Whistling in the wind, er, atmosphere

The Fourth National Climate Assessment warns that if greenhouse gas emissions are not slashed there will be several degrees of global warming and major damage to the U.S. gross domestic product.

The report warns:

In the absence of significant global mitigation action and regional adaptation efforts, rising temperatures, sea level rise, and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property, labor productivity, and the vitality of our communities. Regional economies and industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions, such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries, are vulnerable to the growing impacts of climate change. Rising temperatures are projected to reduce the efficiency of power generation while increasing energy demands, resulting in higher electricity costs. … With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.

Meanwhile back in reality, The Wall Street Journal reports that global emissions continue to rise, though North America’s share of global carbon emissions have dropped from 24 percent in 2004 to about 17 percent in 2013.

Instead of killing our current economy and our GDP now with emissions taxes and other futile attempts at eliminating fossil fuel emissions in the U.S., while the rest of the world carries on cavalierly, perhaps the U.S. should invest in research on adaptive strategies.

The report comes while the East Coast is experiencing record low temperatures. High temps are a sign of global warming, while low temps are just weather.

President Trump, a noted skeptic of global warming alarmism, tweeted on Wednesday, “Whatever happened to Global Warming?”

The report says that without mitigation temperatures will rise 9 degrees F by the end of the century.

It says Midwest crop yields will decline, but what about crop yields farther north?

 

 

 

 

 

NOAA is not just hiding the decline, it is hiding the data from Congress

Scientists study temperature readings from ocean buoys and determined global temperatures did not plateau at the turn of the century, as had been previously concluded. (NOAA photo via LA Times)

Secret science is not science.

In order for something to be scientific by definition it must be replicable. If the data are secret, they cannot be replicated. If the data cannot be replicated, it is not science.

A website called Understanding Science has this to say: “The desire for replicability is part of the reason that scientific papers almost always include a methods section, which describes exactly how the researchers performed the study. That information allows other scientists to replicate the study and to evaluate its quality, helping ensure that occasional cases of fraud or sloppy scientific work are weeded out and corrected.”

In June a study was published in the Journal Science in which National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote that the planet’s “global average surface temperature had climbed 0.2 of a degree Fahrenheit each decade since 1950, without interruption, due to the heat-trapping effects of greenhouse gases,” according to newspaper accounts. This was supposed to quash the awkward reports that there had been a 15-year or longer plateau in temperatures that none of the models predicted.

There were accusations at the time that NOAA scientists had tweaked the data to fit the global warming agenda. Some said the scientists selectively altered which temperature data to use prior to the plateau, adjusting those temperatures downward to make it look like there was a continued increase.

In July the House Science, Space and Technology committee Chair Lamar Smith of Texas asked NOAA for data and internal communications related to the study.

According to the magazine Nature, NOAA handed over publicly available data, but refused to turn over the internal communications.

“Because the confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists, those documents were not provided to the Committee,” NOAA told Nature. “It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”

Smith replied, “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda. The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.”

Smith also said in a statement, “It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.”

Remember those leaked emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit that revealed how data was being manipulated to fit the global warming agenda? Might that be the real reason a federally funded agency will not explain to the people who fund it how it is arriving at its scientific conclusions?

If there is no problem, there is no funding.

 

It’s not the EPA, now its the ESA — Economic Stimulus Agency

Talk about bait and switch.

We were told that the EPA rule demanding every state to cut carbon output by 30 percent by 2030 was about saving the planet.

Not so, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Congress this summer. It is an economic stimulus program.

She told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:

“And the great thing about this proposal is it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control. It’s about increased efficiency at our plants…It’s about investments in renewables and

Gina McCarthy, head of EPA

clean energy. It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units.

“This is an investment strategy that will really not just reduce carbon pollution but will position the United States to continue to grow economically in every state, based on their own design.”

Never mind that your power bills will go through the roof and so-called global warming will not be delayed one second, it is like the trillion-dollar stimulus program that produced no jobs, but simply moved money from the pockets of losers (taxpayers) to the pockets of winners (crony capitalists like Elon Musk).

 

Newspaper column: EPA carbon rule is senseless, futile and masochistic

Those onerous and costly Environmental Protection Agency rules requiring power plants in each state to cut carbon output by 30 percent from its 2005 level by 2030 should not be so onerous and costly for Nevadans after all. We’ve already done so.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), between 2005 and 2011 Nevada electric power plants cut carbon output by 33 percent. That was the most by any state, as reported in this week’s newspaper column, available online at The Ely Times or the Elko Daily Free Press.

Declare victory, hold a parade and tell our lawmakers they can repeal Senate Bill 123, the 2013 legislation that requires NV Energy to shut down all its coal-fired plants that produce electricity cheaply and replace them with natural gas-fired plants and renewable energy generation that costs three or four times more per kilowatt-hour than coal-fired generation.

Coal-fired power plant (AP photo)

Somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen. The 645-page set of EPA rules put out earlier this month are so confusing that hardly anyone can interpret them.

In fact, all the major Nevada news media reported practically verbatim: “Nevada’s power plants pumped out more than 14 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution in 2012, about the same as 3 million cars produce annually. Figuring the amount of power produced, the 2012 emission rate was 988 pounds per megawatt hour. That would be cut to 647 by 2030 if Nevada meets its EPA goal.”

Of course, the carbon output in 2012 is irrelevant, since the rules set the base year for 30 percent reduction as 2005.

The obfuscation begins.

Whatever the EPA regs dictate, Nevada’s lawmakers in their infinite wisdom and utter disregard for Nevadan’s wallets have established a renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of all electricity generated in the state by 2025 must come from renewable sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydroelectric. (One study estimates this renewable portfolio will cost residential power users up to $130 a year and industrial power users up to $47,000 a year and cost up to 3,000 jobs.) In 2013, the state was already producing 18 percent of its power from these sources.

Also, we apparently are to pay no heed to the fact U.S. fossil-fueled power plants account for only 6 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. So, cutting 30 percent of U.S. output from power plants would reduce global output by only 2 percent by 2030. Total global carbon output in 2012 alone increased 2.1 percent. The U.S. decreased its emissions 3.7 percent that year, while China increased by 5.9 percent and India by 7.7 percent.

Those EPA rules amount to a senseless and futile and masochistic gesture.

Read the entire column at the Ely or Elko site.

Stifling opinions is evil, Harry, even if you happened to be correct, which you aren’t

A Democratic staff member wheels graphs into the Senate chamber before an all-night session on climate change. (New York Times photo)

Noted climate scientist Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate during that gab-a-thon in which he and a gaggle of other like-minded senators spent Monday night and Tuesday morning telling everyone who has any doubts whatsoever about the doom and gloom urgency of global warming, climate change or extreme weather or whatever they are calling it this week, since the facts keep getting in the way of their theories, to basically sit down and shut up.

In his prepared remarks, from which he strayed repeatedly with pointless asides and feigned astonishment, Reid preached:

“And I am grateful to Senator Schatz, Senator Whitehouse and Senator Boxer – and many other Senators who will join this climate change debate tonight – for standing up to the deniers. It’s time to stop acting like those who ignore this crisis – the oil baron Koch brothers and their allies in Congress – have a valid point of view.

“In the last few years alone, the Midwest has experienced the most punishing drought since the Great Depression, wildfires have ravaged the west and the mighty Mississippi River nearly ran dry. While record drought afflicted some parts of the United States, torrential rains and extreme thunderstorms struck others. Temperatures topped 60 degrees in Alaska in January, but February brought a blanket of snow and ice to Atlanta, Georgia.

“In other parts of the world glaciers and ice sheets that have been frozen for tens of thousands of years are melting. Fires have consumed vast forests and monsoons and super-floods have left millions homeless. And since the New Year, the United Kingdom has had its wettest winter since the 1800’s, Tokyo was blanketed with four years’ worth of snow and Australia experienced its hottest summer on record.

“Scientists say this is just the beginning. Dozens of reports from scientists around the globe link extreme weather to climate change. And the more extreme climate change gets, the more extreme the weather will get.”

On the other hand, a real climate scientist, Madhav Khandekar — a former research scientist from Environment Canada and was an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007 climate change documents — has a somewhat different take on whether we are experiencing extreme weather.

Khandekar notes there has been a warming pause for 16 years and asks how recent extreme weather events could be attributed to warming of the Earth’s climate when it hasn’t happened?

Here are a few summary points from his paper “The Global Warming-Extreme Weather Link: A Review Of The State Of Science”:

• Many climate scientists and environmentalists have attributed recent extreme weather events to the warming of the Earth’s climate. However, this attribution is not substantiated at this point in time. A careful assessment of many well-publicized extreme weather events of the last ten years suggests that they are due to natural climate variability.

• Hurricanes and tropical storms do not show increasing trends in frequency or in intensity.

• When closely examined there appears to be no increase in extreme weather events in recent years compared to the period 1945–77, when the Earth’s mean temperature was declining. …

• Cold weather extremes have definitely increased in recent years; for example, the severe winters in Europe (2012/13, 2011/12, 2009/10) and North America (2012/13, 2007/08). There have also been colder winters in parts of Asia (2012/13, 2002/03) and South America (2007, 2010 and 2013).

• The Earth’s climate may witness cold as well as warm weather extremes in future (between now and 2025). …

A final comment: global warming and extreme weather pose no threat to humanity, either at present or in the next ten to twenty-five years. 

