(CNSNews.com) - The pre-Thanksgiving cold snap and a monster storm forecast to dump five feet of snow on Buffalo, N.Y. Tuesday are just “a preview” of the coming winter, which will be much colder and snowier than normal, predicts Joseph D’Aleo, co-founder and first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel. D’Aleo, now co- chief forecaster at WeatherBell Analytics, was one of the few meteorologists to accurately predict a colder-than-normal November.
He expects several major East Coast snowstorms and “widespread below-zero temperatures” that will plunge much of the nation into a deep freeze for as long as six weeks this winter.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if it snows in Atlanta, Dallas, and Birmingham,” he told CNSNews.com.
“We’ve )Joe Bastardi, Tom Down and Joe D’Aleo) been talking about this being another one of those historic winters since the spring. The summer before last, we had seen last winter as being one that people near the Great Lakes would remember for a long time, and it turned out to be the coldest December to March on record in Chicago, and the snowiest in Detroit, and top five coldest in many places in the central [part of the U.S.]
“And we saw the same kind of extreme this winter, not exactly in the same place, but another winter that’s going to stress our electric grid and also the energy sources that we have” D’Aleo told CNSNews.com.
“We were not surprised at the cold coming. We had a cold forecast in November even though all the tools that are used by forecasters to look ahead, even two weeks, right up to the end of October, [were] not seeing the cold. And then suddenly they caught on.
“But we use another approach where we look at all the factors globally: the oceans and the sun and winds in the upper atmosphere over the tropics, and we find years in the past when conditions were most similar. We call it an analog approach. And it was telling us that it would be a lot like last year in terms of cold. It told us November would be cold, so we were swimming against the strong current.”
D’Aleo noted that the unseasonably cold weather, which is being blamed for 17 deaths since Saturday, is just “a preview” of the coming months and years ahead, when he predicts that temperatures will be up to 20 degrees lower than normal at times.
“And then we think this winter will be another strong one. It may end early in some parts of the country, like the Northeast, but it will be very hard, especially in mid-winter. We’ll get a break after this [current] assault, it may ease a little bit, but we think there’ll be an extended period in mid-winter that will really be harsh all over the nation.”
The worst of the frigid winter weather will likely hit right around Christmas and last until the first week of February, he told CNSNews.com.
“Everything we look at suggest that January will be the hardest of the winter months. This is sort of a preview of that. Not to say there won’t be snow and cold in December. In February, it’ll be cold, but more from the snow on the ground than a continual feed of Arctic air.
“The snow will just make the cold worse,” he added. “It keeps temperatures in daytime down and makes it colder at night in between storms, so it’s going to be a very rough one for a lot of folks.”
“We might get a break next year,” the forecaster added on a hopeful note. “Often these cold winters come in two-year periods and then you get a break for a year as the oceans readjust. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a milder winter next year.”
CNSNews.com asked D’Aleo, who lives in New Hampshire and says he ran out of heating oil last winter due to the sub-normal temperatures, his reaction to last week’s agreement between President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping to fight global warming by drastically reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
“From the government’s own data, there has been no warming in winter for 25 years,” D’Aleo replied. “In fact, there’s been cooling for 20 years. All nine climate regions have cooled in winter for 20 years.”
Global cooling Enlarged
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
“This decade is just four years old, and we’ve already had 12 major impact East Coast snowstorms out of close to 50 since the 1950s, which they call NESIS (Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale) storms,” he continued. “This is the most active [snowiest] decade on record. The last decade, the 2000s, had 10. The 1960s had 10. This decade has 12 and we’re only four years into it… We could really be creating an historic decade when all is said and done.”
“The major drivers [of the cold weather] are the oceans and the sun. The Pacific has turned cold and the Atlantic is scheduled to go into its cold mode within five years. And the sun is heading into a 200-year minimum. The last time it was this quiet, and it will likely be this quiet for two decades or so, was the early 1800s. That was called the Dalton Minimum,” D’Aleo pointed out, which was a period of low temperatures that corresponded with low solar activity between 1780 and 1840.
“That was the time of [Charles] Dickens. If you remember Dickens’ novels, the children always played in the snow in London. That’s what they’re doing again...And there’ll be more winters like the Dickens years in the years to come [because] we’re headed into a colder period that will likely last decades,,,
“That doesn’t mean we won’t have a hot summer or that next winter won’t be warmer, but on average we will experience more and more extreme cold winters and cool summers. It’s part of a trend, and like I said, it’s been cooling for 20 years, erratically but down.”
Joy and consternation as the US says it will move in earnest to curb emissions. Obama celebrates his nation’s self-destructive measures but China’s reciprocal pledge is 16 years away. Even Laura Tingle the Financial Review’s resident greenhouse alarmist sees the agreement as a retreat from punitive measures and a faith in technology changes meaning relatively low cost transition, though she remains credulous that the US will, in the face of a Republican legislature achieve its vaunted 28 per cent reduction in emissions and is wide eyed in appreciation that China “would seek to expand zero-emission energy sources to around 20 per cent by 2030”.
Lomborg was more analytical pointing out “but China promised only 20 per cent would come from non-fossil fuels ... China already plans to get 18 per cent of its energy from non-fossil fuels and solar and wind will make up only about 3 per cent. He points out that an earlier US administration with Al Gore as VP promised a 7 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at Kyoto in 1998 but the outcome was a 9 per cent increase. He cruelly draws attention to the Canadian promise of a 5 per cent reduction contrasting the 24 per cent outcome.
By fiddling with bush clearing (and thereby expropriating property) Australia claims to have beaten its target (a 7 per cent increase to 2012, with a mere 3 per cent increase) but this has created lawsuits and in any event Wikipedia puts Australia’s increase at 30 per cent. The editorial in the Wall Street Journal was scathing and the Washington Post pointed out that both legislature leaders had pungently condemned it.
And to promote his negative growth policy President Obama has pledged to divert $3 billion in aid funds to the third world. Tony Abbott soberly said “As for Australia, I’m focusing not on what might happen in 16 years’ time; I’m focusing on what we’re doing now and we’re not talking, we’re acting.”
Green blogger and Guardian journalist, Graham Readfearn, felt he had to write a lengthy rebuttal of the latest opinion Australian piece of Maurice Newman. He says Newman is wrong to say California electricity costs are driven high by its renewable and kindred policies because, in spite of its high prices, energy use is low; he appears unaware of the connections here! Somehow in Readfearn’s crazy world high taxes and high costs do not translate into lost jobs and he promotes that mistake in a critique of Calzado’s masterly analysis of the damage renewable policy has done to the Spanish economy. And he offers apologias for former Chief Scientist Penny Sackett and the ubiquitous Tim Flannery arguing the immediate forecasts of climate doom they projected were simply off a tad few years.
More blubbery from Flannery and the Climate Council calumnists with the myth that Australia is lagging the world in suicidal carbon restraint.
Meanwhile the BCA wants to reduce Australia’s renewable subsidy from its currently envisaged economic impact of $22 billion to $16 billion but the ALP thinkseven this is too great!
Propaganda works. Apparently one person in 10 suffers severe weather phobia - offering a solid base for the yarn sellers to work from.
The writing should be on the wall for this one, particularly since the Democrats have essentially lost coal country entirely, as Ed pointed out this weekend. Energy and the millions of jobs associated with it was featured on the campaign trail and proved a winning issue for Republicans. And now, as reported by The Hill, the new GOP majority in the Senate is gearing up to finally do more than just talk about it.
The GOP sees the midterm elections as a mandate to roll back rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, with Republicans citing regulatory costs they say cripple the economy and skepticism about the cause of climate change.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) identified his top priority come January as “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.”
McConnell made his defense of coal a major piece of Kentucky’s economy, a highlight of his reelection bid, which he won easily over Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.
He said he feels a “deep responsibility” to stop the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, as it proposed to do in January for newly built generators and in June for existing ones.
There are plenty of tempting targets. Cross state emissions rules, rapid changes in mercury restrictions for coal fired plants which will be replaced in the next decade anyway, ground level ozone rules and clean water attacks on hydraulic fracturing (which doesn’t get into the ground water anyway) are just a few. The question is, how does the legislative branch fight against rules which are established pretty much exclusively by the executive branch?
There are actually a couple of options. The most direct route would be through appropriations, essentially stating that the President’s EPA can put the rules in place but that Congress will not authorize any money to enforce them. If that fails, a more complicated path would be to attempt to pass legislation which essentially bans or overrides implementation. (That would be a fun one to see settled in the courts.)
Of course, any of these measures would have to get past the President’s veto pen, but if the White House takes too strong of a stand on that they could be springing a terrible trap for Democrats. With both houses of Congress unified, the President would be essentially standing alone as the person blocking a path to cutting costs for consumers and the creation of more jobs. This sets up the GOP for 2016 with a new and potentially more salable message. Traditionally we’ve seen political combatants arguing that “the next president” will be the person selecting Supreme Court justices. It’s an important debate to be sure, but a more direct line to the voters will be to clearly explain that “the next president” will be staffing up the EPA and other regulatory agencies, and do you really want four more years of these policies? Voters also need to be reminded that these changes are largely cosmetic, feel good measures which are not only hugely expensive, but have no effect on the far dirtier energy policies of countries with vastly larger populations who will continue to do what they’ve always done.
That may turn out to be a key piece of the puzzle in determining how to combat a liberal Democrat nominee in 2016.
Focusing on carbon dioxide (because that’s where the money is) threatens forecasts, and lives PDF
Paul Driessen and David R. Legates
President Obama’s agreement with China is about as credible as his “affordable care” pronouncements.
Pleistocene glaciers repeatedly buried almost half of the Northern Hemisphere under a mile of ice. The Medieval Warm Period (~950-1250 AD) enriched agriculture and civilizations across Asia and Europe, while the Little Ice Age that followed (~1350-1850) brought widespread famines and disasters. The Dust Bowl upended lives and livelihoods for millions of Americans, while decades-long droughts vanquished once-thriving Anasazi and Mayan cultures, and flood and drought cycles repeatedly pounded African, Asian and Australian communities. Hurricanes and tornadoes have also battered states and countries throughout history, in numbers and intensities that have been impossible to pattern or predict.
But today we are supposed to believe climate variability is due to humans - and computer models can now forecast climate changes with amazing accuracy. These models and the alarmist scientists behind them say greenhouse gases will increasingly trigger more “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people, species and ecosystems,” a recent UN report insists.
In reality, carbon dioxide’s effect on devastating weather patterns is greatly overstated. We are near a 30-year low in hurricane energy (measured by the ACE index of :accumulated cyclone energy"), and tropical cyclone and storm activity has not increased globally over that period. In fact, as of November 18, it’s been 3,310 days since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the US mainland - by far the longest stretch since records began in 1900. This Atlantic hurricane season was the least active in 30 years.
Moreover, there has been no warming since 1995, several recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, the 2013-14 winter was one of the coldest and snowiest in memory for much of the United States and Canada - and the cold spell could continue.
Accurate climate forecasts one, five or ten years in advance would certainly enable us to plan and prepare for, adapt to and mitigate the effects of significant or harmful climate variations, including temperatures, hurricanes, floods and droughts. However, such forecasts can never be even reasonably accurate under the climate change hypothesis that the IPCC, EPA and other agencies have adopted. The reason is simple.
Today’s climate research defines carbon dioxide as the principal driving force in global climate change. Virtually no IPCC-cited models or studies reflect the powerful, interconnected natural forces that clearly caused past climate fluctuations - most notably, variations in the sun’s energy output.
They also largely ignore significant effects of urban and other land use changes, and major high-impact fluctuations like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina) and North Atlantic Oscillation. If we truly want reliable predictive capabilities, we must eliminate the obsession with carbon dioxide as the primary driver of climate change - and devote far more attention to studying all the powerful forces that have always driven climate change, the roles they play, and the complex interactions among them.
We also need to study variations in the sun’s energy output, winds high in the atmosphere, soil moisture, winter snow cover and volcanic eruptions, Weatherbell forecaster Joe D’Aleo emphasizes. We also need to examine unusual features like the pool of warm water that developed in the central Pacific during the super La Nina of 2010-2011 and slowly drifted with the wind-driven currents into the Gulf of Alaska, causing the “polar vortex” that led to the cold, snowy winter of 2013-2014, he stresses.
“The potential for climate modeling mischief and false scares from incorrect climate model scenarios is tremendous,” says Colorado State University analyst Bill Gray, who has been studying and forecasting tropical cyclones for nearly 60 years. Among the reasons he cites for grossly deficient models are their “unrealistic model input physics,” the “overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques,” and the fact that decadal and century-scale circulation changes in the deep oceans “are very difficult to measure and are not yet well enough understood to be realistically included in the climate models.”
Nor does applying today’s super computers to climate forecasting help matters. NOAA, the British Meteorological Office and other government analysts have some of the worlds biggest and fastest computers - and yet their (and thus the IPCC’s and EPA’s) predictions are consistently and stupendously wrong. Speedier modern computers simply make the “garbage in, garbage out” adage occur much more quickly, thereby facilitating faster faulty forecasts. Why does this continue? Follow the money.
Billions of dollars are doled out every year for numerous “scientific studies” that supposedly link carbon dioxide and other alleged human factors to dwindling frog populations, melting glaciers, migrating birds and cockroaches, and scores of other remote to ridiculous assertions. Focusing on “dangerous human-induced” climate change in research proposals greatly improves the likelihood of receiving grants.
American taxpayers alone provide a tempting $2.5 billion annually for research focused on human factors, through the EPA, Global Change Research Program and other government agencies. Universities and other institutions receiving grants take 40% or more off the top for “project management” and “overhead.” None of them wants to upset this arrangement, and all of them fear that accepting grants to study natural factors or climate cycles might imperil funding from sources that have their own reasons for making grants tied to manmade warming, renewable energy or antipathy toward fossil fuels. Peer pressure and shared views on wealth redistribution via energy policies, also play major roles.
When Nebraska lawmakers budgeted $44,000 for a review of climate cycles and natural causes, state researchers said they would not be interested unless human influences were included. The “natural causes” proposal was ultimately scuttled in favor of yet another meaningless study of human influences.
The result is steady streams of computer model outputs that alarmists ensure us accurately predict climate changes. However, none of them forecast the 18-years-and-counting warming pause, the absence of hurricanes, or other real-world conditions. Nearly every one predicted temperatures that trend higher with every passing year and exceed recorded global temperatures by ever widening margins.
The constant predictions of looming manmade climate disasters are also used to justify demands that developed nations “compensate” poor and developing countries with tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in annual climate “reparation, adaptation and mitigation” money. Meanwhile, those no-longer-so-wealthy nations are implementing renewable energy and anti-hydrocarbon policies that drive up energy costs for businesses and families, kill millions of jobs, and result in thousands of deaths annually among elderly pensioners and others who can no longer afford to heat their homes properly during cold winters.
Worst of all, the climate disaster predictions are used to justify telling impoverished countries that they may develop only to extent enabled by wind and solar power. Financial institutions increasingly refuse to provide grants or loans for electricity generation projects fueled by coal or natural gas. Millions die every year because they do not have electricity to operate water purification facilities, refrigerators to keep food and medicine from spoiling, or stoves and heaters to replace wood and dung fires that cause rampant lung diseases. As Alex Epstein observes in his new book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:
“If you’re living off the grid and can afford it, an installation with a battery that can power a few appliances might be better than the alternative (no energy or frequently returning to civilization for diesel fuel), but [such installations] are essentially useless in providing cheap, plentiful energy for 7 billion people - and to rely on them would be deadly.”
By expanding our research - to include careful, honest, accurate studies of natural factors - we will be better able to discern and separate significant human influences from the powerful natural forces that have caused minor to profound climate fluctuations throughout history. Only then will we begin to improve our ability to predict why, when, how and where Earth’s climate is likely to change in the future. Congress should reduce CO2 funding and earmark funds for researching natural forces that drive climate change.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (http://www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the save-the-Earth money machine. David R. Legates, PhD, CCM, is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, USA.
Nov 21, 2014
The New Consensus: 100 Percent Of Scientists Agree That Global Warming ‘Stopped’ Or ‘Slowed Down’
The Obama administration and environmental groups have long claimed 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, but there’s a new consensus they may be less willing to acknowledge.
Using the same methodology as the vaunted then debunked “97 percent” paper by researcher John Cook, two climate scientists have made a bold discovery: virtually all climate scientists agree that global warming has “stopped” or “slowed down” in recent years.
“We didn’t find a single paper on the topic that argued the rate of global warming has not slowed (or even stopped) in recent years,” wrote scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute.
“This is in direct opposition to the IPCC’s contention that global warming is accelerating, and supports arguments that the amount of warming that will occur over the remainder of the 21st century as a result of human fossil fuel usage will be at the low end of the IPCC projections, or even lower,” the two scientists added. “Low-end warming yields low-end impacts.”
Last year, President Obama claimed that “ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: [climate] change is real, man-made and dangerous.” His claim was based on a paper by Australian researcher John Cook, who looked at scientific papers as the basis for his finding that 97 percent agreed that humans caused global warming.
“Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on [anthropogenic global warming] is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research,” Cook wrote in his study that was published last year.
Cook’s paper, however, has been heavily criticized for “cooking” the numbers on what scientist actually think about global warming. Others, however, say Cook’s paper misses a key scientific question: what is the current state of global warming?
“So while 97% of scientists may agree that global warming is caused by humans, virtually 100% agree that global warming has stopped or slowed considerably during the 21st Century,” wrote Michaels and Knappenberger.
Michaels and Knappenberger searched for papers published between 2009 and 2014 in the Web of Science database, searching for the terms “pause,” “hiatus” or “slowdown” along with the terms “global” and “temperature.” They then read the abstracts, or the whole paper if necessary, to determine what position the authors took on the pause in warming.
Of the 100 papers identified by Michaels and Knappenberger, 65 had nothing to do with recent global temperature trends - which is typical of papers written before 2010. The remaining 35 papers used by the Cato scientists all acknowledged in someway a “hiatus, pause, or slowdown in global warming was occurring.”
“We surely may have missed a few papers that were not cataloged in the database we used, or that weren’t captured by our search terms, but the evidence is overwhelming - virtually all (if not actually all) scientific papers that mention a hiatus or pause agree that it exists,” the Cato scientists noted.
Scientists have been struggling to explain why there has been no significant warming trend during the 21st century. Satellite data shows there has been no warming for the 18 years and surface temperature data points to a lack of warming for the last 15 years or so.
Dozens of explanations have been put forward in an attempt to reconcile why most climate models were unable to predict such a prolonged period with no warming despite rapidly rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
A study from earlier this year found that the lack of warming is due to “heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic.”
This oceanic cooling cycle “associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years,” according to Professor Ka-Kit Tung from the University of Washington.
Nov 15, 2014
Coldest November Morning since 1976; Climate Predictions and Wishful Thinking
Record Breaking Cold Blankets United States—Coldest November Morning Since 1976
Dr. Ryan Maue—WeatherBELL November 18, 2014
Tuesday morning, America ‘as a whole’ awoke to the coldest it has been in November since 1976—38 years ago. The Lower-48 or CONUS spatially average temperature plummeted overnight to only 20F typical of mid-winter not November 18th! Data
An astounding 226-million Americans will experience at or below freezing temperatures (32F) on Tuesday as well—if you venture outdoors.
