The website CO2 Coalition has a post titled “Climate Change: A summary of the Science”. It one of the best summaries I have come across lately. It is fairly long, so I could do my usual and summarize it, but there is virtually nothing in it that I would want to skip over. So, I will not deprive the reader. I will put it in, in its entirety. I hope that my posting yesterday will fill in any blanks you may have otherwise had.
News 26 Feb, 2017
Climate Change: A Summary of the Science
The climate change science is settled, but not how the climate alarmists want you to think.
Posted in AGW, chemistry, China, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, crop yields, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Media Bias, Ocean Acidification, photosynthesis, Sea Level, Solar Activity, Storms/hurricanes, Sun, sun and climate, The Pause
This posting sets out a preliminary understanding of the “carbon cycle” that you may not be aware of. The next posting will build off of this to lay out the science of climate change.
The Sun is the Earth’s source of energy. The energy is transported in the form of waves (radiant energy) known as electromagnetic energy. The Sun’s enormous surface temperatures generates these waves. The waves have a wide range of frequencies. In general, the waves are known familiarly as x rays, ultraviolet, sunlight, short wave infrared, radio waves, and microwaves. These waves heat the Earth. Not all of the waves get through to the Earth’s surface. Some are absorbed like Ultraviolet by ozone; some are reflected back into space by clouds; and some are scattered by encountering mater in the atmosphere.
Much of the Suns energy is reemitted from the Earth as longwave infrared. Some of the reemitted energy is delayed on its way back out into space by the so called greenhouse gases and water vapor. This slowdown is the reason the Earth has a habitable temperature. The primary greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2). However, water vapor is the largest factor, by far, in the greenhouse effect.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Global Temperatures, photosynthesis, Radiation, Sea Level, Solar Activity, Storms/hurricanes, Sun, sun and climate
I am reblogging Adam Piggot’s posting “Dear Climate Alarmists—We Will Never Forget nor Forgive.
The author lays out his complaints about the way the warmers treat the data and as well as how they have treated him. He believes the catastrophic man-made global warming theory is unraveling and the skeptics will be vindicated. So what do you think about the following?
It’s been a rough ten years as a so-called “climate denier”. Every year the climate data would show a complete refusal to follow the accepted and official line, and every year the faith of the climate change faithful only seemed to get stronger and stronger. And their abuse of heretics like myself only got stronger and stronger. I have lost friendships over my stance on this issue. I have been attacked publicly by those around me on numerous occasions. And I have endured the casual mockery at social gatherings where the accepted response has been to pat me on the head in a condescending manner – here he is; our own climate denier. Isn’t he precious?
I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms that stand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam. I have observed with silent loathing the hypocrites who swan around in their enormous SUVs while proudly parading their dubious green credentials, even as ordinary families struggle with the reality of paying their ever-increasing power bills. Only a few months ago, a piece I wrote on the climate change scam elicited concerned emails and calls from people I know who cautioned me with the treacherous path I was taking.
But money talks and bulls— walks, and the money is beginning to drop out of this con to end all cons.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Alternative Energy, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Electricity from Coal, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Fuel Standard, Sea Level
°If cbdakota were appointed the EPA Administrator, he might begin his work issuing this statement:
I thank President Trump for my nomination and the vote approving the nomination.
Our mission will be that the EPA continues to protect the environment and at the same time does not stifle our Nation’s productivity.
Our initial review of the EPA has found some activities, regulations and guidance documents that need to be critically assessed, cancelled or expanded. The following are several of the items that illustrate the issues we uncovered and our plan to deal with these issues:
The Endangerment Finding (EF) needs to be re-evaluated, revised and updated using current science. The EF is largely based upon the IPCC pre-2007 climate science, making it more than 10 years old. Furthermore, the projections of temperature, sea level and other variables do not match the actual measured temperature and sea level data. These EF projections greatly overstate the size of the changes thus putting into question the amount of endangerment.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, crop yields, Drought, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, IPCC, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes, The Pause, Tornados, US Manufacturing Companies, warmer prediction fails
The Trump administration has formed a team charged with making recommendations for changes to the EPA. This action is needed because gone are the days when the EPA followed the legislation written by Congress. Good things were accomplished by the EPA. But now the EPA has over stepped it authority. The EPA task is to administer the law, not make it. For example, it has developed criteria to justify their own efforts, often invites “friendly lawsuits to expand their activities, and uses “secret science” to justify their regulations:
The following are some of the areas that the team need to address, in my opinion:
- Social Cost of Carbon
- Secret Science
- Peer Reviewed Studies
- Friendly Law Suits
- The Endangerment Finding
- Research Grants
- Last Minute Regulations
Social Cost of Carbon
The Federal Departments are charged with providing the benefit that results from their regulations. The EPA’s decided that their benefit would be a calculation that they call the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Their SCC calculates the economic damage per ton of CO2 emissions. They form the SCC by considering all the bad things they say are going to happen if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. Sea level rise, terrible weather, crop failures, mass migrations. These outcomes are predictions made by their computer models. One thing we know about the computer model’s predictions is that they have consistently overstated the temperature rise and the sea level rise. These two drive the cost side of the equation. Thus, all their regulatory schemes are supposed to prevent these costs. But the EPA fails to include the benefits of additional atmospheric CO2. One thing we know for sure is the increased atmospheric CO2 has resulted in a profound greening of the globe. Food crop production has increased dramatically as CO2 is the primary food for plants. The gentle global warming that has taken place has been beneficial as well.
Another problem with the SCC is the discount rate used by the EPA is unrealistic in the view of many economists. The Federal Government’s Office of Management and Budget(OMB) believes a in different discount rate. When using OMB discount rate, the EPA cost estimates are reduced by 80% and is some cases cause the cost to be negative. And where the calculation goes negative, the increased atmospheric CO2 results in a benefit, not a cost.
Using these flawed computer predictions makes this calculation unsuitable for policy making. Further, the benefits that are actually known (not computer predicted) are not included thus making the calculation even more useless. And lastly the discount rate chosen by the EPA would not likely be used by most economist.
Social Cost of Carbon calculation currently used by the EPA should be drained from the swamp.
Unfortunately, many new regulatory rules have been enacted based upon the social cost of carbon. One survey found that between May 2008 and August 2014, some 68 major rules were sanctioned by the SCC. This is an issue the new team should address.
Posted in AGW, carbon tax, chemistry, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, crop yields, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, Sea Level, warmer prediction fails
This afternoon, I received an email from the Heartland Institute saying about what I said in my yesterday’s posting. It also clears up the misinformation put out by the New York Times. The Heartland email:
Can the media greenwash Trump?
President-elect Trump met with the New York Times and the media quickly unleashed an interesting spin.
The “breaking” (fake) news story was that Trump had somehow changed his views on global warming.
This would seem a major flip flop after Trump repeatedly said during the campaign he would withdraw the U.S. from the UN’s Paris climate agreement and vowed to set the U.S. back on a pro-energy course.
CFACT’s friend Joe Bast, head of the Heartland Institute, publicized a more detailed transcript of Trump’s meeting with the Times and, lo and behold, what Trump actually said is right in keeping with his campaign pledges.
Marc Morano posted a detailed analysis at Climate Depot, picked up today by the Drudge Report, to help clear the record about this exchange. As Marc explains:
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, ClimateGate, CO2, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Media Bias, President Trump, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes, Tornados, United Nations
The new movie produced by Marc Morano, “Climate Hustle” was in theaters on May 2 all over the country. The movie shows the skeptics side of the argument about CO2 and global warming, aka Climate Change. Many notable skeptics are in the cast.
The target audience, as I see it, was for the relatively low information people that get their global warming news from the main stream media. If you are into this topic daily or often, most of it will be review. I think Morano did a very good job in assembling the topics and the players. So I recommend it. If there was something I would like to see expanded was the part where warmer predictions were examined. About 10 predictions were discussed briefly. I would like to have seen more emphasis.
As part of the film and as an “extra” was a panel that discussed current issues especially those of the current attempt to criminalize discussion of skeptic views. Bill Nye is feature in it and comes off looking pretty small minded. The panel moderator was Brett Bozell and the panel consisted of Sarah Palin, David Legates and Marc Morano. David Legates stood out.
Looking at Morano’s blog, “Climate Depot”, the attendance was good, nation-wide. I went over to Delaware and my estimate was that about 50 people were in the theater.
This was a one night showing and I am not sure what the plans are for this movie. It may see a general release or perhaps be available in places like Netflix.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, ClimateGate, CO2, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Ice cores, IPCC, Sea Level, skeptic science knowledge