Skip to Primary Navigation Skip to Primary Content Skip to Footer Navigation
▽ Explore More ▽ Hide

Climate and Climate Change

Climate and Climate Change

Climate Change

Two days before Halloween, 2011, New England was struck by a freak winter storm. Heavy snow descended onto trees covered with leaves.  Overloaded branches fell on power lines.  Blue flashes of light in the sky indicated exploding transformers.  Electricity was out for days in some areas and for weeks in others. Damage to property and disruption of lives was widespread.

That disastrous restriction on human energy supplies was produced by Nature.  However, current and future energy curtailments are being forced on the populace by Federal policies in the name of dangerous “climate change/global warming”.  Yet, despite the contradictions between what people are being told and what people have seen and can see about the weather and about the climate, they continue to be effectively steered away from the knowledge of such contradictions to focus on the claimed disaster effects of  “climate change/global warming” (AGW, “Anthropogenic Global Warming”). 

People are seldom told HOW MUCH is the increase of temperatures or that there has been no increase in globally averaged temperature for over 18 years.  They are seldom told how miniscule is that increase compared to swings in daily temperatures. They are seldom told about the dangerous effects of government policies on their supply of “base load” energy — the uninterrupted energy that citizens depend on 24/7 — or about the consequences of forced curtailment of industry-wide energy production with its hindrance of production of their and their family’s food, shelter, and clothing. People are, in essence, kept mostly ignorant about the OTHER SIDE of the AGW debate.

Major scientific organizations — once devoted to the consistent pursuit of understanding the natural world — have compromised their integrity and diverted membership dues in support of some administrators’ AGW agenda.   Schools throughout the United States continue to engage in relentless AGW indoctrination of  students, from kindergarten through university.  Governments worldwide have been appropriating vast sums for “scientific” research, attempting to convince the populace that the use of fossil fuels must be severely curtailed to “save the planet.”  Prominent businesses — in league with various politicians who pour ever more citizen earnings into schemes such as ethanol in gasoline, solar panels, and wind turbines — continue to tilt against imaginary threats of AGW.  And even religious leaders and organizations have joined in to proclaim such threats.   As a consequence, AGW propaganda is proving to be an extraordinary vehicle for the exponential expansion of government power over the lives of its citizens. 

Reasoning is hindered by minds frequently in a state of alarm.  The object of this website is an attempt to promote a reasoned approach; to let people know of issues pertaining to the other side of the AGW issue and the ways in which it conflicts with the widespread side of AGW alarm (AGWA, for short).  In that way it is hoped that all members of society can make informed decisions.

A Failure of Belief

“One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are — for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable — they just don’t believe science and they don’t believe authority,” Fauci told the Learning Curve podcast, which is produced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)., Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Dr. Fauci’s comments were made in the context of the recent COVID19 pandemic and were critical of American’s responses to the recommendations of scientists and government officials in response to the pandemic. However, belief in science becomes difficult when the issue is: “What does the science say today?”. Belief in authority becomes difficult when the issue is: “What is the official position today?”.

Multiple scientific positions, from multiple sources, regarding epidemiology, transmission, symptomatology, treatment, mortality, etc. caused many to wonder what, if anything, was the science to “believe” as opposed to the latest informed opinion. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the science was the wildly varying estimates of infection and mortality rates.

Multiple conflicting positions by those supposedly in authority were equally confusing and raised similar questions about what to “believe”. Some actions by those in authority, such as consigning active COVID19 cases to nursing homes and extended care facilities resulted in numerous additional deaths among sensitive populations.

Science and authority have not performed with distinction during the pandemic. Therefore, rather than being critical of this “failure of belief”, I believe the “failure of belief” is a reasonable and rational response to the performance of science and authority. The response is not “anti-science” or “anti-authority” as much as it is uncertainty about what is scientific and what is authoritative.

While Dr. Fauci’s criticism was focused on the pandemic response, its implications are far more broadly applicable.

