This article explains how a met office forecaster claims to have briefed the government well in advance of the recent cold spell. Now it appears that this did not happen. What is going on?
Saturday 31 March 2018
Friday 30 March 2018
THE AUSSIE ENERGY DISASTER UNFOLDS
Red it here. What, you may ask, is the point of government if its' policy causes serious damage to the nation's economy? Australia is an important lesson for other governments, but alas they too are just as out of touch.
Thursday 29 March 2018
NUCLEAR FUSION - IS THIS THE WAY TO LIMITLESS CHEAP ELECTRICITY?
This article by Matt Ridley explores this possibility as well as looking at the limitations of our current choice of going for wind and solar power. A good read as always.
Wednesday 28 March 2018
ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET MAY HAVE COLLAPSED 120,000 YEARS AGO SAYS NEW STUDY
This article explains the details. Below is an exerpt.
"The new project could also cast light on some lingering suspicions—that even though the Ross Ice Shelf seems stable today, it has actually undergone some dramatic collapses in the recent past. (Learn about the Maine-size hole in Antarctica.)
Reed Scherer made this discovery back in 1998 while studying mud that had been plucked from beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, through another borehole, 100 miles inland from the back edge of the ice shelf.
Scherer, a micro-paleontologist now at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, found this subglacial mud chockablock full of microscopic diatom shells—beautiful glassy objects, reminiscent of fine vases. They were the ancient remains of photosynthetic organisms that had once lived in the sea before dying and settling to the bottom.
Some of those dead diatoms were only a few hundred thousand years old, leading Scherer to an astounding conclusion: this area, now covered by 3,000 feet of ice, had recently been open sea, bathed in life-sustaining sunlight that could support the diatoms’ growth. This suggested that the entire Ross Ice Shelf, and much of the ice behind it, had collapsed.
The Ross Ice Shelf “has come and gone probably many times in the last million years,” says Scherer. It likely collapsed during a warm period 400,000 years ago. But he believes it could also have collapsed as recently as 120,000 years ago, the last time that temperatures were about as warm as they are today."
It is interesting to read that they accept that temperatures were as warm as today only 120,000 years ago, though this means they deny the medieval warm period existed only a thousand years ago.
"The new project could also cast light on some lingering suspicions—that even though the Ross Ice Shelf seems stable today, it has actually undergone some dramatic collapses in the recent past. (Learn about the Maine-size hole in Antarctica.)
Reed Scherer made this discovery back in 1998 while studying mud that had been plucked from beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, through another borehole, 100 miles inland from the back edge of the ice shelf.
Scherer, a micro-paleontologist now at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, found this subglacial mud chockablock full of microscopic diatom shells—beautiful glassy objects, reminiscent of fine vases. They were the ancient remains of photosynthetic organisms that had once lived in the sea before dying and settling to the bottom.
Some of those dead diatoms were only a few hundred thousand years old, leading Scherer to an astounding conclusion: this area, now covered by 3,000 feet of ice, had recently been open sea, bathed in life-sustaining sunlight that could support the diatoms’ growth. This suggested that the entire Ross Ice Shelf, and much of the ice behind it, had collapsed.
The Ross Ice Shelf “has come and gone probably many times in the last million years,” says Scherer. It likely collapsed during a warm period 400,000 years ago. But he believes it could also have collapsed as recently as 120,000 years ago, the last time that temperatures were about as warm as they are today."
It is interesting to read that they accept that temperatures were as warm as today only 120,000 years ago, though this means they deny the medieval warm period existed only a thousand years ago.
Tuesday 27 March 2018
LATEST SCIENTIFIC PAPERS SHOW GW IS WEAK, AT BEST
This post gives the details, explaining how the latest research shows that global warming does not appear to be increasing. In fact it appears to be very much weaker than was proclaimed by those who claimed we were about to be subject to out-of-control warming.
Monday 26 March 2018
THE ECONOMICS OF WIND ENERGY
This summary gives a good overview of the economics of wind energy. Despite the large amount of information put out in favour of using wind power there are clearly a lot of disadvantages that must be borne in mind.
Much more on this here.
Much more on this here.
Sunday 25 March 2018
FOLLOW THE CALIFORNIA CLIMATE COURT CASE
This website has all the updates for those readers that want to keep updated.
Saturday 24 March 2018
GLOBAL EMISSIONS RISING AS PARIS DEAL FOUND TO BE INEFFECTIVE
This report highlights the issue and points out the obvious point that by giving the developing world, including India and China, a free pass to carry on increasing emissions there is no chance of world emissions coming down. So those who believe we must reduce world emissions would regard the Paris deal to be ineffective. At the same time the deal is very costly to the developed nations leading to job losses due to high energy and transport costs.
Friday 23 March 2018
UP POMPEO! HE'S GOOD FOR THE CLIMATE
John Stossel: The Paris Climate Fraud
Fox News, 21 March 2018
President Trump’s pick to be the new secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, is not a fan of the Paris climate agreement, the treaty that claims it will slow global warning by reducing the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Politicians from most of the world’s nations signed the deal, and President Obama said “we may see this as the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.”
That’s dubious.
Trump wisely said he will pull America out of the deal. He called it a “massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”
Unfortunately, Trump often reverses himself.
The climate change lobby has been trying to change Trump’s mind. Al Gore called his stance “reckless and indefensible.” Most of the media agree. So do most of my neighbors in New York.
That’s why it’s good that Pompeo opposes the Paris deal. Such treaties are State Department responsibilities. Pompeo is more likely to hold Trump to his word than his soon-to-be predecessor Rex Tillerson, who liked the agreement.
The Paris accord is a bad deal because even if greenhouse gases really are a huge threat, this treaty wouldn’t do much about them.
I’ll bet Al Gore and most of the media don’t even know what’s in the accord. I didn’t until I researched it for this week’s YouTube video.
Manhattan Institute senior fellow Oren Cass is the rare person who actually read the Paris accord.
Cass tells me it’s “somewhere between a farce and a fraud.” I interviewed him for a video project I am doing with City Journal, a smart policy magazine that often makes the case for smaller government. “You don’t even have to mention greenhouse gases in your commitment if you don’t want to. You send in any piece of paper you want.”
The Paris accord was just political theater, he says. “They stapled it together and held it up and said, ‘This is amazing!'”
The media announced that China and India made major commitments.
In truth, says Cass, “They either pledged to do exactly what they were already going to do anyway, or pledged even less. China, for instance said, ‘we pledge to reach peak emission by about 2030.’ Well, the United States government had already done a study to guess when Chinese emissions would peak, and their guess was about 2030.”
In other words, China simply promised to do what was going to happen anyway.
“China was actually one of the better pledges,” says Cass. “India made no pledge to limit emissions at all. They pledged only to become more efficient. But they proposed to become more efficient less quickly than they were already becoming more efficient. So their pledge was to slow down.”
It’s hard to see how that would help the planet.
“My favorite was Pakistan, whose pledge was to ‘Reach a peak at some point after which to begin reducing emissions,'” says Cass. “You can staple those together, and you can say we now have a global agreement, but what you have is an agreement to do nothing.”
However, Cass says one country did make a serious commitment. “The one country that showed up in Paris with a very costly, ambitious target was the United States. President Obama took all the zero commitments from everybody else but threw in a really expensive one for us.”
Obama pledged to reduce emissions by 26 percent. If that ever happened, it would squash America’s economy.
Nevertheless, when Trump said he was leaving the Paris accord, he was trashed by politicians around the world.
The UK’s Theresa May was “dismayed,” and Obama said, “This administration joins a handful of nations that reject the future.”
Cass counters that if “the future is worthless climate agreements … we should be proud to reject.”
Full story
Fox News, 21 March 2018
President Trump’s pick to be the new secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, is not a fan of the Paris climate agreement, the treaty that claims it will slow global warning by reducing the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Politicians from most of the world’s nations signed the deal, and President Obama said “we may see this as the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.”
That’s dubious.
Trump wisely said he will pull America out of the deal. He called it a “massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”
Unfortunately, Trump often reverses himself.
The climate change lobby has been trying to change Trump’s mind. Al Gore called his stance “reckless and indefensible.” Most of the media agree. So do most of my neighbors in New York.
That’s why it’s good that Pompeo opposes the Paris deal. Such treaties are State Department responsibilities. Pompeo is more likely to hold Trump to his word than his soon-to-be predecessor Rex Tillerson, who liked the agreement.
The Paris accord is a bad deal because even if greenhouse gases really are a huge threat, this treaty wouldn’t do much about them.
I’ll bet Al Gore and most of the media don’t even know what’s in the accord. I didn’t until I researched it for this week’s YouTube video.
Manhattan Institute senior fellow Oren Cass is the rare person who actually read the Paris accord.
Cass tells me it’s “somewhere between a farce and a fraud.” I interviewed him for a video project I am doing with City Journal, a smart policy magazine that often makes the case for smaller government. “You don’t even have to mention greenhouse gases in your commitment if you don’t want to. You send in any piece of paper you want.”
The Paris accord was just political theater, he says. “They stapled it together and held it up and said, ‘This is amazing!'”
The media announced that China and India made major commitments.
In truth, says Cass, “They either pledged to do exactly what they were already going to do anyway, or pledged even less. China, for instance said, ‘we pledge to reach peak emission by about 2030.’ Well, the United States government had already done a study to guess when Chinese emissions would peak, and their guess was about 2030.”
In other words, China simply promised to do what was going to happen anyway.
“China was actually one of the better pledges,” says Cass. “India made no pledge to limit emissions at all. They pledged only to become more efficient. But they proposed to become more efficient less quickly than they were already becoming more efficient. So their pledge was to slow down.”
It’s hard to see how that would help the planet.
