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.
I have promised some critical views from skeptics regarding the Paris Agreement Roadmap to zero CO2 emissions by 2050. If you need to get up to speed regarding the Paris Agreement Roadmap, please review my last two postings.
Let’s begin with Judith Curry’s thoughts on this topic from her posting of 25 March titled “A roadmap for meeting Paris emissions reductions goals”.
Apart from the issues raised in this paper, there are several other elephants in this room: there is growing evidence of much smaller climate sensitivity to CO2; and even if these drastic emissions reductions occurred, we would see little impact on the climate in the 21st century (even if you believe the climate models).
I think that what this paper has done is important: laying out what it would actually take to make such drastic emissions reductions. Even if we solve the electric power problem, there is still the problem of transportation, not to mention land use. Even if all this was technically possible, the cost would almost certainly be infeasible.
As Oliver Geden states, its time to ask policy makers whether they are going to attempt do this or not. It seems rather futile to make token emissions reductions at substantial cost.
Deciding that all this is impractical or infeasible seems like a rational response to me. The feasible responses are going with nuclear power or undertaking a massive R&D effort to develop new emission free energy technologies. Independent of all this, we can reduce vulnerability from extreme weather events (whether or not they are exacerbated by AGW) and the slow creep of sea level rise.
Dr. Curry’s remarks are very succinct. To be a success, the roadmap requires many inventions that to date have been sought after but not delivered. And she points out, as noted in this blog on a number of occasions, the climate sensitivity used by the warmers gives temperature increases that are unsupportable. This roadmap is necessary in large part because it is predicated on those exaggerated temperatures the climate models produce. That is Dr. Curry’s “elephants in the room.”
And she thinks it is way too costly. I believe she is spot on.
Dr. Currys posting can be accessed this link https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/25/a-roadmap-for-meeting-paris-emissions-reductions-goals/
Some additional comments to follow in the next posting.
Posted in AGW, Batteries, cap and trade, carbon tax, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Coal, Electric Vehicles, Electricity, Electricity from Coal, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, United Nations, warmer prediction fails
Whistleblower Dr. John Bates really has stirred up a hornet’s nest. He says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s(NOAA) global temperature revisions made just before the Paris COP meeting are suspect. Skeptics have been critical of those revisions from the very beginning. The UK Daily Mail posted “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” The Daily Mail opened up their posting with this:
“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, IPCC, NOAA, President Trump, skeptic science knowledge, United Nations, warmer prediction fails
Russian ice breakers escorted cargo ships from Archangel to Pervek on an Arctic Ocean trip beginning on 14 December 2016 and arriving on 7 January 2017. It was thought that the temperature and the condition of the ice were such that they could make the return trip. But they did not get far before they were stopped by very thick ice. They had aerial surveys made of the of the route back to Archangel and concluded that it would not be passable for the cargo ships. The map of the area of the Arctic Ocean were the ship traveled is shown below:
Map courtesy of The Siberian Times.
From The Siberian Times comes this quote:
“But now a spokesman for Rosmorport has announced the icebreakers will delay a return until probably May or early June. ‘The vessels will remain for the winter because of the very heavy severe ice conditions,’ he said.
All the vessel got out of the ice, and three of them – Captain Dranitsyn and the two cargo ships – returned to Pevek. The Admiral Makarov moved further east to continue working for Rosmorport in clearing sea routes.
Officials said the icebreakers could have gone further through the ice but there was ‘a very high risk of significant damage’ to the supply ships, and it was decided to postpone the return to Archangelsk.”
I guess the North-West Passage is still not open for business. Hard to believe because that famous guru, Al Gore said the Arctic Ocean would be ice free by 2010. And isn’t he the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for such prized predictions as that one.
As an aside, I often forget how small the distance between Russia and the United States (State of Alaska) is. During the last glacial era, that point is said to be the “land bridge” that began the population of North America.
°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
The Science News recently posted a new study titled “Observed Arctic Sea-Ice Loss Directly Follows Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions”. Well, blaming CO2 is not new and CO2 has been the villain in many previous reports about the loss of Arctic sea ice. This study says the ice will be gone by 2040 or so. It is based on the author’s new computer model program.
Al Gore is the warmer’s 800 lb gorilla. How do I know this? Because Leonardo DiCaprio, the Hollywood jetsetter, is reported to have said he had a talk with Gore and that is what convinced him to become an active spokesman for the catastrophic global warming theory.