Category Archives: Climate Alarmism

Will The Global Temperature Begin To Cool Down In The Near Future?  


 

The numbers of scientist predicting a drop in global temperature  are becoming a large group— ready to challenge the mythical 97%.  This blog has posted some of the predictions.  The postings have demonstrated that there is not total unanimity as to reason why the temperature will drop.  Maybe it is a combination of different things. That is refreshing in light of the warmer’s one size fits all theory that CO2 is essentially raising or will raise global temperature all by itself.

First some discussion that suggests that CO2 is not what the warmers claim.

The warmer’s theory says that atmospheric CO2 molecules intercept low-frequency IR waves radiated from Earth on their way back into space.  The exchange warms the atmosphere a little and this causes water to evaporate and move into the atmosphere. Water vapor is a much more significant “greenhouse gas” than CO2. They say that the result is a 3 fold increase in temperature as a result.  This is their so-called “climate sensitivity”.  This is part of the GIGO that is put into the climate models that the warmers use to predict catastrophic in the future.  Let us look and see how well this has turned out for them in the real world versus the computer world.

The chart above was made in June 2013 so it is a little out of date.  Next chart will be the latest update.

The important things to know are the following

  • All those little hair-like lines represent the output from one of the 73 warmer computers. They are all over the place.
  • The heavy black line aggregates all of the 73 outputs into a single line which represents the “official forecast”.
  • The blue squares are the actual recorded global temperatures as measured by satellites.
  • The actual temperature as measured by the weather balloons  are shown as black dots.
  • The balloons and the satellites essentially confirm each other and they are, again, actual measurements.
  • Every 4 or 5 years, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gathers and produces an analysis of the state of the climate. They then issue a technical report and a summary that is primarily for the politicians of the world.  One of the features of the IPCC report is how confident they are that their predictions are spot on.
  • The red arrows show their level of confidence, at the time of the report, as to how sure they are that the forecasts are correct.
  • The first report said that they were “confident”. As each new report was issued, they got more confident of their forecasts.  The last one being 95% certain.  This is all happening as the spread between their forecast temperature readings and the actual  temperature readings continued to diverge.

Continue reading

Is Global Warming Going To Drown New York City? Tony Heller Exposes Alarmist Fake News


Tony Heller’s new video illustrates the alarmists use of fake news.

 

For my US readers,  2.8mm is equal to 0.11 inches.  If the rate remains 2.8 mm per year, in 100 years the sea level rise would be 11 inches.  Not too scary.  Besides this leaves us with plenty of time to adapt to this modest rise in sea level.

cbdakota

Batteries May Not Solve Renewable Energy Non-Dispatchable Problem


The greens believe that solar and wind farms will be the way to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  The reality of today’s solar and wind farms is that these sources are unable to be worked into the grid because of their unreliability. It is necessary to install natural gas powered turbines or diesel power generation along with the solar and wind farms. The fossil fuel units are required to generate electricity to balance the power grid when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

The greens’ solution is a battery system that stores enough energy to eliminate the need for fossil fueled energy backup systems.  Much research effort is underway to develop a battery to accomplish this objective. To date nothing stands out as a likely candidate for the job. 

But even if a battery that can do the job and does not cost too much emerges, there is another problem.   That problem regarding solar farms is discussed in an American Thinker posting by Viv Forbes titled “Batteries: Another green scam”.  The following is from that posting: 

The idea of producing reliable grid power from intermittent green energy backed up by batteries looks possible in green doodle-diagrams, but it would be absurdly inefficient and expensive.

Solar works a six-hour day

Consider a solar panel rated to collect, say, 100 units of energy per day at full capacity, in full mid-day sunlight, with a clean panel, properly aligned to face the sun.

No solar energy arrives overnight, and only minimal amounts arrive during the three hours after dawn or before dusk.  That means that solar energy can be collected for only about six hours per day, providing it is not cloudy, raining, or snowing.  No amount of research or regulation will change this.  The solar energy union works only a six-hour day and takes quite a few sickies.  So instead of feeding 100 units of energy per day into the grid, at best, the panel supplies just 25 units.

Can the addition of batteries give us 24/7 power from solar?

To deliver 100 units of energy in 24 hours will require an extra 75 units of energy to be collected, stored, and delivered by the batteries every sunny day.  This will require another three solar units devoted solely to recharging batteries in just six sunny hours.

Cloudy and wet days are what really expose the problems of solar plus batteries.  (This is why isolated green power systems must have a diesel generator in the shed.)

To insure against, say, seven days of cloudy weather would require a solar-battery system capable of collecting and storing 700 units of energy while still delivering 100 units to consumers every day.  However, if several consecutive weeks of sunny weather then occur, this bloated system is capable of delivering seven times more power than needed, causing power prices to plunge, driving reliable generators out of business, and wasting the life of solar panels producing unwanted electricity.

Solar energy obviously does best in sunny equatorial deserts, but that is not where most people live.  And the huge Desertec Solar Power Dream for the northern Sahara has failed.

cbdakota

Media Not Providing The Real Facts About Wind And Solar Energy


It is likely that a great many people in the US have been led to believe that solar and wind play significant roles in supplying domestic energy.  Further and even more incredibly they are led to believe that solar  and wind will replace fossil fuels in the not too distant future.  The Paris agreement demands that no fossil fuels  be used after 2050

I am too old to make it to 2050,  so I will not be around to see if no fossil fuels are being used at that time.  If you make it to 2050, I will bet that fossil fuel will still be used.

The Energy Information Administration’s(EIA)**, chart on the primary energy sources for the year 2015 is shown below.

Petroleum, natural gas, coal, renewable energy, and nuclear electric power are primary sources of energy. Electricity is a secondary energy source that is generated from primary sources of energy.

 

Note that renewable energy is only 10% of total energy produced in the US.  And of that 10%, solar is 6% and wind is 19%.   Putting the solar and wind as a percent of the total energy consumed in the US has solar at 0.6% and wind at 1.9%.  So, in  2015 only 2.5% of the US energy came from those two sources. Is this compatible with what you are learning from the media?   And those two are the ones that the greenies are banking on to replace coal, natural gas and petroleum.  And though it is counterintuitive, the warmers want to shut down the nuclear plants as well.

Continue reading

A Forecast Of Global Cooing For The Remainder Of The Century


Dr. Norman Page believes that natural cycles of 60 and 1,000 years are the principle drivers of Global climate.  He has recently published a study relating his beliefs.  From that study  “The coming cooling: usefully accurate forecasting for policy makers” I will begin with one of his charts:

Here Dr. Page compares forecasts by the IPCC, another forecaster S. Akasofu and his own.  The IPCC  forecast which you have probably seen many time predicts a global temperature rise of 4C by 2100.  Akasofu is much below the IPCC forecast at about 1C by 2100.  Page’s forecast is for a reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.

Dr Page’s Abstract to this paper lays out the big picture:

“ABSTRACT

This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and  correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”

The four basic trends in play here according to Page:

“To summarize, the forecasts which follow rely on four basic working hypotheses. First, the solar millennial activity cycle peaked in 1991+/- as seen in Fig 10 in the Oulu neutron count. Second, the corresponding millennial temperature cycle peaked in the RSS data at about 2004-Fig. 4.Third, the 60 year temperature cycle peaked at about the same time and fourth, Ockham’s razor would suggest that the simplest working hypothesis currently available, based on the weight of all the data, is that the trends from the 990 Millennial peak to the 2004 Millennial cycle peak seen in Figs 3 and 4 will, in general, repeat from 2004 to 3004.”

Those charts are as follows:

Figure 10 has had some enhancements so I am showing you that chart.  Note how the cosmic ray theory/clouds cooling are illustrated.

 

Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003.6 (14)

Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003.6.

 

Fig.3 Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012. (9) (The red line is the 50 year moving average.)

Good view of the 1000 year cycle that Page refers to.

Dr. Page also predicts the next Little Ice Age  will likely occur about 2640+/-

Page’s  study is about 15 pages long but is definitely  worth your time to read it.

cbdakota

Russian Scientists Suggest Global Temperatures Will Drop


There are two recent papers indicating that global cooling will begin soon.    Both studies believe that more cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere will be responsible for reduced global temperatures. The cosmic rays produce lower level clouds which reduce temperatures by reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space.

 

“Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’ Climate is by a group of Russian scientists led by Y.I. Stozhkov.  The Paper considers Milankovich theory on global temperatures but dismiss it for this study saying that “…… (Milankovitch) changes happen on a long -term scales and are unlikely to be related to the contemporary process of global warming.”  The three orbital factors in this theory are:

  • the Earth’s orbital eccentricity which changes or 100,000 to 400,000 years
  • the tilt angle of the Earth’s rotational axis which has about a 41,000-year cycle
  • the precession angle changes with periods of 19,000 to 26,000 years

They considered solar luminosity but feel that the changes in total solar irradiation (TSI) are too small to alter average global temperature by no more than 0.05C.

The study also looked at the cosmic  rays.  The team compiled  monthly Δ T* data for the period from 1880 to early 2016.  Using that data, they made a spectral analysis for the same period.  The result is shown on the chart below:     (*Δ T often called the “temperature anomaly”.)

The team looked at cosmic rays versus Δ T and found a relationship.  Cloud formation is a function of cosmic ray presence in the Earth’s atmosphere. That is illustrated from the team’s chart shown below:

The team interestingly does not attribute cosmic ray intensity in the Earth’s atmosphere to solar activity.  The study reports:

“Another influence on the Earth’s climate is solar activity; the main period of its variations is ≅11 years. Despite numerous attempts to find a connection between different solar activity indices and temporal variations in delta T values, no such link has been firmly established.”

Their contribution is —-an increase in cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere will lower global temperature. Thus, leaving the reason the cosmic rays increase or decrease as an unknown. Their Figure 1 seems to suggest they see a drop in global temperature beginning soon and lasting until at least 2060.

 

The second study will be posted next.

cbdakota

What’s Behind The NOAA Temperature Adjustments?


Tony Heller, of RealClimateScience.com  has kept track of temperature data manipulation for some period of time.  He put together a short video that demonstrates how the catastrophic man-made global warming theory people make the past cooler and the present hotter.  They do this to make you believe things are bad and that they will get worse if you don’t get religion and do what they say.  After you look at Heller’s Video,  you may get a new meaning for “man-made” global warming.

 

cbdakota