“The science is settled” is the clarion cry of the consensed climate science community. However, there remain numerous valid questions regarding what the science is. Global average near-surface and tropospheric temperatures are rising, but it is not currently possible to determine the portion of this warming which is natural recovery from the Little Ice Age, other natural factors and anthropogenic influences. Global average sea levels are rising, as the have been for more than 150 years, but there is no measurable influence of increased global average temperatures on the rate of rise; and, there remain questions regarding the actual rate of rise. The future influence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations remains uncertain. The climate models produce widely varying projections, depending on the choice of model, climate sensitivity, forcings and feedbacks. Belief in the science is difficult because it is not clear what the science is.

Authority also presents no clear, concise, consistent position regarding future actions necessary to avoid a climate catastrophe. Some in positions of authority state that we have somewhere between 6 months and 12 years to mend our evil ways and save the planet. Belief in authority is difficult because it is not clear what is authoritative. Certainly not all the positions espoused by those in authority can be accurate since they are inconsistent.

Skepticism is an essential characteristic of the pursuit of science. Skepticism is also an inherent quality of humanity. Neither science nor authority is a religion, so neither should require belief, and both should require proof.

 

Tags: Climate Skeptics, Climate Science

Highlighted Article: The Shellenberger Chronicles

  • 8/13/20 at 03:00 AM

 

From: CFACT

By: Dr. Jay Lehr

Date: July 15 - July 25, 2020

 

The Shellenberger Chronicles

Part 1: A Rude Awakening
Part 2: Protecting the Planet Intelligently

Part 3: Do radical environmentalists mean well? Get serious!

 

"In June of 2020 Michael Shellenberger published a very important book titled APOCALYPSE NEVER: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. In an interview with the Heartland Institute, Mr. Shellenberger indicated that he thought it was the most important book yet to be written on the delusion that has engulfed the entire world for decades, man caused global warming. He is confidant the book will be a game changer in eventually releasing people everywhere from the false fear that has been rained upon them. While there is nothing in the book that has not been said and printed by elite climate scientists often before, I for one am inclined to agree with him as to the books importance. I certainly hope he is correct" ...

 

Part 1: A Rude Awakening
Part 2: Protecting the Planet Intelligently

Part 3: Do radical environmentalists mean well? Get serious!

 

Tags: Highlighted Article

Factual?

  • factual: of or relating to facts; restricted to or based on fact (Merriam-Webster)
  • nonfactual: not relating to, concerned with or based on facts (Merriam-Webster)
  • counterfactual: contrary to fact (Merriam-Webster)
  • deceptive: tending or having power to cause someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid

Several aspects of what constitutes “common knowledge” regarding climate change are factual. Climate is changing, as it always has. Sea levels are rising, as they have in the past and have been for at least 170 years. The global average tropospheric temperature is increasing. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing; and, the additional CO2 is contributing to global greening.

Several aspects of what constitutes “common knowledge” and the “consensus” regarding climate change are nonfactual; they are estimates. The ~1°C increase in global average near-surface temperature anomalies is an estimate, since global instrument coverage is inadequate in certain regions and near-surface data are “adjusted” and “infilled”, rendering them estimates. Assertions that CO2 is wholly or primarily responsible for near-surface temperature increases are based on estimates.

Global average sea surface temperature anomalies are nonfactual estimates, since global sea surface temperature instrument coverage is inadequate and data are “adjusted” and “infilled”. Ocean heat content calculations are also estimates because of sparse instrument coverage and limitations of measurement at depth.

Computer model projections of future climate conditions are nonfactual, since none of the models have been verified and none have demonstrated predictive skill. The projections are also nonfactual because their temperature anomaly inputs are estimates and their sensitivity inputs and feedback inputs constitute ranges of estimated values. There is currently no assurance that the actual sensitivities and feedbacks lie within the ranges used as inputs.

Computer model attributions of changes in weather events to climate change are also nonfactual estimates, since the computer models used for the attribution calculations are unverified.

Assertions regarding increased frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and floods are counterfactual, as documented here. Assertions that this would be the case in the future are based on unverified climate models.

Regrettably, some of what is reported regarding climate change is intentionally deceptive: and, much of it is presented in government reports. The most common deception is the reporting of the “warmest year ever” based on data which is of insufficient accuracy to permit such determinations. NOAA and NASA GISS are both guilty of this deception.

Arguably, the most alarming collection of climate science deceptions is contained in the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which is prepared by a group of scientists to inform federal government policy regarding climate. This deception has been documented by Tony Heller in a series of YouTube videos, of which this is the most damning. The contributors to the Assessment “cherry-picked” the start dates in their graphical presentations to present the data beginning with the lowest point in the data for each issue they addressed, rather than showing all of the data from the beginning of the data record. This is clearly intentional and purposeful deception.

Rosanne D’Arrigo once explained to an astounded National Academy of Sciences panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie. This approach is not desirable if you want to make science.

 

Tags: Temperature Record, Sea Surface Temperature (SST), Climate Models, Estimates as Facts, Climate Predictions

Nuisance

DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Several California cities and counties filed nuisance lawsuits in state courts against major oil and gas companies based on their production and promotion of their products. The stated intent of the lawsuits is not to end the nuisance, but rather to seek funding to assist the plaintiffs to adapt to sea level rise caused by the use of the fossil fuels produced and sold by these companies. The companies had the suits transferred to the federal courts on procedural grounds and then moved to have the suits dismissed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that the various lawsuits could proceed in the state courts, though it is highly likely that the cases will return to the federal courts on appeal, regardless of the outcome in the state courts.

The operations of these companies in the State of California are licensed and regulated. These operations were not previously viewed as nuisances as: state, county and local agencies built and maintained roads for use by vehicles fueled with these companies products; approved production and refinery capacity to produce the products and transmission and distribution pipeline facilities to deliver the products; approved residential, commercial and industrial buildings and facilities which would use these products for a variety of applications; and, taxed the facilities and the products they produced, refined, delivered, sold and used.

The lawsuits were filed in response to climate model projections of rapid, dangerous sea level rise in the future, which would require the plaintiff jurisdictions to expend massive adaptation funding. There are several significant issues regarding the basis of the lawsuits.

Tide gauge measurements of sea level rise began in the 1850s, approximately 100 years before the widespread use of fossil fuels is believed to have begun influencing global climate. There is no indication of an acceleration of the rate of sea level rise over that 170 year period; and, therefore, no basis on which to assert that the widespread and rapidly growing use of fossil fuels beginning in the mid-20th century contributed to sea level rise. Satellite measurement of sea level began in 1992. The satellite measurements of the rate of sea level rise are roughly twice the rates measured by tide gauges, but there is no indication of an acceleration of the rate of rise in the satellite data. The discrepancy in the rates of rise is currently unexplained.

The models used to project future rates of sea level rise are currently unverified and have demonstrated no predictive ability. Therefore, there is no certainty that the potential future effects of sea level rise to which the plaintiffs assert they would be required to adapt would actually occur.

Finally, if the use of fossil fuels were contributing to sea level rise, that contribution would be the result of the use of all fossil fuels globally, not merely the use of oil and gas consumed in the State of California and marketed and sold by the defendants in the California lawsuits.

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” - Carl Sandburg

 

Tags: Climate Change Lawsuits

Highlighted Article: Memo to Biden

  • 7/30/20 at 03:00 AM

 

From: Master Resource

By: Robert Bradley Jr.

Date: July 20 - July 23, 2020

 

Memo to Biden

 

W. S. Jevons (1865) on Wind - Part 1
W. S. Jevons (1865) on Waterpower, Biomass. and Geothermal - Part 2
W. S. Jevons on Coal - Part 3
W. S. Jevons on Energy Efficiency - Part 4

 

“The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.”

The most important book written on energy economics was the first: William Stanley Jevons’s The Coal Question (London: Macmillan and Company, 1865, rev. 1866). This classic is available in its entirety on the Internet.

Jevons’s remarkably sophisticated treatment of energy sustainability remains pertinent today. In a real sense, the Biden approach to energy was refuted by the insight of W. S. Jevons more than 150 years ago.

This four-part series will continue this week with Waterpower, Biomass, and Geothermal; Coal; and Energy Efficiency." ...

 

W. S. Jevons (1865) on Wind - Part 1
W. S. Jevons (1865) on Waterpower, Biomass. and Geothermal - Part 2
W. S. Jevons on Coal - Part 3
W. S. Jevons on Energy Efficiency - Part 4

 

Tags: Highlighted Article

Climate and Game Theory

Zero-sum, positive-sum, and negative-sum are all game theory terms that refer to the outcomes of a dispute or negotiation. They refer to the actual amount of wealth (money, land, vacation time) -- measurable rewards -- that each party receives. (link)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process which led to the Paris Accords has been a 25-year international negotiation regarding atmospheric emissions and wealth. It has been a very difficult negotiation because, ultimately, the primary focus of the negotiation must be a negative sum game. To achieve the desired outcome of the process, all parties to the negotiation must reduce their emissions of the gases identified as the primary drivers of anthropogenic global warming and climate change toward a goal of net-zero emissions. To achieve this endgame, there can be no “winners”.

The negotiations have seen the UN member nations divide into three basic groupings: developed nations, developing nations and not-yet-developing nations. The developed nations are seen as having been responsible for much of the increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other gases identified as “greenhouse gases”. The developing nations are rapidly increasing their emissions of these gases as their economies develop. Interestingly, China, the globe’s second largest economy, is classed as a developing nation, though its annual CO2 emissions are the globe’s largest by a factor of two.

The developing and not-yet-developing nations believe that they should be able to continue to increase their emissions as they pursue economic development; and, that the developed nations should decrease their emissions to offset the increases by the developing and not-yet-developing nations. This position is based on their concepts of economic and climate “justice”. However, this position is untenable when the largest and fastest growing emitter is a developing country; and, as a result, global annual emissions continue to increase and will for the foreseeable future. This approach has effectively converted what was supposed to be a negative-sum game into a positive-sum game.

A secondary focus of the UNFCCC process is the Green Climate Fund, intended to transfer wealth and income from the developed nations to the developing and not-yet-developing nations to fund climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts and provide compensatory finding for “loss and damage” resulting from climate change. The Green Climate Fund is designed as a zero-sum game in which the losses experienced by the developed nations transferring wealth and income to the Fund are equal to the gains experienced by the recipients of distributions from the Fund plus the administrative overhead of the Fund. The “winners” are more committed to this game than the “losers”.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the UNFCCC process will not be able to achieve its stated objectives without some overarching global government structure which has the power to enforce the emissions reductions and transfer payments determined necessary to achieve the objectives. However, there appears to be little interest on the part of the developed countries and the largest of the developing countries to surrender their sovereignty and subject themselves to the dictates of a global government.

 

Tags: Green Climate Fund, Paris Agreement

Highlighted Article: Update: Global Man-made CO2 emissions 1965 – 2019, BP data

  • 7/23/20 at 03:00 AM

 

From: Watts Up With That?

By: Charles Rotter

Date: June 23, 2020

 

Update: Global Man-made CO2 emissions 1965 – 2019, BP data

 

"Introduction

Every June BP publish their statistical review of world energy.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

One element of their comprehensive set of spreadsheets is a table of CO2 emissions by world countries since 1965.  For the purposes of this post, the CO2 emissions data provided by BP here is assumed to be correct.

Screenshot 2020-06-17 at 12.46.30.png

That data is here and aggregated into seven Nation groups according to nominal state of development and attitudes towards controlling CO2 emissions, as follows:

  • Developed
    • USA
    • JP CIS CA AU
    • EU (28)
  • Nominally Developing
    • China HK
    • India
    • KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW
    • Rest of World (~160 Nations)

The aggregate data of CO2 emissions growth is summarised from 1965 onwards are shown above.  The marked differential between the Developed and nominally Developing worlds is shown below.

It shows:

  • The virtual stabilisation of world emissions 2012 – 2019
  • The continuing diminution of CO2 emissions from the Developed world from 2005 onwards
  • The growing escalation of CO2 emissions from the “Developing” world, including China and India. This growth of CO2 emissions will inevitably continue and accelerate." ...

 

Update: Global Man-made CO2 emissions 1965 – 2019, BP data

 

Tags: Highlighted Article

“Greenwashing” Socialism

greenwashing: expressions of environmentalist concerns especially as a cover for products, policies, or activities – Merriam-Webster

socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods – Merriam-Webster

 

Environmental activists have accused numerous corporations of “greenwashing” to improve their public image regarding environmental issues. The questioned corporate actions range from introduction of a limited number of new “green” products or services to refocusing marketing and advertising of existing products and services as “green”. The activists have attempted to assure that “it’s not easy being green”.

 

Environmental activists inside and outside government are participating in an international effort to greenwash socialism. In the United States, this effort has culminated in the introduction of the Green New Deal and A Green Stimulus to Rebuild Our Economy, which combines elements of the Green New Deal and the Blue New Deal.

 

Each of these programs embodies numerous “green” elements, primarily focused on climate change, though it is clear that none of these “green” program elements would have any measurable impact on global climate change, if for no other reason than that they are not global in scope. Each of these programs also embodies numerous socialist elements, all of which would move the nation further toward socialism. This movement toward socialism would have a measurable societal impact.

 

The Green New Deal would: “Enact energy democracy based on public, community and worker ownership of our energy system. Treat energy as a human right.” It would also effectively eliminate property rights associated with energy: “End destructive energy extraction and associated infrastructure: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, natural gas pipelines, and uranium mines.” These aspects of the Green New Deal are consistent with the socialist effort to eliminate certain historic rights while creating new “human rights” including rights to medical care, food, housing, employment and a “living wage”.

 

The Green Stimulus to Rebuild Our Economy builds on the Green New Deal and the Blue New Deal to “greenwash” a program of expanded socialism during the economic recovery from the COVID-19 shutdown. Public housing, affordable housing, rent control, federal zoning regulations, workers cooperatives, unionization, worker ownership, living wage, etc. have little or no impact on climate change, but they do expand socialism.

 

Estimates of the costs of the Green New Deal have ranged up to $93 trillion over 10 years. No such estimates are available for the Blue New Deal or the Green Stimulus to rebuild our economy. The estimated costs for the Green New Deal do not include the $60+ trillion Deadweight Loss associated with abandoning fossil fuels in the ground and abandoning the facilities which use those fuels. It is also important to note that the existing estimates are for 10 year costs, though the programs would continue beyond 10 years; and, that the cost of such social programs has historically always exceeded the original estimates and has grown over time.

 

Finally, all of these efforts and their costs would produce no measurable effect on global climate change.

 

Tags: Green New Deal

A Way Forward

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know”, Donald Rumsfeld.

Merriam-Webster defines science as “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding. Merriam-Webster defines supposition as “something that is supposed: hypothesis” and supposed as “alleged, believed, imagined, expected”.

Climate science consists of a combination of knowledge and supposition. Climate alarmism consists of supposition regarding future conditions which are “alleged, believed, imagined or expected”. Climate science requires a way forward, from limited knowledge and substantial supposition to broader knowledge; a way forward from alarmism to thorough, dispassionate research to advance the science.

This process must begin with a clear understanding of what is known (known knowns), followed by applied research into those factors which are currently supposed (known unknowns) and basic research to determine if there are other factors of which we are ignorant (unknown unknowns) which affect the global climate. The objective of the process is to answer four fundamental questions: 1) What has happened?; 2) What is happening now?; 3) Why is it happening?; and, 4) What will happen in the future?

What is known can be summarized as follows: the globe has warmed; sea level has risen; glaciers have melted; atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased; and, human actions have changed the globe’s albedo.

What is supposed can be summarized as follows: global warming is undesirable; the globe has warmed because of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations; glaciers have melted because of this warming; sea level has risen because of this warming and glacial melting; increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause increased warming, glacial melting and sea level rise; increased warming will cause increased frequency and intensity of weather events such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and floods; increased warming will ultimately produce a climate catastrophe.

The way forward appears clear – resolve the known unknowns, then search for unknown unknowns in cases where the known knowns do not resolve all the climate questions.

The first issue which must be addressed is accurate global temperature measurement, including resolution of the relationship between atmospheric temperatures as measured from satellites and near-surface temperatures as measured by the US CRN and the Argos buoys. This might require global installation of CRN stations and expanding Argos buoy coverage.

The next issue which must be addressed is accurate global sea level rise measurement, including resolving the discrepancies between satellite measurements and tide gauges and discriminating among natural causes and anthropogenically induced warming.

Resolving these two issues would answer the “What has happened?” and “What is happening?” questions.

The next issues which must be addressed are accurate measurement of climate sensitivity, forcings and feedbacks. Resolving these issues is essential to answering both the “Why is it happening?” and the “What will happen in the future?” questions.

The other issue which must be addressed is verification of a single accurate model of the climate which addresses all of the factors affecting the climate and produces projections which match accurate observations over time.

None of these issues is new. They have been issues since global warming became a concern. They remain unresolved; and, they remain fundamental to understanding climate, now and in the future.

 

Tags: Climate Science

Highlighted Article: On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

  • 7/9/20 at 03:00 AM

 

By: Michael Shellenberger

Date: June 28, 2020

 

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

"On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

  • Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
  • The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
  • Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
  • Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
  • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
  • The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
  • Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decades and peaked in Britain, Germany and France in the mid-seventies
  • Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
  • We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
  • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
  • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
  • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like" ...

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

 

Tags: Highlighted Article

CO2 Control Knob?

Many members of the consensed climate science community refer to CO2 as the “control knob” of the climate. Some suggest that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations resulting from human activities are solely responsible for the increase in global average temperatures, as if natural variation had somehow ceased when human emissions of CO2 began to be significant.

The graph below plots the monthly temperature anomalies reported by the University of Alabama Huntsville for the period January 2019 (Point 1) through June 2020 (Point 18). The blue line is the temperature anomaly which would be expected if there were no natural variation and global temperature anomalies continued to increase at the average rate of increase of temperature over the entire period of the satellite record. The orange line plots the reported temperature anomalies over the same 18-month period.

Monthly Satellite Temperature Anomaly

The long-term rate of increase of the UAH global temperature anomaly is 0.00117° per month (0.14°C per decade divided by 10 years per decade divided by 12 months per year). The rates of change of the global temperature anomaly over the period plotted above range from 0.0 to 0.28°C per month, or up to 239 times the average monthly increase. Clearly, natural climate variation has not ceased.

The graph above focuses on the final 18 months of the period shown in the graph below, which shows the anomalies over the entirety of the satellite temperature anomaly record. The diagonal line shown between the endpoints on the graph determines the average temperature anomaly change over the period, 0.14°C per decade. The monthly temperature excursions above and below that line are the result of natural variation. The largest of these excursions are typically associated with El Nino and La Nina events in the Pacific Basin.

UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere

 

The graph below shows the Oceanic Nino Index for the period 1950 – 2019. The very strong El Nino events in 1982-1983, 1997-1998 and 2015-2016 are clearly visible. The peaks of the 1997-1998 and 2015-2016 events correspond with the highest anomalies shown in the graph above. The strong La Nina events are also clearly visible. There has not been a strong La Nina event since 2010-2011.

Oceanic Nino Index (ONI)

 

These ENSO events are relatively short lived, as shown above. The occurrence and strength of the ENSO events is not predictable, nor is the effect of the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on the events. The magnitude and speed of the effects of these Pacific Basin events on the global temperature anomaly is an indication of their power compared to the power of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, which affects the atmosphere of the entire globe.

The large changes in the monthly anomalies caused by the ENSO events emphasizes the significance of the starting and ending points used to analyze global temperature anomaly changes. For example, it is common to use the period 1980-2010 as the climate period of reference. Applying this period to analyze the rate of increase of the global temperature anomaly would result in a much lower rate of increase than the 0.14°C rate reported by UAH.

 

Tags: CO2 Emissions, Climate Sensitivity, Temperature Anomaly

Independence Day 2020

The people of the United States cherish their hard-won liberty and freedom. They have recently been required to temporarily relinquish a degree of that liberty and freedom in the face of a global pandemic. They have reluctantly acquiesced to this temporary loss of liberty and freedom in the interests of reducing the risk of serious illness and death to their fellow citizens and themselves. However, they are anxious to reclaim their lost liberty and freedom and return to their normal lives. They have been uncomfortable with the intrusion of government control over their actions.

The global pandemic has been an unplanned opportunity to experience life under a far greater degree of government intrusion and control, as would be the case in the event of an accelerated effort to mitigate climate change under a program such as the Green New Deal or the Blue/Green New Deal. However, while the loss of freedom and liberty during the pandemic was temporary, the losses under an accelerated climate mitigation effort would be permanent and would lead to many changes to the lifestyle we have come to expect and enjoy.

The deindustrialization of the United States desired by climate change alarmists would result in permanent job losses far more extensive than the temporary losses experienced during the response to the pandemic. The temporary shortages of food and supplies would be far more extensive and permanent. However, they would likely also be accompanied by shortages of energy for heating, cooling, water heating and transportation, which have not been an issue during the response to the pandemic. The accelerated schedules for “carbon” emissions reductions would virtually assure increased unreliability of the energy supply as well as increased energy costs.

While US citizens have generally been willing to accept the efforts to control the coronavirus pandemic, with its relatively high level of illness and death, they would likely be far less willing to accept such efforts in the face of a less compelling “crisis”, such as the climate “crisis”.  This is especially true in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic response, which has created significant economic hardship.

The responses to the pandemic globally have temporarily halted the frequently violent activities of groups such as the Extinction Rebellion. The end of restrictions on assembly will likely result in renewed aggressive and more frequently violent demonstrations. However, people are likely to be far less tolerant of these demonstrations and the resulting violence. There is likely to be significant pressure on law enforcement agencies to control the violence and arrest the violators. There will be very limited tolerance for additional economic disruption.

The American people are a resilient and driven people. They will do what is necessary to recover from the economic disruption caused by the pandemic response and restore the surge of economic growth over the past three years. They will resist efforts to prolong the economic disruption resulting from the government response to the pandemic. They will not willingly surrender their liberty and freedom and their potential for increasing prosperity for a Quixotic battle against climate change.

 “Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.”, Benjamin Franklin

 

Tags: Climate Change Debate, Covid 19, Green New Deal

Models and “Crises”

Numerous professions develop and apply models to project how a process of interest to them might change in the future as the result of process maturation or the effects of external perturbations. The utility of these models is a function of the degree to which the models mimic the real process, the accuracy of data used as inputs to the models and the relevance of the assumptions regarding future process maturation or future external perturbations. The ability of the models to mimic the real process is limited by the extent to which the science underlying the real process of interest is understood.

The nations of the globe have recently been exposed to the limits of models of poorly understood processes and underlying science in the case of the COVID-19 coronavirus “pandemic”. Existing epidemiological models were used to project numerous factors related to the coronavirus, including infection rate, hospital bed and hospital ICU bed demand and mortality rate based on a very limited understanding of the coronavirus.  

The model projections varied widely among themselves; and, they varied widely from the actual observations. For example, initial model projections suggested up to 2.2 million deaths from the coronavirus in the United States. Those projections were continuously modified based on experience, reducing the estimated death toll to fewer than 60,000, or approximately 3% of the original projections. Clearly a substantial contributor to the reduced mortality projections is the result of government-imposed limitations on travel and recommendations for “social distancing” and “sheltering in place” to reduce the likelihood of disease transmission.

The initial model projections helped to shape government actions in response to the coronavirus “pandemic”. In retrospect, it appears that reliance on the early model projections contributed to an overreaction on the part of numerous national governments including the US government. The economic impacts of this overreaction have been devastating to numerous businesses and their owners and employees.

There is a lesson to be learned regarding reliance on unverified models which do not reliably mimic the real process in the formation of government policies with major societal implications. Current climate models have not been verified to accurately mimic global climate. The climate models rely on incomplete, “adjusted” data and are run using ranges of critical values, since the actual values are uncertain. They produce a range of projections of future climate, none of which are consistent with actual observations. The consensed climate science community recognizes that current climate data are inadequate and that the current CMIP5 climate models (with the exception of a Russian model) are producing projections of excessive warming.

The perceived climate “crisis” is based solely on the climate models and does not manifest in actual observations. Citizens have been responsive to the coronavirus crisis because it is obvious that people are being sickened and are dying in large numbers. Citizens have been far less responsive to the climate “crisis” because there is no obvious crisis, but just modest warming and sea level rise.

Climate activists have seized on the effectiveness of government response to the coronavirus “pandemic” as an indication of what government could accomplish if it took the same type of approach to climate change. However, they fail to recognize that the public would be far less responsive to the adverse effects of government actions in response to an unobvious “crisis”, particularly in the wake of the adverse effects of the government response to the coronavirus crisis.

 

Tags: Climate Models, Covid 19
Search Older Blog Posts