But Reid says the debate over, done with, fini. “Climate change is real. It’s here,” Reid said, adding that it was time to stop acting as if those who ignore it “have a valid point of view. They don’t.”

Tell that to the The Right Climate Stuff research team, more than 25 retired NASA Apollo Program veterans who have been studying scientific claims of significant Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Among their conclusions:

“It is scientifically embarrassing that the EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant that must be regulated, since it is a naturally occurring substance required to sustain human, animal and plant life, and for which there is no substitute.

“We have concluded that the IPCC climate models are seriously flawed because they don’t agree very closely with measured empirical data. After a 35 year simulation the models over-predicted actual measured temperatures by factors of 200% to 750%. One could hardly expect them to predict with better accuracy 300 years into the future required for use in regulatory decisions. …

“There is no convincing evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest amounts of global warming that will likely be beneficial when the substantial benefits to crop production from more CO2 in the atmosphere are considered.”

May I remind the senior senator from Nevada of what John Stuart Mill wrote in “On Liberty” in 1859:

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

“It is necessary to consider separately these two hypotheses, each of which has a distinct branch of the argument corresponding to it. We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.”

Evil, Harry, evil.

But none of that will stop Harry’s attempts to shutdown the debate and funnel more money to his green energy cronies:

Proof of global warming, or as we in Las Vegas call it: Spring

New York Times photo of winter weather

Niagara Falls (Reuters)

We understand the Great Lakes are 91 percent frozen over — the second-highest level since records began and just short of the record 95 percent set in February 1979.

We understand that Niagra Falls is nearly frozen solid.

Just to show that we on the West Coast are sympathetic with those on the East Coast and the Midwest who continue to dig out from under ice and snow, here are a couple of photos from Las Vegas in early March:

photo (6)

photo (4)

photo (1)

photo 1

photo (3)

photo (8)

photo (7)

photo (2)

photo (9)

photo

Now, put down that snow shovel before you hurt yourself.

Media shouting ‘Amen’ in the front pew of the Church of Global Warming

Obama and John Kerry don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society because global warming and extreme weather due to greenhouse gas emissions is a settled scientific fact. And Harry Reid is busily shutting down coal-fired power plants so his green energy campaign contributors can build expensive solar and wind farms on public land in the desert.

But, as Nicholas Loris at the Heritage Foundation points out, the facts have a way of clouding the narrative.

“The available climate data simply do not indicate that the earth is heading toward catastrophic warming or more frequent and severe natural disasters,” Loris writes. “Testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last December, Dr. Roger Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, emphasized that ‘there exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.’”

Though the climate models predicted a warming of 0.3 degrees Celsius over the past 17 years, there has been none, even though the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere rose 8 percent during that time — which represents 34 percent of all extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. So why should we rely on the models to predict catastrophic warming in the future?

What are the benefits of eliminating carbon output, besides to Harry Reid’s contributors? The Heritage Foundation calculated that eliminating coal from America’s energy portfolio would within a decade kill nearly 600,000 jobs and cut the income of a household of four by more than $1,200 year.

“We could grind all economic activity to a halt, hold our breaths forever, and cut carbon emissions to zero in the U.S. — and still wind up lowering average temperatures by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century,” Loris reports. “And that’s using a climate calculator developed by the Environmental Protection Agency.”

But we must have faith and believe, climb into the front pew of the Church of Global Warming and shout, “Amen.” That’s what most in the media are doing.

L.A. Times declares it will print letters that contain only the infallible truth about climate change

It is so reassuring to read that the L.A. Times has risen above the muck and mire of mere print journalism and declared itself to be the “News Bible” — containing only infallible, inerrant and unerring truths — especially when it comes to the gospel according to St. Gore.

In an Oct. 8 screed under the headline “On letters from climate-change denier,” letters editor of the Times Paul Thornton declares, “Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying ‘there’s no sign humans have caused climate change’ is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”

Photo accompanying piece declaring no letters to editor questioning climate change will be printed in the L.A. Times. (Getty Images)

He doesn’t say what he would do if he got a letter saying mankind has surely had some impact on the planet’s atmosphere but we’re still awaiting scientific evidence that the United States alone can return the climate to “normal” — whatever that is — by crippling the economy with carbon taxes and saddling businesses and residences with higher power bills due to the outrageous cost of wind turbines and solar panels.

No, Thornton will take his cue from the acolytes of the Church of Green.

“I’m no expert when it comes to our planet’s complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review,” Thornton writes.

“And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body made up of the world’s top climate scientists — said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn’t whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.”

How about allowing a letter writer to point out that none of the infallible climate change models predicted that, despite huge increases in carbon output, that there would be no appreciable increase in global temperatures for 15 years? Would that be a heresy? Or a factual inaccuracy? Just asking.

