission Intensity (EI)
A country can have less emission intensity due to modern and less polluting technologies but if the GDP size is big, like the US and combined EU GDP, CO2 emission will still be big.
Governments-inspired mitigation policies that target -30 percent (or higher) CO2 emissions within 20 or 30 years can only mean that (a) EI will significantly decline, or (b) GDP size will have to decline, or both. Since (a) cannot happen in a short period of time as various government-initiated distortions discourage the entry of so many investors and businesses into the sector (eg, coal companies closing their operations and running towards solar farms and wind farms production), the unexpected victim or sacrificial goat will be economic growth. Less trips by cars, jeepneys, trucks, buses, ships and airplanes = less pollution.