More than 78% of the surface area of the Lower-48 reached or fell below freezing Tuesday morning
Record lows from Idaho to Nebraska and Iowa south to Texas and east through the Great Lakes, the eastern 2/3 of the US will shatter decades-long and in some cases, century-long records. Temperatures east of the Rockies will be 20-40F below climate normals. Monday had 998 record low minima or maxima for the date.
Compared to normal, temperatures over the past several days have dropped off a cliff—to 10C below climate normal—more anomalous than even during the polarvortex of early January. Anomaly Chart . November is shaping up to be a colder-than-normal month by a lot.
Brisk northwesterly winds in the Great Lakes will cause heavy lake effect snow which will be measured in feet from Michigan to New York state. Monday, over half (50.1%) of the Lower-48 was blanketed in snow. The normal for Christmas is just 33%. Please visit Mashable and Washington Post Capital Weather Gang for daily updates. This is said to be three times the previous November record.
Cold air pushes east thru Wednesday with a reinforcing shot of Arctic air with origin from the North Pole & Siberia to arrive on Thursday in the Great Lakes. Any relief is is 5-6 days away as Chicago, Minneapolis, and Detroit will struggle to rise above freezing until Saturday.
Please join Ryan, Joe Bastardi . Tom Downs and I at Weatherbell.com for daily blogs, videos and the worlds most detailed model and weather and teleconnection tracking.
Apparently, long-range climate predictions are more about politics and wishful thinking than science. And regardless of the mid-term elections, climate-change confusion by the general public and the potential benefits it can reap will loom large on the horizon of ruling-class opportunists.
John Kerry ‘Grubering’ about climate change at the start of the Socialist organized Climate Week in Septermber.
Right now, a big concern in the atmospheric science community is the fact of a global warming “hiatus.” For more than 15 years, average global temperatures have remained rather steady, despite confident climate predictions to the contrary. Sophisticated climate models developed and run by the most expert researchers in the field spewed forth reams of details on a future warmer world. Yet, in reality, what transpired was a statistical flat-line, nada, a no-show on a terrestrial heatwave.
Not to worry, though, we’re assured that the planet will surely heat up, unless middle-class Americans in particular acquiesce to their betters in government and academia and stop using so much fossil-fuel derived energy.
But, in more reasonable times, with so many urgent issues to address like deadly disease, terrorism, and tyrannical imperialism, the powers-that-be would welcome a reprieve from what was forecast to be an imminent disaster. Perhaps, even if a disaster eventually results from our affordable, comfortable living, at least for now we have time to deal with the more pressing worries.
But why doesn’t reason prevail? Why do calls for cuts in “carbon pollution” become more shrill, and warnings of climate doom more dire?
For the answer, look at the situation from the pompous politicians’ perspective. Here’s an issue with lots of room to stretch the truth while conducive to tremendous emotional appeal like save-the-future-for-our-children kind of appeal. For a potential tragedy pending so far in the future, the consequences of “doing nothing” are limited only by a wild imagination. The taxpayer dollars directed to a dubious atmospheric appraisal is a lawmaker’s dream for raking in the dough to maintain control, direct money to pet projects, buy votes, or just keep campaign contributors flush with cash.
On the other hand, wishful thinking is the purview of academic theoreticians. On the cloistered college campuses across the country, theory trumps reality. So, if real-world global average temperatures have departed from what ex cathedra scholars divined through climate models, guess what needs to be aligned.
Climate models, which have been largely conceived and nurtured at the universities, are impressive tools of the trade in atmospheric science. They are remarkable achievements in our understanding and practical simulation of a complex dynamic system. But, when the predictions of the models don’t match reality, it’s not the reality that needs adjusting.
Yet, many defensive tactics have prevailed from the schoolyard to maintain the authority of the academy. Perhaps the most persistent is name-calling. But, if a research scientist uses the term “climate change denier” or, even sillier, “climate denier,” to defend their territory, they are not just revealing their immaturity, they are also being dishonest. And dishonesty has no place in good scientific practice which requires integrity.
What about the claim that the debate is over and the conclusions are settled? As an atmospheric scientist working in the field since the 1970s, I know there never was a rigorous “debate” over whether humans are substantially responsible for long-term global climate change, so the debate can’t be over. Furthermore, the science is still very much in a developing stage, so it certainly can’t be “settled.”
What is needed now is a hiatus in collegiate rhetoric, and a hiatus in government effort toward the non-issue (or at best the small problem) of man-made global warming. More focused attention must be directed toward large problems, such as ever-expanding terrorism. If not, so many more innocent people may never live to see any kind of future climate, hot or not.
Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and author of In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic’s Guide to Climate Science (Telescope Books, 2012).
Kashmir Floods Nothing New, Not Due To Climate Change
Floods are a recurring feature of the Indian Monsoon
London, 12 November: A new briefing paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concludes that the most recent (September 2014) floods in the Kashmir region of India-Pakistan border which killed several dozen of people are a recurring feature of the Indian Monsoon and not linked to climate change.
Whenever an extreme weather event is widely reported by the news media, a heated debate about its possible link with global warming is set off. The latest example of this kind of speculation was triggered by the recent flooding in Kashmir.
The paper written by Dr Madhav Khandekar, a former meteorologist with the India Meteorological Department in Pune (India) and Environment Canada, shows that recurring extreme floods and droughts are linked to large-scale atmosphere-ocean cycles like the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the equatorial Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD).
The paper examines the history of past floods and droughts, using India’s excellent set of 200 years of monsoon data and documents that such floods and droughts have always occurred in the past with no link to human activity.
The paper shows how the Indian summer monsoon appears to undergo decadal variability of about 30 years altering between below and above normal rainfall patterns.
In recent years, the summer monsoon has become weaker with frequent droughts (e.g., 2002, 2004, 2009 2012 and 2014). “The observational evidence it at odds with most climate model projections that predict the intensification of the monsoon with increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2,” said Dr Khandekar.
“Extreme weather, heat waves, floods and droughts will always be with us. Reducing atmospheric CO2 will do nothing to reduce their frequency,” Dr Khandekar added.
‘Obama’s Environmental Policy Lets China Surpass US
By Michael Reagan
I’ve got some advice for the Obama girls, Sasha and Malia - when it comes time to buy your first car, send your mom to do the negotiating. Tell Dad to stay home. If he does the deal you’ll be lucky if you even get a set of wheels.
The latest proof of his negotiating ineptitude originated in China, where Obama agreed to a deal that lets China’s carbon emissions theoretically peak in 2030, while at the same time we cut our emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025 - five years earlier.
In a nutshell, Obama has agreed to deal our economy a crippling blow while China does, well, exactly nothing. It simply keeps growing its economy as fast as it can. While U.S. consumers and manufacturers are hoping the wind blows enough to turn the blades on the windmill powering their local grid, China will be burning coal as its economy speeds into the distance.
It’s astonishing that Chinese President Xi Jinping managed to go through the entire announcement ceremony without collapsing into a fit of uproarious laughter.
The New York Times described the announcement this way: “The historic announcement by President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China that they will commit to targets for cuts in their nations’ carbon emissions has fundamentally shifted the global politics of climate change.”
Here’s my question: How can the president sign an agreement and have it go into effect without it first being ratified by the Senate? The Constitution clearly states that all treaties must be approved by a two-thirds Senate vote. Yet nowhere in any of the coverage of this agreement is there any mention of submitting it to the Senate.
Any deal, agreement or pact that pledges the U.S. to act in concert with another nation is a treaty regardless of how Obama describes it. He can’t do the Executive Order shuffle internationally and expect to get away with it. Or, maybe he can.
My prediction is this agreement won’t ever be submitted to the Senate. Instead it will be submitted to the EPA where bureaucrats, fanatical over the environment, will issue regulations requiring U.S. manufacturers to adhere to this international agreement without giving the Senate a chance to stop it.
The EPA will issue orders and the House and Senate will have to respond with legislation overturning the orders that Obama will veto. The fact is Barack (Redline) Obama doesn’t really care if China lives up to its end of the bargain. All he wants is an excuse to impose his global warming superstition on an unsuspecting economy.
Michael Reagan is the son of former President Ronald Reagan and chairman of the League of American Voters. His blog appears on reaganreports.com
Nov 16, 2014
EPA’s next regulatory tsunami
President Obama and his EPA appear to be thoroughly un-chastened by the midterm elections and more determined than ever to impose their executive and regulatory agendas, from immigration to climate change and ozone. As my article points out, the much lower ground-level ozone standards that EPA is about to propose could cost the US economy a whopping $1 trillion per year and kill 7.3 million jobs by 2020, for what many experts say would be no measurable health benefits… and many adverse health effects.
Just as bad, the proposed standards are the product of yet another collusive sue-and-settle lawsuit this one involving the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and EPA. That’s the clever but sleazy tactic in which agitator groups meet with government officials behind closed doors and agree on new rules or standards. The agency then conveniently misses a deadline, “forcing” the activists to sue. That leads to a court hearing (from which impacted parties are excluded), and a judgment “forcing” the agency to issue new regulations and even pay the agitators’ attorney fees!
My article examines this practice and its harmful results in detail and offers solutions that the new Republican Congress might want to consider.Trillions of dollars in ozone compliance and economic stagnation costs, for fabricated benefits
Looming Environmental Protection Agency ozone regulations personify the Obama administration’s secrecy, collusion, fraud, and disdain for concerns about the effects that its tsunami of regulations is having on the livelihoods, living standards, health and welfare of millions of American families.
Virtually every EPA announcement of new regulations asserts that they will improve human health. Draconian carbon dioxide standards, for example, won’t just prevent climate change, even if rapidly developing countries continue emitting vast volumes of this plant-fertilizing gas. The rules will somehow reduce the spread of ticks and Lyme disease, and protect “our most vulnerable citizens.” It’s hogwash.
But Americans naturally worry about pollution harming children and the poor. That makes it easy for EPA to promulgate regulations based on false assumptions and linkages, black-box computer models, secretive collusion with activist groups, outright deception, and supposedly “scientific” reports whose shady data and methodologies the agency refuses to share with industries, citizens or even Congress.
It was only in May 2012 that EPA decided which US counties met new 2008 ozone standards that cut allowable ground-level ozone levels from 80 parts per billion to 75 ppb. Now EPA wants to slash allowable levels even further: to 70 or even 60 ppb, equivalent to 70 or 60 seconds in 32 years.
The lower limits are essential, it claims, to reduce smog, human respiratory problems and damage to vegetation. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says a 600-page agency staff report strongly recommends this reduction, and her Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee agrees. They all say the lower limits are vital for protecting public health, especially “at-risk populations and life stages.” Her decision will ultimately involve “a scientific judgment” and will “keep people safe,” Ms. McCarthy assures us.
Under terms of a convenient federal court settlement, EPA must issue its proposed new standards by December 1 of this year, and make a final decision by October 2015. The process will be “open and transparent,” with “multiple opportunities” for public hearings and comment throughout, she promised.
EPA has offered little transparency, honesty or opportunity for fair hearings and input by impacted parties thus far, and we should expect none here. But other problems with this proposal are much more serious.
If the 60 ppb standard is adopted, 85% of all US counties would likely become “non-attainment” areas, making it difficult to establish new industrial facilities or expand existing plants. Even in Big Sky, clean-air Wyoming, Teton County could be out of compliance mostly due to emissions from pine trees!
A Manufacturers’ Alliance/MAPI study calculated that a 60 ppb ozone standard would cost the US economy a whopping $1 trillion per year and kill 7.3 million jobs by 2020. A Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and National Association of Manufacturers study concluded that a 60 ppb rule would penalize the state $189 billion for compliance and $53 billion in lost gross domestic product between 2017 and 2040. That’s $10 billion per year in just one state.
But the standard would save lives, EPA predictably claimed, citing 2009 research directed by University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health Professor Michael Jerrett. The study purportedly tracked 448,000 people and claimed to find a connection between long-term ozone exposure and death.
Other researchers sharply criticized Jerrett’s work. His study made questionable assumptions about ozone concentrations, did not rely on clinical tests, ignored the findings of other studies that found no significant link between ground-level ozone and health effects, and failed to gather critically important information on the subjects’ smoking patterns, they pointed out. When they asked to examine his data, Jerrett refused.
Michael Honeycutt, chief toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, says Jerrett and EPA exaggerate health risks from ozone. The Texas Public Policy Foundation told EPA the agency needs to consider “the totality of studies on this issue, rather than giving exclusive weight to a single study,” the foundation emphasized. Unfortunately, EPA almost always focuses on one or two analyses that support its regulatory agenda and ignores any that might slow or derail its onrushing freight train.
Even worse, those lost jobs and GDP result in major impacts on the lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health, welfare and life spans of millions of Americans. And yet, EPA steadfastly refuses to consider these regulatory impacts: for ozone, carbon dioxide, soot, mercury and other rules.
Then there is the matter of outright deception, collusion and fraud at EPA, via these and other tactics.
One such tactic is sue-and-settle lawsuits. Agitator groups meet with EPA officials behind closed doors and agree on new rules or standards. The agency then conveniently misses a deadline, “forcing” the activists to sue. That leads to a court hearing (from which impacted parties are excluded), and a judgment “forcing” the agency to issue new regulations and even pay the agitators’ attorney fees! American Lung Association, NRDC, Sierra Club and EPA sue-and-settle collusion resulted in the new ozone proposal.
This clever sue-and-settle tactic was devised by none other than John Beale the con artist who’s now in prison for bilking taxpayers out of $1 million in salary and travel expenses for his mythical second job as a CIA agent. It defies belief to assume his fraudulent propensities did not extend to his official EPA duties as senior policy advisor with his boss and buddy Robert Brenner, helping Ms. McCarthy and her Office of Air and Radiation develop and implement oppressive regulations. Indeed, his own attorney says he had a “dysfunctional need to engage in excessively reckless, risky behavior” and “manipulate those around him through the fabrication of grandiose narratives.” A US Senate report details the sleazy practice.
As to the “experts” who claim lower ozone limits are vital for protecting public health, there’s this.
The American Lung Association supports the EPA health claims but neglects to mention that EPA has given the ALA $24.7 million over the past 15 years. Overall, during this period, the ALA received $43 million via 591 federal grants, and Big Green foundations bankrolled it with an additional $76 million. But no one is supposed to question the ALA’s credibility, integrity or support for EPA “science.”
EPA also channels vast sums to its “independent” Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which likewise rubberstamps the agency’s pollution claims and regulations. Fifteen CASAC members received over $181 million since 2000. CASAC excludes from its ranks industry and other experts who might question EPA findings. Both EPA and CASAC stonewall and slow-walk FOIA requests and deny requests for correction and reconsideration. Even congressional committees get nowhere.
As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House on Science, Space and Technology Committee, noted in a letter, 16 of the 20 CASAC members who “peer-reviewed” the ozone studies also helped to write the studies. That makes it even less likely that their reviews were “independent.”
That Senate report, The Chains of Environmental Command, also notes that the Obama EPA has been deliberately packed with far-left environmental activists who work with their former Big Green colleagues to shape policy. They give radical groups critical insider access and also funnel millions of taxpayer dollars through grants to their former organizations, often in violation of agency ethics rules.
These arrogant, unelected, unaccountable, deceitful, dictatorial elites think they have a right to impose ozone, carbon dioxide, ObamaCare and other diktats on us, “for our own good.” They are a primary reason American businesses and families are already paying $1.9 trillion per year to comply with mountains of federal regulations $353 billion of these costs from EPA alone. The damage to jobs, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health and welfare is incalculable.
The next Congress should review all EPA data, documents and decisions, root out the fraud and collusion, and defund and ultimately reverse all regulations that do not pass muster. The principle is simple: No data, honesty, transparency or integrity, no regulation, and no taxpayer money to impose it.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.
Alex Epstein’s long-anticipated book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, published by Penguin, comes out today! I reviewed it as, “simply the best popular-market book about climate, environmental policy, and energy that I have read. Laymen and experts alike will be boggled by Epstein’s clarity.”
Alex recently sent us a brief essay based upon material in the book. Alex Epstein is President and Founder of the Center for Industrial Progress - an organization sowing the seeds of energy enthusiasm to counter the tide of climate alarmism. We asked Alex to share a few thoughts with our readers here at Cato; find them below.
If you are in Washington, you might want to meet Alex. He will be giving a Hill Briefing in B-369 Rayburn at 9am on Friday, November 21.
If you ever get asked the vague but morally-charged question “Do you believe in climate change?” someone is trying to put something over on you.
Climate change is a constant of nature and everyone agrees that fossil fuels have some impact on our naturally variable, volatile, and often vicious climate.
The question is whether it will have a catastrophic impact - one so bad it justifies restricting the only practical way to get energy in the foreseeable future to the 3 billion people who have next to none of it: fossil fuels. (No country relies on the sun and wind for energy, but rich countries can afford to pay tens or hundreds of billions to install and accommodate allegedly virtuous wind turbines and solar panels on their grids.)
The real issue is climate catastrophe. I’m not a climate-change skeptic. I’m a climate catastrophe skeptic-and here’s one graph that shows why you should be, too.
No, it’s not showing temperatures have gone up half a degree in the 80 years we’ve used a lot of fossil fuels, which is barely more than they went up the prior 80 years. Nor does it show temperatures have flattened in the past eighteen years while the world’s leading climate catastrophists predicted dramatic, accelerating, runaway warming. Dr. James Hansen predicted that temperatures would increase between two-and-a-half and five degrees in 20 years!
Okay, I’ll show that graph, too. Here it is:
Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged IceCore Record Data, Scripps Institution of OceanographySources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged IceCore Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
But that’s not the graph that really matters. There is no intrinsically perfect global temperature and, if there was, we would expect it to be warmer. Until it became politically correct for temperature trends to warm, people around the world prayed for far more warming than we’ve experienced. There is no time in human history when it has been considered “too warm” for human beings.
What matters is: is the climate becoming more or less livable? The key statistic here, one that is unfortunately almost never mentioned, is “climate-related deaths.”
The best source I have found for this data is the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters International Disaster Database (OFDA/CRED EM-DAT), based in Brussels.1 It gathers data about disasters since 1900.
Here is a graph comparing CO2 emissions, the alleged climate danger, to the number of climate-related deaths, which reflects actual climate danger to humans. It’s striking as CO2 emissions rise, climate-related deaths plunge.
Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2013); Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged IceCore Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; EM-DAT International Disaster DatabaseSources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2013); Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged IceCore Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; EM-DAT International Disaster Database
To make matters better, in reality the trend is even more dramatically downward, as before the 1970s many disasters went unreported. One big reason for this was lack of satellite data - we can now see the whole world, enabling us to track icecaps and disaster areas with relative ease. In 1950, if there was a disaster in the middle of what is now Bangladesh, would information have been accurately collected? In general, we can expect in more recent years, more deaths were recorded and in earlier years, fewer deaths were recorded. For some countries there is simply no good data, because in underdeveloped places like Haiti or Ethiopia we do not even know exactly how many people lived in a particular place before a disaster struck. Today we have much better information - and because disaster statistics are tied to aid, there is incentive to overreport.
And the more we dig into the data, the stronger the correlations get.
Here are a couple of striking numbers from the data: in the decade from 2004 to 2013, worldwide climate-related deaths (including droughts, floods, extreme temperatures, wildfires, and storms) plummeted to a level 88.6 percent below that of the peak decade, 1930 to 1939.2 The year 2013, with 29,404 reported deaths, had 99.4 percent fewer climate-related deaths than the historic record year of 1932, which had 5,073,283 reported deaths for the same category.3
That reduction occurred despite more complete reporting, an incentive to declare greater damage to gain more aid, and a massively growing population, particularly in vulnerable places like coastal areas, in recent times.
The climate catastrophists don’t want you to know this because it reveals how fundamentally flawed their viewpoint is. They treat the global climate system as a stable and safe place we make volatile and dangerous. In fact, the global climate system is naturally volatile and dangerous - we make it livable through development and technology - development and technology powered by the only form of cheap, reliable, scalable reliable energy that can make climate livable for 7 billion people.
As the climate-related death data show, there are some major benefits - namely, the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a durable civilization highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on. Why weren’t those mentioned in the discussion when we talked about storms like Sandy and Irene, even though anyone going through those storms was far more protected from them than he or she would have been a century ago?
I have debated representatives of the three leading environmental organizations in the world - Greenpeace, Sierra Club and 350.org - including 350.org’s Bill McKibben, the leading environmentalist in the world today - and every time, I have repeatedly mentioned the climate livability statistics. I raised it to Bill McKibben before I debated him and half a dozen times during my debate with him - he didn’t acknowledge it. He just called it “one number.” Yeah, one number, based on billions of empirical observations, that destroys billions of dollars worth of speculation.
Why? Because the dogma that man is ruining the planet rather than improving it is a religion, a source of prestige, and a career for too many people. But for the rest of us, the statistic climate catastrophists don’t want us to know is very, very good news.
THE debate about climate change is finished because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s leading meteorologists has claimed.
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.
In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: “The ocean is not rising significantly.The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.”
“Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).”
“I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”
I have studied climate change seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.
John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel
Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an ‘independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.’
He added: “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.
“Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.
“There has been no warming over 18 years.”
The IPCC argue their research shows that man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable.
US News and World Report noted that many of the world’s largest businesses, including Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Nestle, Mars, Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Microsoft, and IBM, “are now engaged and actively responding to climate science and data.”
Mr Coleman’s comments come as President Barack Obama came under fire from climatologists as federal data revealed The United State’s energy-related carbon pollution rose 2.5 per cent despite the President’s pledges to decrease it.
President Obama told 120 world leaders at the United Nations climate summit last month that America had done more under his watch in cutting greenhouse gases than any other country.
Despite this, the Energy Information Administration’s Monthly Energy Review showed an increase in the use of energy from coal.
World leaders have pledged to keep the global average temperature from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.
The US, along with the UK and other developed countries, is expected to pledge further actions on climate change early next year.
Global warming climate change lieThere has been no recorded global warming for 18 years [GETTY]
Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman’s claims.
He added: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.”
“The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.”
In 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was “little evidence” to support the IPCC’s claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had purposely emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
On October 15, 2014 Dr. William Happer, Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, discussed “The Myth of Carbon Pollution.”
“Carbon pollution” is a propaganda slogan for the campaign against carbon dioxide (CO2). It is not science. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant but is essential for plant growth. Current CO2 levels are far below optimum for most plants, and far below norms of geological history, when CO2 concentrations averaged several times higher than present values. A substantial fraction, about 15%, of current world food production is due to the higher levels of CO2 compared to preindustrial values. Contrary to unambiguous computer predictions, there has been no statistically significant surface warming in at least 15 years. It is now clear that the warming potential of CO2 has been exaggerated by a large amount, and it is unlikely to be much more than 1oC for doubling of CO2. There is not the slightest evidence that more CO2 has caused more extreme weather or accelerated sea level rise. Nor is there the slightest support for the notion that government control of CO2 will “stop climate change.” Many real environmental issues need attention, smog, waste disposal, short-sighted suburban development, adequate clean water, public health, etc. These are being overshadowed by the phony issue of “carbon pollution.”
Dr. William Happer is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) at Princeton University, a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, and former director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. In addition to being a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the recipient of numerous awards, including the Alfred P. Sloan fellowship, the Alexander von Humboldt award, the Herbert P. Broida Prize and the Thomas Alva Edison patent award.
Dr. Happer’s Powerpoint presentation is available here.
Marshall’s Dr. William O’Keefe leads a panel on the so-called “Social Cost of Climate”.
At Google, we’re striving to power our company with 100% renewable energy. In addition to the environmental benefits, we see renewable energy as a business opportunity and continue to invest in accelerating its development. We believe that by helping power more of the world with renewable energy, we’re creating a better future for everyone. A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.
“At the start of REC, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope… Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is dangerous - they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production - to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure - even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model.
The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy - the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants - an obvious practical absurdity.
According to the IEEE article;
“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”
I must say I’m personally surprised at the conclusion of this study. I genuinely thought that we were maybe a few solar innovations and battery technology breakthroughs away from truly viable solar power. But if this study is to be believed, solar and other renewables will never in the foreseeable future deliver meaningful amounts of energy.
The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.
Scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
“The sea level is still rising,” Willis noted. “We’re just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details.”
Deep sea creatures, like these anemones at a hydrothermal vent, are not yet feeling the heat from global climate change. Although the top half of the ocean continues to warm, the bottom half has not increased measurably in temperature in the last decade. Image credit: NERC
In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world’s oceans above the 1.24-mile mark is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.
Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the “missing” heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim. This latest study is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean. Scientists have been taking the temperature of the top half of the ocean directly since 2005, using a network of 3,000 floating temperature probes called the Argo array.
“The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure,” said JPL’s William Llovel, lead author of the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. “The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is—not much.”
The study took advantage of the fact that water expands as it gets warmer. The sea level is rising because of this expansion and the water added by glacier and ice sheet melt.
While the upper part of the world’s oceans continue to absorb heat from global warming, ocean depths have not warmed measurably in the last decade. This image shows heat radiating from the Pacific Ocean as imaged by the NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System instrument on the Terra satellite.
(Blue regions indicate thick cloud cover.) Image credit: NASA
To arrive at their conclusion, the JPL scientists did a straightforward subtraction calculation, using data for 2005-2013 from the Argo buoys, NASA’s Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites, and the agency’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites. From the total amount of sea level rise, they subtracted the amount of rise from the expansion in the upper ocean, and the amount of rise that came from added meltwater. The remainder represented the amount of sea level rise caused by warming in the deep ocean.
The remainder was essentially zero. Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.
With the hopes of an El Nino fading (now reduced to a 58% probability), and what could be another early start to an unusually cold and snowy winter, it is useful to take a step back and examine why some of us have been harping for years on what really controls North American climate variations on the timescale of your lifetime: natural climate cycles.
The most prominent of these are the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
Not only do these cycles profoundly influence North American climate, there is considerable evidence that they are partly responsible for that popular hobgoblin, “global warming”.
As the following graphic shows, the PDO - which was originally discovered as the main control over fisheries productivity off the west coast of North America - is also related to periods when global temperatures were rising or falling, which tend to occur over ~30 year periods:
We aren’t sure how this happens, but small natural variations in global average cloud cover changing how much sunlight is let into the climate system are a strong possibility.
The issue is important because, to the extent that natural climate cycles are partly responsible for recent global warming, the less reason there is to be concerned about energy policies which reduce the use of fossil fuels, currently necessary for human prosperity. With today’s news that President Obama will continue to pursue executive action on climate change, while not requiring equal commitments from the largest greenhouse gas emitter China, it is important that people understand that most of what we experience in terms of weather and climate change is largely out of our control.
The trouble with including natural climate cycles in the national discussion of global warming is both political and scientific: (1) it doesn’t fit the global warming narrative driven by policy goals, and (2) we don’t understand what causes natural climate cycles, and so they cannot be included in computer climate models.
Government research funding for at least 25 years has hinged on the assumption of human causation, and as I have always said, if you fund scientists to find a connection, they will indeed find it. That’s why the resulting research that is published also is dominated by explanations involving human causation.
Nevertheless, it is fairly easy to show that natural cycles are indeed involved in not only regional changes, but “global warming” as well.
For example, the accompanying spreadsheet shows that over the most recent warming period (since the late 1970s), the PDO, AMO, and El Nino/La Nina activity can statistically account for most of the recent warming of global average sea surface temperatures.
But statistics aren’t enough. Since we understand that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and should cause some warming, but we don’t understand natural climate cycles, scientists only look where the streetlight of government funding illuminates the problem: CO2.
What complicates policymaking even further is that what motivates public perceptions and thus decision makers the most are weather events. Hurricane Sandy. A snowy winter. We end up blaming these on the only thing we thing we think we understand - increasing CO2 should cause some change, so it must be responsible for all of the change we see.
Those natural cycles - well documented in the scientific literature for at least their regional effects - are forgotten. Except by some of us who have been working in the climate field for at least a few decades. Ask Weatherbell’s Joe Bastardi, who has been talking about these natural cycles for years - and using them to make good long-range forecasts.
The recent admission that natural changes are responsible for the California drought was not news to some of us. What is news is that some pretty big research names that would be assumed to be part of the global warming bureaucracy are the ones now saying it.
So, as the unseasonal cold settles in over the U.S. this week, don’t be fooled by those who claim “global warming causes cooling”. What we are seeing is natural variability, likely dominated by the oceans. The “new weather norm” might well be different from what anyone less than 30 years old has been used to.
To the extent that human-caused warming is occurring, I am increasingly convinced it is a largely benign - and possibly beneficial - needle lost in the haystack of Mother Nature’s natural climate gyrations.
See the NIPCC very detailed assessment of the data that falsifies the data predictions made by Hansen, Gore, IPCC and the continued nonsense we get from the world’s governments on the national and local level here.
See also RISING SEA LEVEL FORECASTS: FACT OR FICTION? by Professor Cliff Ollier here.
Summary of Sea Level Predictions by N.J. Ford
Actual sea level rises to date, may be somewhere between 1.4mm per year (Skeptic scientists) and 1.7mm per year (IPCC position). In calculating the prediction errors, the IPCC figure has been used. The errors would be larger if the skeptical scientists’ figure was used. These figures assume that the natural sea rises are included in their predictions.
IPCC First Report (1990-1992), Summary for Policy Makers, p.52. Sea levels will rise by one meter by the year 2100 (110 years-times). This is 9.1mm per year. Error to date is 535%
IPCC Second Report (1995), Summary for Policy Makers, p.23. Sea levels will rise by 95cm by the year 2100 (105 years-times). This is 9.0mm per year. Error to date is 532%
IPCC Third Report (2001), Summary for Policy Makers, p.32. Sea levels will rise by 88cm by the year 2100 (99 years-times). This is 8.9mm per year. Error to date is 523%
IPCC Fourth Report (2007), Summary for Policy Makers, p.7-8. Sea levels will rise by 59cm by the year 2100 (93 years-times). This is 6.3mm per year. Error to date is 373%
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 1988 predicted sea levels would rise two meters by the year 2100 (112 years-time). This is 17.9mm per year. Error to date is 1,050%
Al Gore and his NASA scientific advisor James Hansen predicted sea levels would rise six meters by 2050 in 1988, a meter each decade (62 years-time), with the Florida Keys being one meter under water by the year 2000.. This is 96.8mm per year. Error to date is 5,693%
NSW Councils (e.g. Gosford, quoting the best international scientists including CSIRO and ANU) in 1995 was advising residents with water front properties that by 2015 (20 years-time) sea levels would rise by 6 metres. This is 300mm per year. Error to date is 17,647%
NSW Councils (e.g. Gosford, quoting the best international scientists including CSIRO and ANU) in 2011 was advising residents with water front properties that by 2100 (89 years-time) sea levels would rise by 90cm. This is 10.1mm per year. Error to date is 595%%
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 1995 predicted sea levels rises would result in 50 million climate refugees by the year 2010. No climate refugees by that year. Very large Error
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 2011 re-predicted sea levels rises would result in 50 million climate refugees by the year 2020. This is likely to be another very large Error
For the last twenty years the Greens and their scientists have been telling us the islands of the Tuvalu and Maldives were sinking into the ocean. In 2011 aerial photographs taken 60 years apart show the land area of all Tuvalu islands have grown by 5-30%. No discernible change in the Maldives. Very large Error
In 2005, Professor Flannery, a climate advisor to the Australian Government, predicted Sydney would be covered by 20 meters of water by the year 2050 (45 years-times). This is 444mm per year. Error to date is 26,144%
8 min. video also makes all kinds of renewable energy claims.
DiCaprio fights ‘carbon monster’ in new eco-documentary featuring Joe Romm & Sen. Bernie Sanders
Leonardo DiCaprio: ‘We no longer need the dead economy of the fossil fuel industry.’
‘DiCaprio and climate scientists argue that coal, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are a “monster” that has created catastrophic surges in the earth’s surface temperature. In response, some lawmakers around the world are tinkering with ways to make carbon more expensive, and sustainable forms of energy - such as wind power - cheap.’
The first film in the series, titled “Carbon,” calls for more federal action to control carbon dioxide pollution. We cannot sit idly by and watch the fossil fuel industry make billions at our collective expense. We must put a price on carbon - now,” DiCaprio said in a statement. The eight-minute long film argues that a tax should be placed on carbon in order to keep global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius.
DiCaprio produced an AGW movie 11th Hour that bombed in the box office. Here he shows how little science and how few people saw his film.
Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.
See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.
From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge
Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.
See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.
Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.
“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)