Nothing to debate here. Move along now. The priests of global warming have spoken and let none utter blasphemy from the back pews. Besides, it is only those infidel conservatives who deign to question the divinely inspired scriptures according to St. Gore.

Yea, verily, yea.

Obama’s senseless and futile gesture with our money

In his speech declaring war on coal, Obama was utterly dismissive of everyone who deigned to disagree with him:

Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real.  (Applause.)  We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.  (Applause.)  Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.  And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here.

Doesn’t it make you feel all warm and fuzzy that in exchange for making our power bills necessarily skyrocket, we will be saving the planet from disastrous global warming, extreme weather, swarms of locust and plague.

Dr. John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, recently showed a PowerPoint at a climate confab showing just how much our reductions in carbon output will prevent temperatures from rising. This charts shows what will happen if we do nothing (P50) compared to cutting carbon output by 50 or even 80 percent by 2050:

You can also see charts showing the “dramatic” increases in tornadoes, hurricanes and lack of snow cover, as well as what climate models projected would happen to temperatures compared to what really has happened.

Meanwhile, China is building more and more coal-fired power plants. Guess which way the prevailing winds blow.

Here is a chart of how far off those climate warming models have been:

If you think Christy is a quack, try reading what Tom M. L. Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., reports:

There are a number of points to note. First, the greatest separation is between the 450ppm and 550ppm cases, while the least is between the 650ppm and750ppm cases. This results mainly from the logarithmic dependence of CO2 radiative forcing on concentration, which means that as the CO2 level increases, the forcing increment for a 100ppm concentration increment decreases. Second, although CO2 concentrations stabilize in all cases (as early as 2100 in the WRE450 case), warming continues beyond 2250. This is partly due to the influence of the nonCO2 gases, and partly because of the large thermal inertia of the climate system. Third, even though the emissions in the CO2 stabilization cases are much less than in the baseline P50 case (see Figure 4), the reduction in warming achieved through these emissions reductions is relatively small. For example, in 2100 the baseline emissions level is 17.57GtC/yr, while the WRE550 emissions level is approximately 60% less than this at 6.85GtC/yr. The corresponding 1990-2100 warmings are 2.81o C for the baseline and 2.22oC for WRE550 (only 20% less). This again is a consequence of the thermal inertia of the climate system.

I said “try.”

Scientific consensus can shift when sufficient data are gathered

In a recent posting here, I questioned why we should continue to believe the global warming models since they failed to predict the lack of global warming in the past 15 to 17 years and cannot be twisted in any way to explain why. As The New York Times put it: “The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”

The Perfect Liquid at RHIC at Brookhaven National Lab

A frequent commentor, who goes by nyp10025, but I call Petey because that is the name he used to use when posting on the newspaper website, posited: “Yup, there will always be a small minority of scientists dissenting from the overwhelming consensus that the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels is causing significant climate change.”

To which I replied: “There used to be scientific consensus about a lot of things that turned out wrong. The evidence is mounting.”

Petey, as is customary, doubted Thomas: “I am not sure about which subjects ‘there used to be scientific consensus … that turned out wrong.’ At least, not in the modern era of science.”

I thought about Einstein upsetting Newton’s apple cart, but doubted that was modern era enough for skeptic Petey. So I asked a physicist I know, figuring with all the particle smashers around the globe that there was bound to be some consensus that had gone south into a black hole.

He immediately concluded that I was tangling with some cranks or quacks and suggested I ignore them and run away screaming because they are a huge time sink with no payoff.  Sage advice, but I’ve never been one to heed advice — sage, thyme or otherwise.

But he said he knew of a couple of consensus theories that appear to have been defenestrated in the past few years:

One is in my own field of Relativistic Heavy Ion physics. Until a few years ago, all theories assumed that the Quark-Gluon Plasma would be a gas. Our experiments have since shown that it is instead a perfect fluid. This is the condition of the universe within a microsecond after the Big Bang. I also remember that the open/closed status of the universe has fluctuated according to measurement. If I remember correctly, the accepted theory about 20 years ago was that the universe might be closed. However, recent measurements can be explained by the presence of dark energy, which yields an open, ever-expanding universe. Most quacks love to try and disprove relativity. Not a single measurement to date has disagreed with Einstein’s theory. In particle physics, the standard model is standing up against all measurements, including the recent discovery of the Higgs with a mass within the predicted range.

Hope this helps,

Jeff

But of course. Why didn’t I think of that. Sometimes scientific consensus shifts when more data come in over the transom, and sometimes the new data confirm. Which is the case with global warming? Confirm or confound?

Maybe it is just a pause before the climate Apocalypse, but if it is not, why are we spending so darned much money on an hypothesis?