“My favorite was Pakistan, whose pledge was to ‘Reach a peak at some point after which to begin reducing emissions,'” says Cass. “You can staple those together, and you can say we now have a global agreement, but what you have is an agreement to do nothing.”
However, Cass says one country did make a serious commitment. “The one country that showed up in Paris with a very costly, ambitious target was the United States. President Obama took all the zero commitments from everybody else but threw in a really expensive one for us.”
Obama pledged to reduce emissions by 26 percent. If that ever happened, it would squash America’s economy.
Nevertheless, when Trump said he was leaving the Paris accord, he was trashed by politicians around the world.
The UK’s Theresa May was “dismayed,” and Obama said, “This administration joins a handful of nations that reject the future.”
Cass counters that if “the future is worthless climate agreements … we should be proud to reject.”
Full story
Thursday 22 March 2018
RAINFALL LOWERS TEMPERATURE - NEW STUDY
This article explains something which I would have thought should be obvious, namely that when the ground is wet the temperature is lower than when the sun shines on dry ground. The reason is that some of the incoming heat is used to evaporate the water instead of heating the ground itself to a higher temperature.
Wednesday 21 March 2018
SCOTT PRUITT CHAMPIONS TRANSPARENT SCIENCE
This piece explains what is happening. It is a disgrace that secret science was ever permitted to be relied on. At last we have a politician standing up for openness and transparency.
Tuesday 20 March 2018
CLOUDS, COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This short interview with Henrik and Jacob Svensmark gives a good insight into their hypothesis of the role of cosmic rays into climate.
Monday 19 March 2018
COSMIC RAYS INCREASING ON EARTH AS SUN'S MAGNETIC SHIELD WEAKENS
This post explains the evidence for what is happening. All this is likely to have some effect on our climate. Exactly what and how much remains to be seen.
Sunday 18 March 2018
AUSSIE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME IS UP AND RUNNING
This post explains how it works. Apparently their government pushed it through as quietly as possible - as the public were against it. Let's hope they get kicked out at the next election and some honest politicians get in instead (if there are enough!)
Saturday 17 March 2018
ELECTRIC CAR SALES LAGGING BEHIND UK GOVERNMENT TARGET
This article looks at the latest disappointing figures for purchasing electric vehicles and concludes that the change is unlikely to be anywhere near complete by 2040. The public are not stupid and are quite capable of seeing the obvious drawbacks of electric vehicles.
Friday 16 March 2018
GROUPTHINK IN ACTION
This piece looks at an example of "groupthink" in action. Paul Homewood analyses a letter to the Telegraph criticising Christopher Bookers article on the subject of groupthink in climate science.
Thursday 15 March 2018
REX TILLERSON WAS NO FRIEND OF CLIMATE SCEPTICS
On global warming and America's exit from the UN's Paris Climate Accord, replacing Rex Tillerson with Mike Pompeo is "definitely an upgrade."
That's how American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle described the swap in a report by Michael Bastasch posted at CFACT.org.
Although he knew better, Tillerson continually played lip service to the global warming campaign. This harkens back to his time as CEO of Exxon Mobil. Global warming pressure groups began demonizing Exxon early on. They continue to spin conspiracy theories blaming the collapse of the warming narrative on America's largest oil and gas company. Exxon threw in the towel long ago.
The truth is that the warming narrative is collapsing under the weight of its own bogus predictions. The truth is also that while free enterprise may be the most efficient and productive way to organize societies known to man, that doesn't mean that businesses are necessarily courageous. On the contrary, many businesses are so focused on developing and delivering goods and services, that they will go along to get along with any powerful group capable of doing them harm.
We suspect that Rex Tillerson is well aware of the flaws in the warming narrative, but long ago decided he does not want the heat that comes with speaking up.
Mike Pompeo, on the other hand, opposed President Obama signing onto the Paris Climate Accord and supports the President's decision to extricate America from it.
State Department bureaucrats hoping to outlast the President, or do an end run around him to keep America in Paris, just lost a great deal of ground.
That's good news for those of us who care about sound science and constructive energy policies.
That's how American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle described the swap in a report by Michael Bastasch posted at CFACT.org.
Although he knew better, Tillerson continually played lip service to the global warming campaign. This harkens back to his time as CEO of Exxon Mobil. Global warming pressure groups began demonizing Exxon early on. They continue to spin conspiracy theories blaming the collapse of the warming narrative on America's largest oil and gas company. Exxon threw in the towel long ago.
The truth is that the warming narrative is collapsing under the weight of its own bogus predictions. The truth is also that while free enterprise may be the most efficient and productive way to organize societies known to man, that doesn't mean that businesses are necessarily courageous. On the contrary, many businesses are so focused on developing and delivering goods and services, that they will go along to get along with any powerful group capable of doing them harm.
We suspect that Rex Tillerson is well aware of the flaws in the warming narrative, but long ago decided he does not want the heat that comes with speaking up.
Mike Pompeo, on the other hand, opposed President Obama signing onto the Paris Climate Accord and supports the President's decision to extricate America from it.
State Department bureaucrats hoping to outlast the President, or do an end run around him to keep America in Paris, just lost a great deal of ground.
That's good news for those of us who care about sound science and constructive energy policies.
Wednesday 14 March 2018
METHANE NOT IMPORTANT IN WARMING THE GLOBE
The following is from SEPP:
Source of Heat – Atmospheric Methane?
In her blog, Climate Etc. Judith Curry takes up the issue of Question 8, in the District Judge’s proposed tutorial: “What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?” (See yesterday's post on the Californian court case)
Curry’s post was prompted by a response made to the questions by Andrew Dessler, of Texas A & M university. In his response, Dessler posted a graph that was blurry, thus the source could not be clearly identified. However, it is similar to Figure SPM.5 found on page 14 of the Summary for Policymakers chapter, of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 3013) of the IPCC. The figure is titled “Radiative forcing by emissions and drivers.”
Atmospheric greenhouse gases are not sources of heat. They absorb some of the infrared energy emitted by the earth to space, thereby slowing the nighttime cooling of regions of the globe. However, one can understand the confusion of the judge.
In its graph, the IPCC ranks the main drivers of radiative forcing as CO2, CH4 (methane), Halocarbons and N2O (nitrous oxide), all identified as anthropogenic, human caused. It rates the level of confidence: Very High for CO2 and N2O, and High for CH4 and Halocarbons. The positive driver influence of each of these compounds is greater than the calculated negative driver from changes in land use, and far greater than the calculated positive changes in solar irradiance.
According to the graph, all the main drivers are well mixed in the atmosphere. This “well mixed” assumption is a major issue.
Further, the graph breaks down the influence of CH4 into four resulting atmospheric drivers, CO2, H2O, O3, and CH4. After being broken down into the four components, the graph shows the remaining CH4 has a strong positive influence. The text states:
“Emissions of CH4 alone have caused an RF of 0.97 [0.74 to 1.20] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). This is much larger than the concentration-based estimate of 0.48 [0.38 to 0.58] W m−2 (unchanged from AR4). This difference in estimates is caused by concentration changes in ozone and stratospheric water vapour due to CH4 emissions and other emissions indirectly affecting CH4. {8.3, 8.5}”
Herein is a major issue. At ground level what starts as CH4 changes, in part, to CO2 and H2O and O3 as it goes higher in the atmosphere. An important point, often overlooked, is that the amount of CH4 at any height in the atmosphere never gets above the amount of H2O.
Early in his professional career, SEPP Chairman Tom Sheahen was with a team measuring the absorbing ability of various greenhouse gases at the US Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)). They confirmed what had been known for almost a century and in handbooks since the 1920s:
• Greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy given off by the earth in specific wavelengths.
• The most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, absorbs virtually all the energy that methane is capable of absorbing.
• And, because of the shape of the spectrum of thermal radiation that the earth emits, it is further known that adding methane to the atmosphere does not increase energy absorption of the atmosphere, because there is hardly any energy of the appropriate wave length which methane can absorb.
• Finally, it is also known that these results were repeated in multiple laboratories in multiple countries.
As Sheahen writes: “Water gradually "freezes out" towards the top of the troposphere, but above that altitude in the stratosphere, the oxidation of CH4 assures that there will be more H2O than CH4 at every altitude. CH4 starts off around 1.8 ppm and never increases. H2O starts out at ground level about 20,000 ppm and declines to about 4 ppm in the stratosphere. Meanwhile, CO2 is about 400 ppm at every altitude, unchanged by anything water is doing (such as forming clouds).”
Of the greenhouse gases, water vapor has the broadest capability of absorbing energy across the infrared spectrum. For some wavelengths, it absorbs all the energy. However, CH4, remains below a level where it is a significant participant in the greenhouse effect.
Further, the 1979 Charney Report published by the National Academy of Science speculated that the modest increase in greenhouse effect from CO2 would be amplified by an increase in atmospheric water vapor, strongly increasing the greenhouse effect. The report had no hard evidence supporting this speculation. The estimates in the Charney Report have been retained by the IPCC, but there is no discussion of an increase in greenhouse effect from water vapor in AR-5. The discussion in AR-5 of methane produces no “source of heat.”
Source of Heat – Atmospheric Methane?
In her blog, Climate Etc. Judith Curry takes up the issue of Question 8, in the District Judge’s proposed tutorial: “What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?” (See yesterday's post on the Californian court case)
Curry’s post was prompted by a response made to the questions by Andrew Dessler, of Texas A & M university. In his response, Dessler posted a graph that was blurry, thus the source could not be clearly identified. However, it is similar to Figure SPM.5 found on page 14 of the Summary for Policymakers chapter, of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 3013) of the IPCC. The figure is titled “Radiative forcing by emissions and drivers.”
Atmospheric greenhouse gases are not sources of heat. They absorb some of the infrared energy emitted by the earth to space, thereby slowing the nighttime cooling of regions of the globe. However, one can understand the confusion of the judge.
In its graph, the IPCC ranks the main drivers of radiative forcing as CO2, CH4 (methane), Halocarbons and N2O (nitrous oxide), all identified as anthropogenic, human caused. It rates the level of confidence: Very High for CO2 and N2O, and High for CH4 and Halocarbons. The positive driver influence of each of these compounds is greater than the calculated negative driver from changes in land use, and far greater than the calculated positive changes in solar irradiance.
According to the graph, all the main drivers are well mixed in the atmosphere. This “well mixed” assumption is a major issue.
Further, the graph breaks down the influence of CH4 into four resulting atmospheric drivers, CO2, H2O, O3, and CH4. After being broken down into the four components, the graph shows the remaining CH4 has a strong positive influence. The text states:
“Emissions of CH4 alone have caused an RF of 0.97 [0.74 to 1.20] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). This is much larger than the concentration-based estimate of 0.48 [0.38 to 0.58] W m−2 (unchanged from AR4). This difference in estimates is caused by concentration changes in ozone and stratospheric water vapour due to CH4 emissions and other emissions indirectly affecting CH4. {8.3, 8.5}”
Herein is a major issue. At ground level what starts as CH4 changes, in part, to CO2 and H2O and O3 as it goes higher in the atmosphere. An important point, often overlooked, is that the amount of CH4 at any height in the atmosphere never gets above the amount of H2O.
Early in his professional career, SEPP Chairman Tom Sheahen was with a team measuring the absorbing ability of various greenhouse gases at the US Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)). They confirmed what had been known for almost a century and in handbooks since the 1920s:
• Greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy given off by the earth in specific wavelengths.
• The most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, absorbs virtually all the energy that methane is capable of absorbing.
• And, because of the shape of the spectrum of thermal radiation that the earth emits, it is further known that adding methane to the atmosphere does not increase energy absorption of the atmosphere, because there is hardly any energy of the appropriate wave length which methane can absorb.
• Finally, it is also known that these results were repeated in multiple laboratories in multiple countries.
As Sheahen writes: “Water gradually "freezes out" towards the top of the troposphere, but above that altitude in the stratosphere, the oxidation of CH4 assures that there will be more H2O than CH4 at every altitude. CH4 starts off around 1.8 ppm and never increases. H2O starts out at ground level about 20,000 ppm and declines to about 4 ppm in the stratosphere. Meanwhile, CO2 is about 400 ppm at every altitude, unchanged by anything water is doing (such as forming clouds).”
Of the greenhouse gases, water vapor has the broadest capability of absorbing energy across the infrared spectrum. For some wavelengths, it absorbs all the energy. However, CH4, remains below a level where it is a significant participant in the greenhouse effect.
Further, the 1979 Charney Report published by the National Academy of Science speculated that the modest increase in greenhouse effect from CO2 would be amplified by an increase in atmospheric water vapor, strongly increasing the greenhouse effect. The report had no hard evidence supporting this speculation. The estimates in the Charney Report have been retained by the IPCC, but there is no discussion of an increase in greenhouse effect from water vapor in AR-5. The discussion in AR-5 of methane produces no “source of heat.”
Tuesday 13 March 2018
JUDGE IN CALIFORNIA CLIMATE CASE CALLS FOR TUTORIALS FROM BOTH SIDES
The following article is from the Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP)
Various municipalities in California are suing oil companies under common law public nuisance claims for damages they say occur from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The case has gone to the US District Court for the Northern District of California. (In the US Federal Court system, a District Court is below the Court of Appeals and it is where most cases start if they are on the federal level.) The presiding judge, William Alsup, made an unusual and unexpected demand. He ruled that both sides prepare a tutorial for him:
“The Court invites counsel to conduct a two-part tutorial on the subject of global warming and climate change:
“(1) The first part will trace the history of scientific study of climate change, beginning with scientific inquiry into the formation and melting of the ice ages, periods of historical cooling and warming, smog, ozone, nuclear winter, volcanoes, and global warming. Each side will have sixty minutes. A horizontal timeline of major advances (and setbacks) would be welcomed.
“(2) The second part will set forth the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise, and coastal flooding. Each side will again have another sixty minutes.”
Specifically, the court ruled:
“For the tutorial on MARCH 21, please include the following subjects:
“1. What caused the various ice ages (including the “little ice age” and prolonged cool periods) and what caused the ice to melt? When they melted, by how much did sea level rise?
“2. What is the molecular difference by which CO2 absorbs infrared radiation but oxygen and nitrogen do not?
“3. What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?
“4. Does CO2 in the atmosphere reflect any sunlight back into space such that the reflected sunlight never penetrates the atmosphere in the first place?
“5. Apart from CO2, what happens to the collective heat from tail pipe exhausts, engine radiators, and all other heat from combustion of fossil fuels? How, if at all, does this collective heat contribute to warming of the atmosphere?
“6. In grade school, many of us were taught that humans exhale CO2 but plants absorb CO2 and return oxygen to the air (keeping the carbon for fiber). Is this still valid? If so, why hasn’t plant life turned the higher levels of CO2 back into oxygen? Given the increase in human population on Earth (four billion), is human respiration a contributing factor to the buildup of CO2?
“7. What are the main sources of CO2 that account for the incremental buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere?
“8. What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?”
“9. Please bring to the tutorial a copy of the full GCC presentation referred to in Paragraph 67 of the Oakland complaint as well as the full GCSCT memo referred to in Paragraph 68.”
Paragraph 67 & 68 of the Oakland complaint refer to internal Global Climate Science Communications including Exxon, Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute.:
Paragraphs 69 and 70 of the Oakland complaint state:
69. Over at least the last nineteen years, Exxon in particular has paid researchers and front groups to create uncertainties about basic climate change science and used denialist groups to attack well-respected scientists. These were calculated business decisions by Exxon to undermine climate change science and bolster production of fossil fuels.
70. Between 1998 and 2014, Exxon paid millions of dollars to organizations to promote disinformation on global warming. During the early- to mid-1990s, Exxon directed some of this funding to Dr. Fred Seitz, Dr. Fred Singer, and/or Seitz and Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project ("SEPP") in order to launch repeated attacks on mainstream climate science and IPCC conclusions, even as Exxon scientists participated in the IPCC. Seitz, Singer and SEPP had previously been paid by the tobacco industry to create doubt in the public mind about the hazards of smoking. Seitz and Singer were not climate scientists. [Boldface added.]
Unfortunately, the late Roger Cohen, who studied the issue for Exxon and was skeptical as the harmful influence of CO2, can no longer help Exxon counter the expected barrage of bureaucratic science similar to what accompanied the EPA’s Endangerment Finding.
SEPP is exploring if, as a party possibly slandered in the City of Oakland complaint, can it file an amicus (friend in court) brief in the case. If so, such a brief would probably focus on the standards of evidence: Direct or Indirect; Physical or Bureaucratic.
The greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere and based on comprehensive atmospheric data, the atmosphere is warming very modestly. Once natural influences such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and volcanoes are removed, any warming trend in the entire atmospheric record is extremely modest, if existing at all. This is direct evidence. The IPCC and its followers such as the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) use surface temperatures which are incomplete and include many other human and natural influences. They use indirect evidence –is the admittedly flawed surface temperature record "hearsay"?
Physical evidence is hard data showing CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. Increasing emissions, changing climate, etc. are not physical evidence of cause. Bureaucratic evidence includes global climate models that fail basic testing, and group think such as organizations that fail to address the key issue in their reports, etc. The key issue is: do carbon dioxide emissions cause dire warming of the atmosphere? SEPP’s answer is no, and CO2 emissions are beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Various municipalities in California are suing oil companies under common law public nuisance claims for damages they say occur from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The case has gone to the US District Court for the Northern District of California. (In the US Federal Court system, a District Court is below the Court of Appeals and it is where most cases start if they are on the federal level.) The presiding judge, William Alsup, made an unusual and unexpected demand. He ruled that both sides prepare a tutorial for him:
“The Court invites counsel to conduct a two-part tutorial on the subject of global warming and climate change:
“(1) The first part will trace the history of scientific study of climate change, beginning with scientific inquiry into the formation and melting of the ice ages, periods of historical cooling and warming, smog, ozone, nuclear winter, volcanoes, and global warming. Each side will have sixty minutes. A horizontal timeline of major advances (and setbacks) would be welcomed.
“(2) The second part will set forth the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise, and coastal flooding. Each side will again have another sixty minutes.”
Specifically, the court ruled:
“For the tutorial on MARCH 21, please include the following subjects:
“1. What caused the various ice ages (including the “little ice age” and prolonged cool periods) and what caused the ice to melt? When they melted, by how much did sea level rise?
“2. What is the molecular difference by which CO2 absorbs infrared radiation but oxygen and nitrogen do not?
“3. What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?
“4. Does CO2 in the atmosphere reflect any sunlight back into space such that the reflected sunlight never penetrates the atmosphere in the first place?
“5. Apart from CO2, what happens to the collective heat from tail pipe exhausts, engine radiators, and all other heat from combustion of fossil fuels? How, if at all, does this collective heat contribute to warming of the atmosphere?
“6. In grade school, many of us were taught that humans exhale CO2 but plants absorb CO2 and return oxygen to the air (keeping the carbon for fiber). Is this still valid? If so, why hasn’t plant life turned the higher levels of CO2 back into oxygen? Given the increase in human population on Earth (four billion), is human respiration a contributing factor to the buildup of CO2?
“7. What are the main sources of CO2 that account for the incremental buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere?
“8. What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?”
“9. Please bring to the tutorial a copy of the full GCC presentation referred to in Paragraph 67 of the Oakland complaint as well as the full GCSCT memo referred to in Paragraph 68.”
Paragraph 67 & 68 of the Oakland complaint refer to internal Global Climate Science Communications including Exxon, Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute.:
Paragraphs 69 and 70 of the Oakland complaint state:
69. Over at least the last nineteen years, Exxon in particular has paid researchers and front groups to create uncertainties about basic climate change science and used denialist groups to attack well-respected scientists. These were calculated business decisions by Exxon to undermine climate change science and bolster production of fossil fuels.
70. Between 1998 and 2014, Exxon paid millions of dollars to organizations to promote disinformation on global warming. During the early- to mid-1990s, Exxon directed some of this funding to Dr. Fred Seitz, Dr. Fred Singer, and/or Seitz and Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project ("SEPP") in order to launch repeated attacks on mainstream climate science and IPCC conclusions, even as Exxon scientists participated in the IPCC. Seitz, Singer and SEPP had previously been paid by the tobacco industry to create doubt in the public mind about the hazards of smoking. Seitz and Singer were not climate scientists. [Boldface added.]
Unfortunately, the late Roger Cohen, who studied the issue for Exxon and was skeptical as the harmful influence of CO2, can no longer help Exxon counter the expected barrage of bureaucratic science similar to what accompanied the EPA’s Endangerment Finding.
SEPP is exploring if, as a party possibly slandered in the City of Oakland complaint, can it file an amicus (friend in court) brief in the case. If so, such a brief would probably focus on the standards of evidence: Direct or Indirect; Physical or Bureaucratic.
The greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere and based on comprehensive atmospheric data, the atmosphere is warming very modestly. Once natural influences such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and volcanoes are removed, any warming trend in the entire atmospheric record is extremely modest, if existing at all. This is direct evidence. The IPCC and its followers such as the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) use surface temperatures which are incomplete and include many other human and natural influences. They use indirect evidence –is the admittedly flawed surface temperature record "hearsay"?
Physical evidence is hard data showing CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. Increasing emissions, changing climate, etc. are not physical evidence of cause. Bureaucratic evidence includes global climate models that fail basic testing, and group think such as organizations that fail to address the key issue in their reports, etc. The key issue is: do carbon dioxide emissions cause dire warming of the atmosphere? SEPP’s answer is no, and CO2 emissions are beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Monday 12 March 2018
GOOD DEBATE ON OCEAN ACIDIFICATION AND OTHER CONTROVERSIES IN THE CLIMATE DEBATE
Here's an interesting debate between scientists with opposing views on a number of the key issues, including ocean acidification and reliance on wind and solar energy.
Sunday 11 March 2018
COMPLIANT MEDIA ABDICATE ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION ON CLIMATE
This piece is further evidence of compliant media organisations pushing the climate change meme without any attempt at robust examination of the evidence. This kind of programme is just a kind of soft propaganda which leaves thinking people feeling conned.
Saturday 10 March 2018
CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL GAS STATE (WITH A FEW RENEWABLES)
This article gives the details of California's situation and how it is very reliant on natural gas because of the increase in renewables. Without the gas backup they would have suffered frequent blackouts. Something that green activists are reluctant to admit.
Friday 9 March 2018
THE BOGUS ARGUMENT ABOUT FOSSIL FUELS BEING "STRANDED ASSETS"
This piece explains why claims that fossil fuel companies will have to leave their fuel reserves in the ground are a fantasy in the imagination of green activists.
Thursday 8 March 2018
£100 BILLION ALREADY WASTED ON FOOLISH CLIMATE POLICIES, ACCORDING TO NEW REPORT
This report looks at the vast waste of money as a result of the government's climate change act. It s the scandal that no one mentions which is going on slowly in the background pushing up energy prices and hence the cost of practically everything else. At just 3 pages this report is an easy read and makes a powerful point succinctly.
Wednesday 7 March 2018
RUSSIANS USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO FUEL CLIMATE EXTREMISM
This article gives the details of what the Russians were up to - trying to undermine USA energy policy by appealing to green activists. Oh what a tangled web of deceit.
Tuesday 6 March 2018
HOW THE WORLD'S TEMPERATURE IS FIDDLED
This piece looks at one more example of why we cannot trust the surface temperature record. Thank goodness we now have satellite measurements to give us a comparison.
Monday 5 March 2018
AT LAST EU MINISTERS SPOT THE FLAW IN THE PARIS AGREEMENT
European Ministers Sound Like Trump, Demand Big Changes To Paris Agreement
Climate Home, 26 February 2018
EU foreign ministers have set a collision course with China in a statement calling for the same rules to bind all countries under the Paris climate deal.
In a 9-page statement on climate diplomacy objectives, released at the conclusion of a council meeting on Monday, ministers stressed the need for more action. The window to hold global warming to 2C, the upper temperature limit agreed in Paris, was “fast closing”, they warned.
UN talks this year on implementing the Paris Agreement must create “a universal regime with rules applicable to all”, the statement said.
China and allies are calling for a two-tier rulebook, with less stringent reporting requirements for developing countries. It is one of the key issues for negotiators to thrash out by a December 2018 deadline.
Climate Home, 26 February 2018
EU foreign ministers have set a collision course with China in a statement calling for the same rules to bind all countries under the Paris climate deal.
In a 9-page statement on climate diplomacy objectives, released at the conclusion of a council meeting on Monday, ministers stressed the need for more action. The window to hold global warming to 2C, the upper temperature limit agreed in Paris, was “fast closing”, they warned.
UN talks this year on implementing the Paris Agreement must create “a universal regime with rules applicable to all”, the statement said.
China and allies are calling for a two-tier rulebook, with less stringent reporting requirements for developing countries. It is one of the key issues for negotiators to thrash out by a December 2018 deadline.
Sunday 4 March 2018
BP ENERGY OUTLOOK, 2018 EDITION
Here is a good summary from Paul Homewood's excellent blog. What it tells us is that despite the hype things are not likely to be dramatically different in 2040 as opposed to now.
What is also worth looking at is the world's fossil fuel reserves which although adequate for the present are far from infinite. Let's hope that scientists come up with a workable fusion reactor in the next 30 years, or at least something better than unreliable renewables.
Here's another article that claims our fuel reserves will last much longer.
What is also worth looking at is the world's fossil fuel reserves which although adequate for the present are far from infinite. Let's hope that scientists come up with a workable fusion reactor in the next 30 years, or at least something better than unreliable renewables.
Here's another article that claims our fuel reserves will last much longer.
Saturday 3 March 2018
UK GAS SHORTAGE - QUESTIONS NOW BEING ASKED
This Daily Mail Article is just one of many asking who is responsible for the fiasco of gas shortages in the wake of the recent cold spell. Although you might think it was like Siberia, the truth is that this is what we might expect at some stage in any winter in the UK. Interesting though the linked article is it does not mention the "elephant" of the million of cubic feet of shale gas that are sitting right below us just waiting t be extracted, if only we would allow the companies to get on with it.
Friday 2 March 2018
THE UK SMART METER FIASCO GETS WORSE
Yet more bad publicity about the government's roll out of so-called smart meters in The Mail. How could they get the cost of this so wrong? Quite easily, actually. What this does bring to mind is - why should we trust any government figures on large projects, or their information on climate change, come to that.
Thursday 1 March 2018
UK SHALE GAS NEEDED URGENTLY
Calls For Shale Action As Beast From East Exposes UK’s Energy Insecurity
Pro Investors, 1 March 2018
Dramatic weather hitting the United Kingdom is providing ammunition for the proponents of the embryonic shale gas industry.
After more than 24 hours of snow and freezing conditions, with most of the country’s kids staying home from school, The National Grid PLC has cautioned that it is running low on gas.
It has sparked calls for the UK to seize the shale opportunity which promises to be a significant domestic source of gas which would reduce the country’s dependence upon foreign imports.
“The UK is worryingly dependent on gas imports and this is forecast to increase to 80% by 2035,” said Ken Cronin, chief executive of industry group UK Onshore Oil and Gas.
Cronin added: “Given that nearly 50% of our electricity is produced by gas and 84% of our homes are heated with it, the need to ensure we have our own homegrown source of gas rather than pursuing this continued over-reliance on imports has today become very evident.
“We believe that the right way forward is to produce British natural gas from shale onshore and we are working hard to achieve this goal.”
Firms such as Cuadrilla, IGas Energy and Third Energy are at the forefront of Britain’s shale gas industry and new projects are lined up for 2018 and 2019, but, progress has been slow – at least partially due to local politics and permitting issues.
Pro Investors, 1 March 2018
Dramatic weather hitting the United Kingdom is providing ammunition for the proponents of the embryonic shale gas industry.
After more than 24 hours of snow and freezing conditions, with most of the country’s kids staying home from school, The National Grid PLC has cautioned that it is running low on gas.
It has sparked calls for the UK to seize the shale opportunity which promises to be a significant domestic source of gas which would reduce the country’s dependence upon foreign imports.
“The UK is worryingly dependent on gas imports and this is forecast to increase to 80% by 2035,” said Ken Cronin, chief executive of industry group UK Onshore Oil and Gas.
Cronin added: “Given that nearly 50% of our electricity is produced by gas and 84% of our homes are heated with it, the need to ensure we have our own homegrown source of gas rather than pursuing this continued over-reliance on imports has today become very evident.
“We believe that the right way forward is to produce British natural gas from shale onshore and we are working hard to achieve this goal.”
Firms such as Cuadrilla, IGas Energy and Third Energy are at the forefront of Britain’s shale gas industry and new projects are lined up for 2018 and 2019, but, progress has been slow – at least partially due to local politics and permitting issues.
CALIFORNIA PAYS THE PRICE FOR ECO MADNESS
This piece looks at the loss of oil production in California due to their government driving up the costs of oil in a futile attempt to control the climate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)