Category Archives: Global Temperatures

More virtue signaling-Bloomberg assembles group to take responsibility for the Paris Agreement


More virtue signaling. Bloomberg organizes Governors, mayors, businesses, commit to Paris climate pact goals” according to a posting on the Hill.com. ** The posting says that they are going to abide by the Paris Agreement.  So, they are going to reduce the US CO2 emissions. Do you think the people that they serve will back them up even though it will cost many of them their jobs and increase the cost of living for all?  A big maybe.  Polling has shown that many people like the idea combating “global warming” but most of them do not like the expense of carrying out a big global warming program.

And the kicker will be that they will have to pony up the money that the Paris Agreement needs.  Annually the Green Climate Fund requires $100 billion every year beginning in 2020. I am not sure what the share of the $100 billion this Bloomberg group will be required to put up each year, but I think the share the US government was expected to provide was about 25%.  $25 billion each year for ever.  And it might be more, because some re-evaluations by the Paris Agreement folks are talking estimates like $400 billion per year as the program evolves— that would mean that the Bloomberg group would have to perhaps provide $100 billion per year. 

The Green Climate Fund has been active for a number of years as a means of putting together the program.  The goal was to initially get $10 billion. The pledges had reached $10 billion.  But pledges are just that—pledges.  They really don’t have $10 billion in hard cash. The US had pledged $3 billion but at least $2 billion will not be sent to the Fund now. If these nations are having trouble supplying a $10 billion one time funding, what does that tell you about their willingness to fund a $100 billion per year fund?

 My guess is the Bloomberg group will join the other big talkers and find that their treasuries really don’t have the money to support the $100 billion per year.  

cbdakota

**http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/336403-governors-mayors-businesses-commit-to-paris-climate-pact-goals

Media Ignorance Concerning The Paris Agreement


The ignorance shown by the media regarding the Paris Agreement leads me to wonder is it incompetence of just out-right lies.  The primary argument often is, quoting the editorial in the local newspaper, “By breaking ranks with nearly 200 nations, the United States joins only Syria (which is riven by civil war) and Nicaragua ….”  More on this paragraph below, but first about the 200 nations.  According to the Paris Agreement’s Green Climate Fund, the majority of the almost 200 nations are to be given money from this fund.  As of May 2017, 41 nations have contributed or have pledged money to this fund. Reviewing the data, we find that of the 41 nations, 22 of them are in for $10 million or less, 6 are in for $100 million or less, 7 are in for $500 million or less, 1 is in for $750million or less and 5 are in for more than $1billion with the US the major player at $3 billion. Beginning 2020,  the Green Climate Fund will require that the donor nations provide a total of  $100 billion per year! So what has been given so far is chump change.

Well, what do the other 160 nations have to lose by not joining?  Free money is what they will lose if they don’t sign up.  In fact, only about 13 countries are contributing any serious money. The nearly “200 nations” is a bogus issue.

Continue reading

Rumor Has It That President Trump Will Pull Out Of The Paris Agreement Today


President Trump has told us that he will decide on the Paris
Agreement this week.
  This morning, there are rumors in the media are saying that he will announce the US’s withdrawal today—-but maybe with caveats.  Thus, not necessarily completely getting out of this bad, unnecessary Paris Agreement.  We shall see what he does.

I think this posting by Dr Roy Spencer sums up my thoughts about why we should get out.  Here are few quotes from  We Owe it to the Poor to Exit the Paris Climate Treaty” posted on Townhall.com yesterday:

The scientific godfather of modern global warming alarmism, James Hansen, has called the Paris Climate Agreement “a fraud really, a fake …. It’s just worthless words.”

1) Warming over the last 50 years or so has averaged only about half of what computerized climate models can explain. Yet, those models are the basis for the Paris Agreement.

2) It is not obvious that recent warming is entirely the fault of our CO2 emissions. It is very possible that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were just as warm as today. Natural climate change exists. If we didn’t cause it, we can’t fix it.

3) Even if future warming increases to match the models, and all nations abide by the Paris commitments, we will avert only 0.3 deg. F warming by the year 2100. That’s less than 0.04 deg. F per decade, which is unmeasurable by current global temperature monitoring networks (satellites, surface thermometers, and weather balloons).

4) The cost of this unmeasurable impact on future global temperatures is variously estimated to be around $1 Trillion per year, primarily spent by the U.S. and a few other countries which drive global prosperity. As usual, the poor will be the hardest hit. That money could have been spent on clean water and providing electricity to the 1+ billion humans who still don’t have electricity.

5) China and India, which are burning coal like there is no tomorrow, don’t really have to do anything under the Agreement until 2030. It’s mainly up to the U.S. to cut our emissions, and send our wealth to poor countries where dictators will continue to enrich themselves.

6) Increasing CO2 levels have benefits, such as increased crop productivity and ‘global greening’. Life on Earth requires CO2, and over the last 60 years we have been monitoring its levels in the atmosphere, Mother Nature has been gobbling up 50% of what we emit to create even more life.

So don’t believe Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore, the Pope, and others who claim we owe it to the Poor to remain in the Paris Agreement.

The truth is, we owe it to the poor to get out.

cbdakota

Gore And Nye Are The Spokesmen For Catastrophic Global Warming—That’s The Best They Can Do?


Things have been very busy here at home.  That is my excuse for writing so little recently.  I am working on some thoughts why the global temperature is likely to begin to cool—a case of natural forces.   But in the mean time, the warmers have allowed Bill Nye and Al Gore (and on occasion, Di Caprio) to be the face of their catastrophic religion.  The real warmer scientists have tried the debate arena and have consistently underperformed.  So better to leave it to their apostles,  Nye and Gore.

If you haven’t seen” Bill Nye Saves the World” on Netflix, please do. If he and his minions don’t turn you off, you must be a warmer.  The ratings are generally dismal.  The Google Users rated it 29%. 

See this You tube video that reviews what Nye’s show.   

 

 

Algore has a new movie, an update of his “An Inconvient Truth”. I have seen the Promos version of this movie and it will probably be as full of errors and exaggerations as was his original one.  The  first one was the one that James Hansen (god-father of the current US catastrophic warming theory) said—well, ya, there are a lot of mistakes in it but its message is good.  That is the kind of science that the warmers (consensus method) use along with  coercion.

cbdakota

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

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