Data dominates the skeptic’s view of the state of the globe’s temperature and where that temperature may be heading. The climate computer models dominate the warmers view. Temperature is at the heart of the global warming issue in that just about every other indicator is a function of the temperature. For example, sea level change is the product of melting ice at the South Pole and Greenland along with the lesser masses of ice in the high elevations of the mountain ranges. Rainfall, and its shadow drought are said to be forced by changes in the temperature. Higher ocean temperatures, we are assured, breed the hurricanes and typhoons. So this posting will focus on global temperatures.
First it would be well to try to understand the past. Ice core analyses from the Antarctica were used to reconstruct global temperatures for the last 420,000 years. Figure 2 below, from climate4you.com illustrates the temperature for that period of time:
Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature.
From climate4you.com comes the following discussion: “The present interglacial period (the Holocene) is seen to the right (red square). The preceding four interglacials are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with the longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacials are seen to be warmer (1-3°C) than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typical lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present interglacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years.
Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, Greenland, Ice Melt, Interglacial periods, IPCC, Sea Ice, Storms/hurricanes, UAH Satellite Temps
The UN Conference of Parties annual Climate Action Meeting Scheduled to begin on 30 November in Paris has the objective of preventing global temperature from rising as a direct result of carbon dioxide ((CO2) emissions. One would think the science supporting the contention that CO2 would be center stage, but it wont. Instead, the real drivers of this movement are politics and culture.
Perhaps Pope Francis’ recent Encyclical “Laudado Si” would be a good way to begin. While the Encyclical covered a range of topics, the part that dealt with the supposed threat of global warming drew the most attention. Despite the Pope having repeatedly said that discussion with all parties is necessary to find the proper solutions not a single skeptical scientist was allowed to participate. His advisors, with or without the Pope’s knowledge, made a conscious decision to exclude skeptical scientists. The Pope’s advisors however, did included in the discussion, atheists, anti-capitalists, population limiting advocates, scientists with works so poor the even their fellow warmers have reputiated them and others that believe skeptics should be imprisoned.
The “books were cooked” so to speak. The conclusions, foregone.
Cartoon by Ramirez Investors.com
Posted in Environment, Global Temperatures, Climate Models, AGW, IPCC, United Nations, Famine, CO2, fossil fuels, Renewable Energy, Climate Alarmism
Beginning 30 November through 11 December, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) will hold the 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21) in Paris. As usual this one like the preceding annual COP meeting is being described as the last chance to save planet Earth from the ravages of carbon dioxide (CO2).
COP attendees from all over the world will attempt, once again, to agree on the reduction of the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and settle on compensation payments to the 3rd world countries that have emitted little CO2. Each of the 146 nations that emit 90% of the global CO2 emissions are being asked to submit the amount of CO2 emissions they will reduce by 2030 based away from the amount emitted in 2005 by that nation. They believe this is necessary to keep global temperature growth to two degrees Celsius.
The compensation side is contentious as those getting the compensation want more than those expected to provide it are willing to part with. For example, India says they will reduce their emissions by 33 to 35% but they need $2.5 trillion to accomplish that goal. Even China, the world’s largest emitter of CO2 is one of the nations expecting compensation. What a deal—-they have recently achieved an agreement with President Obama that lets them continue increasing their emissions until 2030 at which time their emissions should be three times those of the US.
Of course the concept of emission reductions and compensation that the COP wishes to accomplish ignores the data that shows that this is probably not necessary. CO2 is the life blood of the plant world. Without it there would be no plant life and that means of the end of humankind. Studies show that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere have had a beneficial effect on food production world-wide. Further the CO2 effect on the global temperatures appears to be secondary to natural forces. And fossil fuel use by the underpowered nations is a better answer to their needs than sending compensation to some dictator who will just pocket it and the people will receive no benefit. Subsequent postings will enlarge on these observations.
Posted in China, Climate Alarmism, CO2, crop yields, Environment, EPA, Famine, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Kyoto, Media Bias, NGO's eg Greenpeace/WWF, United Nations
The Obama administration has instituted new criteria for supporting their climate change regulations. It is called the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The eventual cost of an increase in atmospheric CO2 is calculated for each regulation. The calculation is based upon their model’s forecasts of temperature, sea level, storms, droughts, etc. All the bad things they believe will happen if the rise of atmospheric CO2 is not stopped. You can be certain that each regulation could prevent millions, perhaps billions, of dollars damage according to their SCC calculation.
The SCC calculations use several discount rates that most rational economist would say were not germane. SSC presumes that the next generations will not have more knowledge and money to adapt to what ever actually happens. For example at the turn of the last century, do you think the forecasters would have come up with airplanes, nuclear energy, penicillin, satellites, for several example of things that have made enormous changes? And the many people that would be lifted out of poverty and provided a much-improved life?
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Domestic Energy, Drought, Environment, EPA, Famine, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes
The Washington Post (WP) posted “American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why.” The posting was made June 20 and has been sitting in my “things to write about” box for a while. Yesterday’s report on Fox News about Seattle fining residents that put food, recyclable or yard waste in their garbage reminded me of that article.
So what is the reason for the recycling stalling? According to the article, recycling is no longer profitable. The District of Columbia (DC) Council made a $1.2milion payment to Waste Management last year apparently to keep them recycling DC wastes. In 2011 DC made a profit of $389,000, but the situation has changed.
Nature .com posted a study titled “Mapping tree density at a global scale”. This study dramatically changes our understanding of the number of trees on the globe. The study’s count is 3.04 trillion trees (3.04X10^12), which replaces the previous estimate of global trees of 400billion (400X10^9). As a point of reference, the study also expresses the change as trees per humans. Considering the currently estimated total global population of 7.2 billion (7.2X10^9), the study now shows the old count of 61 trees per person has grown to 422 trees per person.
|TREES PER (WORLD) CAPITA,
TABLE 1—NATURE .COM STUDY
Thanks to the Daily Caller we can enter into the minds of the radical warmers and their surrogates, the national media. The Daily Caller posted “Flashback: ABC News Envisioned Apocalyptic 2015 Triggered By Climate Change”. Using the “best” minds on the planet to graphically display the terror that climate change will cause, ABC ran a special in 2009 called “Earth 2100 “. The special follows a baby girl born in 2009 through her life span with stops along the way to describe how the planet was suffering through the effects of climate change. The first stop was 2015. You may wonder how you are missing all of these tragic happenings that the warmer scientist say would happen in 2015. But it is more likely that being a rational human, you will realize, once again, how far from the truth the great prognosticators are. These people have not changed since 2009. They just keep restarting their “end of the earth” smoke and mirrors” narratives, ignoring the need to apologize for how bad their last prediction was.
The Daily Caller quotes from the special:
“ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff says the show “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.” A Harvard University professor says, “We’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.” Other voices can be heard saying that “Flames cover hundreds of square mile” and “We expect more intense hurricanes.” Another voice says, “Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t know really know where the end is.”
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Coal, End of the Earth, Environment, Famine, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Media Bias, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes