Political Climate
Mar 08, 2020
Attribution - right and wrong

Joseph S. D’Aleo

I have been involved in my entire career in attribution analysis in weather and climate. It started in grad school when I did my thesis on the conditions that lead to explosive development in east coast winter storms (now called bomb cyclones). In the early 1970s, my doctoral work was on atmospheric chemistry. At the time the concern was on the effects of particulates that man produced and the threat of global cooling as well as greenhouse gases like water vapor and to a smaller degree trace gases like CO2. In most presentations over the years I have pointed out that CO2 has been much higher in the past than today, that it is at coming off plant growth limiting low levels as Dr Patrick Moore and Princeton Physicist Will Happer have discussed and presented. We breathe out 100 times the CO2 than we breathe in. We pump CO2 into greenhouses at 3 to 4 times ambient levels.

image

After one such presentation, the modeller who presented, responded to me that a drop or two of arsenic in a drink could kill someone. I told him put the two drops in a lake and not even a single minnow dies. I reminded him:

The solution to pollution is dilution

At the same time as I was doing grad work, i worked 7-day a week as weather producer for the CBS broadcasts in NYC, I had to deal with the urban versus rural, sea coast versus hilly interior temperature variances in one of the biggest and important and diverse viewing regions.

In the mid-1970s, as a professor at a budding new program at LSC in VT. My courses were on weather, climatology, microclimatology, analysis and forecasting. While there, my students and I were fortunate to meet and learn from the guest giants in the field including Jerome Namias on the roles ocean warm and cold pools have on seasonal weather and how these change longer term. We learned also from MIT’s Hurd Willett also some ways solar cycles have an effect on climate on the short term, decadal and longer periods. And from the great David Ludlum on extremes of the past.

In the 1980s as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel, I brought in more experts for the staff and we together pioneered in medium range forecasting, in seasonal forecasting and educational features on what conditions affect hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts and snow. We did stories on El Nino before it became a household name.

Late in the 1980s, research showed how El Ninos and La Ninas had global impacts and that the Pacific Ocean went through decadal changes that influenced global temperatures and extremes. In the 1990s, I found the Pacific Decadal phases influenced the frequency of El Ninos and the resulting conditions in North America. Research in this time period also showed solar effects were modulated by the high level tropical winds which we added to our toolbox.

TEMPERATURE DATA

In the late 1980s, NCDC and Tom Karl issued the first version of US historical data back to 1895. It was adjusted for urbanization. We correlated these features with this high quality US data and found the oceans and sun could explain all the changes we saw in our climate back to the late 1800s (link). I published peer-reviewed papers and made frequent presentations on this finding and showed the ability to use them to predict upcoming seasons, developing a statistical model to predict global seasonal changes. I found some of these same factors play a key role on the risk of extremes, which we use to advise regions at risk.

This U.S. data set was widely thought to be the best data in the world - for stability of the stations and coverage. But it showed no warming. NASA who relied on NOAA for US data and NOAA both had to explain why the temperatures in the record for the US were cyclical with no upward bias in the entire record like the first operational global NOAA data set global land data released in 1992. They had to say the U.S. only covered 1.6% of the land areas and was not representative of the true trend.

This ‘bothersome 1940 warm blip’ like the Medieval Warm Period were the true “Inconvenient Truths” of the past 20 years.

image

While we were getting smarter about the real drivers, politics was driving climate science in another direction. The scientific method was abandoned and unprecedented funding incented scientists, laboratories, universities and government agencies to show that CO2 was the main driver for the warming cycle and all extremes of weather.  The sinister goal was to control our energy sources, manufacturing and ultimately with all their progressive agenda programs all aspects of our life. They believe as people felt the pain they would turn to government to save them.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help. Ronald Reagan

The now debunked hockey stick and a new US data version w/o UHI adjustments took care of the inconvenient data, They played whack a mole with the data to eliminate the earlier warm periods so they could make a case this was unique and must be our fault.

image

image
Initially, this global data had a cyclical pattern similar to previously reported Northern Hemisphere data (high in the 1930s and 40s, low in the 70s).  Then, as time progressed, the previous officially reported GAST data history was modified, removing the cycle and creating a more and more strongly upward sloping linear trend in each freshly reported historical data set.  Peer reviewed, published and readily reproducible research has shown that: "The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality."

In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, which removed their cyclical temperature patterns are completely inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, despite current assertions of record-setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA and NASA data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.

Models had become the principal tool to create data to fill in the large gaps that existed in the historical data as well as adjust the data. By mixing data with models you can more easily manipulate trends to better agree with theories. Professional societies and their journals became an important part of the climate cabal, controlling what gets published. With help from the compliant media every event is proclaimed to be our fault and made a reason to abandon low cost and reliable energy.

The journals claim they now have a strong case for attribution for extreme weather given CO2 changes to temperature. This is patently false.

They claim record highs are increasing but in actual fact, heat records have decline since the 1930s and for US long-term stations. Record high and low data has not been modified because they are in widespread use unlike the longer-term data. The top ten years for 90F temperatures were all before 1956. Global temperatures for the continents all peaked long ago, but a few new records have been found the last two years as they have been aggressively looking to make that other inconvenient fact go away. Hurricane and major hurricane landfall this past decade were both the lowest since 1850. This last decade had the fewest major tornadoes. Droughts and floods show not clear trends and earlier in 2019, we had the smallest areal extent of drought in the U.S. in the record, Snow has increased in the U.S. and globally with fall snowcover at record levels and winter rising. Snow in spring and summer is down but as NOAA advised in 2000 they made a change to automated sensing which affects areal extent in the warm season and data pre and post 2000 comparisons were not advised. Arctic ice decline relates to cycles of warm and cold in both the Atlantic and Pacific. Current levels are comparable to the 1920s to 1950s. This cycle is seen in Greenland as well. Antarctic ice set a modern record high a few years ago. Sea level rise has slowed globally. An adjustment was made up to satellite measurements of sea level when they could not detect sea level rises. See much more detail on the big WEATHER IS MORE EXTREME lie here.

Their control over the data and the models and of the publications turned climate change into a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Anyone who disagrees is declared an enemy of the people.

THE REAL DANGER

Current climate policies- based on these unreliable temperature records - threaten our economic and national security interests. As the proposed climate policies grow more extreme, the consequences of allowing this record to remain unchallenged gravely threatens an onslaught of litigation based on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Importantly, this litigation imposes significant impediments to the mineral land leasing and pipeline infrastructure build out necessary to maintain and enhance energy independence and economic prosperity.

Furthermore, the US financial sector has already dramatically curtailed its support of conventional energy source development in large part due to the continued calls for regulatory destruction of the fossil fuel industry based substantially on NOAA and NASA’s now invalidated global surface temperature records. This situation is putting our Nation’s energy security at grave risk - which means our economic and national security are also in great peril.

Some Published reviews and press releases our team have produced.

URL FOR 2011 KISS Paper

URL for 2017 Research Report and Press Release.

URL for GAST RR Press Release: June 2017

URL for 2017 GAST Report GAST RR: June 2017

URL for the EF DATA Comment on Christy Paper Third RR:

URL for the EF DATA Comment on Christy et al Paper Final 042818V4

URL for Alarmist Claim Rebuttals AC Rebuttals:

See the Heartland’s Climate at a Glance here.

Cartoon Dilbert: On Sun, Mar 10, 2019

URL FOR THE 031519 NSPS COMMENT FILING - FINAL

All our efforts are volunteer (pro-bono). Help us with a donation if you can (left column).



Mar 07, 2020
The Real New York Times, Or A Parody?


Feb 13, 2020
What if Hydraulic Fracking was Banned?

Global Accountability Series 2010

The recent growth in U.S. oil and natural gas production has been a boon to both our economy and the environment. From new jobs and higher tax revenues to lower energy costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, there is no question the shale energy renaissance has greatly improved America’s energy outlook.

Recently, however, some candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled this boom - hydraulic fracturing (HF), or fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if hydraulic fracturing was banned? In this report, the Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question.
Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.

Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.

Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump for gasoline as oil prices spike to $130 per barrel. The report also details the impacts that a ban would have on seven states, including five that are major energy producers - Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Not surprisingly, the results would devastate each of those energy states’ economies. But a fracking ban’s impacts would be felt well beyond energy producing regions, so the report also examines the impacts of a ban on the economies of Michigan and Wisconsin, which are large manufacturing states. There, too, the results are significant. For example, cost-of-living impacts to residential consumers in Wisconsin and
Michigan would grow by approximately $4,700 and $5,100 respectively between 2021 and 2025.

Under a fracking ban, less domestic energy production also means less energy security, as the United States once again returns to a heavy dependence on imported oil and natural gas. This would quickly reverse America’s rise as a major oil and natural gas exporter, an achievement that has reduced our trade deficit while helping our allies and trading partners enhance their energy security, reduce emissions, and ensure the energy they purchase is produced under one of the most stringent environmental regulatory regimes in the world.

Additionally, increased prices for natural gas would undermine the progress we have made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2005, the increased use of natural gas has helped reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by more than 2.8 billion metric tons1 roughly the equivalent of annual emissions from Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom combined.

In short, America’s energy revolution is delivering enormous rewards for jobs, the economy, and the environment. We must recognize these achievements and expand the benefits of U.S. shale to even more American families, while ensuring that progress achieved to date is not suddenly reversed by an ill-advised ban on hydraulic fracturing.

19 MILLION JOBS LOST
Starting in 2021, a ban would cost the economy 4 million jobs in 2021 alone, and 19 million jobs by 2025.

GASOLINE PRICES DOUBLE
Consumers would pay 37 percent more for petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel in 2021, with prices continuing to rise through 2025, when they would be roughly double what they are today. This is largely driven by skyrocketing oil prices that will exceed $130 per barrel in 2025.

NATURAL GAS PRICES INCREASE 324 PERCENT
The price for U.S. natural gas - currently the largest source of power generation in the country - would surge, increasing costs for American families, businesses, and power generators. Our analysis finds that natural gas prices would be $12.30 per million British thermal unit (MMBtu) in 2025, an increase of 324 percent over the baseline or the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario.

HOUSEHOLD POWER PRICES QUADRUPLE
U.S. households would pay over four times more for their electricity in 2025, driven in large part by rising natural gas prices.

HIGHER OVERALL COST OF LIVING
Through 2025, consumers would pay $5,661 more per capita in higher prices for energy and other goods and services. Over the same period, nationwide household incomes would fall by $3.7 trillion, leaving consumers to pay higher bills with less income.

NEARLY $1.9 TRILLION IN LOST TAX REVENUE
Local, state and Federal tax revenues would decline by nearly $1.9 trillion through 2025.

$7.1 TRILLION LOSS OF GDP
GDP would immediately decline by $523 billion in 2021 relative to a world where the shale revolution is allowed to continue. This decline in GDP escalates to $2.3 trillion in lost GDP in 2025 - a loss of 11 percent of our 2018 GDP ($20.5 trillion). Through 2025, GDP would decline by $7.1 trillion.

ENERGY AND MANUFACTURING DEVASTATED
In this report, we take a closer look at five states with large energy economies, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico, and two other states with significant manufacturing sectors, Michigan and Wisconsin. Below is a snapshot that a ban on hydraulic fracturing would have on these states in 2025 due to higher prices for petroleum products, natural gas, and electricity.

INCREASED IMPORTS AND REDUCED ENERGY SECURITY
A ban on hydraulic fracturing would be a geopolitical setback for the United States, which would return to reliance on international suppliers of oil and natural gas, including Russia and members of OPEC, giving these countries greater clout in international energy markets. Higher global prices because of reduced U.S. production would benefit our economic and geopolitical competitors and cede valuable market share to countries like Venezuela, all at a time when demand for oil and natural gas is set to grow considerably around the world, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

-----------

This analysis is supported by these studies: here and here.



Page 2 of 641 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »