Paul Beckwith has a masters degree in laser optics, which he has somehow parlayed into being a “Climate System Scientist” to spread alarmism about the climate system.
But his post “Unprecedented, Jet Stream Crosses Equator” suggests he knows little of meteorology, let alone climate.
A “jet stream” in the usual sense of the word is caused by the thermal wind, which cannot exist at the equator because there is no Coriolis force. To the extent that there is cross-equator flow at jet stream levels, it is usually from air flowing out of deep convective rain systems. That outflow often enters the subtropical jet stream, which is part of the average Hadley Cell circulation.
There is frequently cross-equatorial flow at jet stream altitudes, and that flow can connect up with a subtropical jet stream. But it has always happened, and always will happen, with or without the help of humans. Sometimes the flows connect up with each other and make it look like a larger flow structure is causing the jet stream to flow from one hemisphere to the other, but it’s in no way unprecedented.
We’ve really only known about jet streams since around WWII…one of my professors, Reid Bryson, was one of the first to advise the U.S. military that bombers flying to Japan might encounter strong head winds. The idea that something we have been observing for only several decades on a routine basis (upper tropospheric winds in the tropics) would exhibit “unprecedented” behavior is rather silly.
I especially like this portion of Paul’s post:
“We must declare a global climate emergency. Please consider a donation to support my work..”
“I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” says Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.
He shows me recent footage captured by spacecraft that have their sights trained on our star. The Sun is revealed in exquisite detail, but its face is strangely featureless.
“If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive… you’ve got to go back about 100 years,” he says.
This solar lull is baffling scientists, because right now the Sun should be awash with activity.
It has reached its solar maximum, the point in its 11-year cycle where activity is at a peak.
This giant ball of plasma should be peppered with sunspots, exploding with flares and spewing out huge clouds of charged particles into space in the form of coronal mass ejections.
But apart from the odd event, like some recent solar flares, it has been very quiet. And this damp squib of a maximum follows a solar minimum – the period when the Sun’s activity troughs – that was longer and lower than scientists expected.
“It’s completely taken me and many other solar scientists by surprise,” says Dr Lucie Green, from University College London’s Mullard Space Science Laboratory.
The drop off in activity is happening surprisingly quickly, and scientists are now watching closely to see if it will continue to plummet.
“It could mean a very, very inactive star, it would feel like the Sun is asleep… a very dormant ball of gas at the centre of our Solar System,” explains Dr Green.
This, though, would certainly not be the first time this has happened.
During the latter half of the 17th Century, the Sun went through an extremely quiet phase – a period called the Maunder Minimum.
Historical records reveal that sunspots virtually disappeared during this time.
Dr Green says: “There is a very strong hint that the Sun is acting in the same way now as it did in the run-up to the Maunder Minimum.”
Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics, from the University of Reading, thinks there is a significant chance that the Sun could become increasingly quiet.
“It’s an unusually rapid decline,” explains Prof Lockwood.
“We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 10% to 20% – nearer 20% – probability that we’ll be back in Maunder Minimum conditions.”
The era of solar inactivity in the 17th Century coincided with a period of bitterly cold winters in Europe.
Londoners enjoyed frost fairs on the Thames after it froze over, snow cover across the continent increased, the Baltic Sea iced over – the conditions were so harsh, some describe it as a mini-Ice Age.
And Prof Lockwood believes that this regional effect could have been in part driven by the dearth of activity on the Sun, and may happen again if our star continues to wane.
“It’s a very active research topic at the present time, but we do think there is a mechanism in Europe where we should expect more cold winters when solar activity is low,” he says.
He believes this local effect happens because the amount of ultraviolet light radiating from the Sun dips when solar activity is low.
This means that less UV radiation hits the stratosphere – the layer of air that sits high above the Earth. And this in turn feeds into the jet stream – the fast-flowing air current in the upper atmosphere that can drive the weather.
The results of this are dominantly felt above Europe, says Prof Lockwood.
“These are large meanders in the jet stream, and they’re called blocking events because they block off the normal moist, mild winds we get from the Atlantic, and instead we get cold air being dragged down from the Arctic and from Russia,” he says.
“These are what we call a cold snap… a series of three or four cold snaps in a row adds up to a cold winter. And that’s quite likely what we’ll see as solar activity declines.”
So could this regional change in Europe have a knock-on effect on for the rest of the world’s climate? And what are the implications for global warming?
In a recent report by the UN’s climate panel, scientists concluded that they were 95% certain that humans were the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s, and if greenhouse gases continue to rise at their current rate, then the global mean temperature could rise by as much as 4.8C.
And while some have argued that ebbs and flows in the Sun’s activity are driving the climate – overriding the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that solar variation only makes a small contribution to the Earth’s climate.
Prof Lockwood says that while UV light varies with solar activity, other forms of radiation from the Sun that penetrate the troposphere (the lower layer of air that sits above the Earth) do not change that much.
He explains: “If we take all the science that we know relating to how the Sun emits heat and light and how that heat and light powers our climate system, and we look at the climate system globally, the difference that it makes even going back into Maunder Minimum conditions is very small.
“I’ve done a number of studies that show at the very most it might buy you about five years before you reach a certain global average temperature level. But that’s not to say, on a more regional basis there aren’t changes to the patterns of our weather that we’ll have to get used to.”
But this weather would not be the only consequence of a drawn out period of inactivity, says Dr Green.
“If the Sun were to get very quiet, one of the few things that would happen is that we’d have very few displays of the northern lights. They are driven by solar activity, and we’d miss out on this beautiful natural phenomenon,” she explains.
However, there could be positive effects too.
“Solar activity drives a whole range of space weather, and these are ultimately effects on the electricity networks, on satellites, on radio communications and GPS on your sat-nav,” she explains.
And while scientists cannot discount that the random bursts of activity may still occur, calmer periods of space weather would help to maintain the technological infrastructure that we rely so heavily on.
While the full consequences of a quietening Sun are not fully understood, one thing scientists are certain about is that our star is unpredictable, and anything could happen next.
“This feels like a period where it’s very strange… but also it stresses that we don’t really understand the star that we live with.” says Prof Harrison.
“Because it’s complicated – it’s a complex beast.”
The Heartland Institute published a very revealing article about Leftist shock jock Naomi Klein who just published a new anti-capitalst screed entitled This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Essentially, Ms. Klein admits that the issue of climate change (formerly known as global warming) is not about science but really about overthrowingcapitalism.
“Our economic model is at war with the Earth,” writes Klein. “We cannot change the laws of nature. But we can change our economy. Climate change is our best chance to demand and build a better world.”
The Heartland article goes on to say:
For the author, this completely boring, run-of-the-mill flight delay became a flight of fancy, inspiring her new work. This flight delay, she reasoned, was evidence of climate change. Who cares, she added, if we know that the solar cycles impact the planet, even more than CO2 emissions ever could. Science is not the point, but it makes for a great alibi. “The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism. The convenient truth is that we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better,” she writes.
Another motivational moment for Klein, a single mother, happened when she was reading a children’s book to her son. The story was about a moose. She worried that the young lad would “never seen a moose” in his life. Then, reading another children’s book, this one about bats, she worried that the boy would “never see a bat.” Her overly emotional reactions to everyday things — plane delays, reading bed time stories to junior — are something that she feels must motivate us all to give up our way of life.
I am sure Ms. Klein has no problem traveling by plane, car, or train in order to promote herself or her publications. If global warming is not about science then I guess, in Klein’s mind, her promotion without regard for her carbon footprint is justified since if people like her are successful then her emissions won’t matter. Yet she has no problem enjoying all of the benefits of capitalism while condemning it in word but not deed. However, those of us on the side of civilization and reason owe people like Klein a debt of gratitude for their honesty. Naomi Klein is open about what environmentalists deny or refuse to admit and the greens probably cringe every time she opens her pathetic mouth.
Ms. Klein isn’t the first to communicate the Left’s blunt honesty about climate change. During October of last year, PJMediaposted this revealing article soon after a climate change event in Oakland, California. The article reveals a strong far Left presence at the ceremony during September 21st. Here is a video of the keynote speaker taken at the gathering:
Transitioning toward a completely nuclear-free clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is not only possible and affordable; it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
OK, let’s see what that means: no fossil fuels, no nuclear, undoubtedly no or little hydro. What’s left? Basically wind and solar. Sure enough, there’s this:
We will act boldly to move our energy system away from fossil fuels, toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal because we have a moral responsibility to leave our kids a planet that is healthy and habitable.
And don’t get the idea that Bernie is alone in these fantasies. In the same March speech where she said “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” Hillary also added that her energy policy would “bring economic opportunity—using clean, renewable energy as the key—into coal country.”
Can anybody around here do basic arithmetic? These ideas can’t possibly add up unless the government subsidies necessary to induce the development of wind and solar power are treated as completely costless free money. Government as the infinite source of costless free money — actually that’s the essence of progressivism, so I don’t know why I should have expected anything else from these guys.
Over at the Manhattan Institute, Robert Bryce is out with a new report titled “What Happens To An Economy When Forced To Use Renewable Energy?” Of course, the answer to the question is that so-called “renewable energy” is much more expensive than the fossil fuel alternatives, and the extra costs necessarily have to get piled on the population somewhere or other — in higher electricity prices, in higher taxes, in lost jobs or economic opportunities, or something else. The world “leaders” (if we want to call them that) in so burdening their populations are the big countries of Europe, so we can assess the consequences of these policies by comparing the experience of those countries since they started down this road to our own experience. Really, it’s an unmitigated disaster, particularly in the economic burdens imposed on the lower-income portion of the population. To take just a few examples from Bryce’s report:
Since the EU adopted its Emissions Trading Scheme in 2005, electricity prices in Europe have increased at about double the rate of increase in the U.S. — 63% in Europe vs. 32% in the U.S.
But the increases have been far more dramatic in the countries that have intervened the most in their energy markets: “During 2008–12, Germany’s residential electricity rates increased by 78 percent, Spain’s rose by 111 percent, and the U.K.’s soared by 133 percent.”
“In 2016 alone, German households will be forced to spend $29 billion on renewable electricity with a market value of $4 billion—more than $700 per household.”
“Germany’s energy minister has warned that the continuation of current policies risks the ‘deindustrialization’ of the country’s economy.”
Spain until recently was famous for the most aggressive promotion of wind and solar of all European countries. How has that worked out? “[T]he country’s electric utilities have accumulated a $32 billion deficit that must now be repaid, by adding surcharges of about 55 percent to customers’ bills. High energy costs are only adding to Spain’s economic woes. During 2004–14, Spain’s GDP grew by just 0.6 percent per year, on average, and the country’s unemployment rate now stands at about 21 percent.”
Meanwhile, at the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, John Droz today links to an archived 2014 post by a guy named John Weber titled “Prove This Wrong — Wind Makes Zero Sense.” If you think that wind energy is infinitely clean and free, this post is filled with lots of data and many pictures that show the extent to which the production of wind energy relies on a massive underlying fossil-fuel infrastructure. The post kicks off from a 2009 proposal from Stanford Engineering Professor Mark Jacobson to provide 50% of the world’s electricity by 2030 by the simple strategy of building lots of wind turbines. According to Jacobson (who thinks it is a good idea), it would take 3.8 million of the turbines at 5 MWe each to reach the 50% level. Current humongous wind turbines are only about 2.5 MWe each, so it would take more like 7.6 million of the smaller ones. Bernie thinks that all power (not just half) should be provided this way, so make that 15.2 million! Then put aside for the moment that wind turbines only work the far-less-than-half the time when the wind blows at the right speed. Also put aside the big transmission losses from moving the electricity from where the wind blows to where the electricity is used. Anyway, Weber’s post just focuses on the large and really unavoidable use of fossil fuel energy in building all these wind turbines.
When you see these things from a distance in the countryside, it’s hard to realize how truly gigantic they are. Weber gives the following statistics for just one 2.5 MWe wind turbine: tower height – 100 meters (328 feet); total height to top of blade – 485 feet; total weight – 2000 tons (!), mostly of steel and concrete. (Source: Kansas Energy Information Network here.) Here’s a picture of the base of a 2.5 MWe turbine under construction, with some men in the picture to give a sense of the scale. That’s about 45 tons of steel re-bar:
That base is soon to be filled with a pour of about 1200 tons of concrete. Then you attach the 328 foot tower. The tower comes in two sections. Here’s a picture of the smaller (approx. 120 foot) section arriving on a 208 foot long truck:
To state the obvious, the whole idea of wind turbines is a non-starter without the enormous underlying fossil-fuel-powered infrastructure to make and deliver the steel, concrete and other materials. Here is a 2014 post from the Energy Collective acknowledging the same point.
Then there’s air travel — has anyone figured out a way to do that with wind power? Ocean shipping? Theoretically, with enough batteries, you could do all-electric cars with wind power. You can buy a Tesla for around $75,000 today. But don’t worry, the government has plenty of free money lying around to subsidize that down until the price is competitive with the evil fossil-fuel powered vehicles.
Lüdecke, who has authored numerous climate science publications in climate science journals, is sure that the role of CO2 on climate is grossly overstated and riddled with alarmist hype.
Polar bear population “growing”
On polar bears, Lüdecke says there is “no trace” of the animal disappearing due to climate change and that the polar bear population has in fact been climbing. Moreover, the polar bear has been around for “hundreds of thousands of years“.
Climate sensitivity much weaker than assumed
On the subject of the greenhouse effect and radiation outwards into space, Lüdecke reminds that the climate system involves countless, poorly understood complexities, such as cloud cover and water vapor. In the interview he tells:
Water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and acts to enhance the warming effect. We call this feedback, as the warming is magnified more by it then it is alone by the radiation effect. But the other assumption claims: The opposite is correct! More water vapor in the air leads to more clouds that cool.”
On which effect is true, Lüdecke tells the DAV:
The theory of a feedback is not confirmed by measurements. According to the theory, the altitudes over the tropics at about 5 to 7 kilometers are supposed to be showing a clearly measurable heating zone that is referred to as the ‘Hot Spot’. No one has found it. Everything points to the pure radiation effect being weaker and not enhanced.”
No human fingerprint
The retired, independent physicist then tells the DAV that “man’s influence on the climate still cannot be filtered from the climate noise even today” and that today’s climate and weather changes are no different than what was observed hundreds of years ago, citing the IPCC itself:
There is not a single bit of scientific justification to claim: Here we are seeing unusual climate developments that can be only attributed to humans.”
Lüdecke suspects that the cyclic nature of climate natural climate change is caused mainly by the sun’s activity, naming the De Vries/Suess 200-year cycle and the 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle as examples.
He also confirms the recent “18-20 year” global warming pause and reminds us that in geological terms, the Earth today in fact finds itself in a ice age period, which is typically defined as one that sees the poles frozen over – as is the case today.
On proxies the retired climate scientist says that care has to be exercised in interpreting the data they yield. The DAQV asks whether there is a relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration. Lüdecke replies:
No, there’s nothing to see there.”
CO2 concentration in fact historically low
Lüdecke also points out that today’s atmospheric CO2 levels are in fact close to historical lows, and that elevated concentration bring a number of advantages to the ecosystems, foremost a greener planet with better plant growth.
Also, man’s CO2 emissions pale against those from the oceans and natural environment.
Ocean acidification “an alarmist myth”
On whether the threat of ocean acidification exists, Lüdecke dumps cold water on that claim:
No, ocean acidification is another myth of the alarmists. Every chemists you talk to on ocean acidification being a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 will roll his eyes. […]
Also the supposed sensitivity of corals to CO2 in sea water is an alarmist myth.”
“Dangerous, undemocratic ideology”
At the very end of the interview, Lüdecke comments on climate protection as a movement:
Here I allow myself to state very clearly: Climate protection has nothing to do with protecting nature. Climate protection is a dangerous, undemocratic ideology.”
In the next post, we will look at what prof. Lüdecke says in the rest of the interview, concerning climate models and the energy trend in Europe.
Be sure to see this movie Monday, May 2 – during its one-night nationwide engagement
Without presenting it to the US Senate, as required by the Constitution, President Obama has signed the Paris climate treaty. He is already using it to further obligate the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth … control our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties … and redistribute our wealth. Poor, minority and working class families will suffer most.
China, India and other developing economies are under no such obligation, unless and until it is in their interest to do so. For them, compliance is voluntary – and they cannot afford to eliminate the fossil fuels that supply 85% of all global energy, generate some 90% of developing nations’ electricity, and will lift billions of people out of abject poverty. That’s why these countries have built over 1,000 coal-fired power plants and are planning to build 2,300 more – while unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are shutting down US coal-fired generators, and getting ready to block natural gas production and use.
What if the entire foundation for this energy and economic insanity were erroneous, groundless, fabricated … a climate con job – a Climate Hustle?
That is exactly what CFACT’s new movie demonstrates is actually going on.
Climate Hustle is the perfect antidote to the destructive, demoralizing climate alarmism that dominates political decisions and obsesses the Obama White House and EPA. You owe it to yourself to see it.
It’s coming to a theater near you on Monday, May 2, for a special one-night engagement.
I saw Climate Hustle April 14, at its U.S. premiere on Capitol Hill in Washington. The film is informative and entertaining, pointed and humorous. As meteorologist Anthony Watts says, it is wickedly effective in its using slapstick humor and the words and deeds of climate alarmists to make you laugh at them.
It examines the science on both sides of the issue … presents often hilarious planetary Armageddon prophecies of Al Gore, Leonard Nimoy and otherdoomsayers … and lets 30 scientists and other experts expose the climate scares and scams, explain Real World climate science, and delve deeply into the politics and media hype that have surrounded this issue since it was first concocted several decades ago
Sizzling temperatures. Melting ice caps. Destructive hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts. Disappearing polar bears. The end of civilization as we know it! The end of Planet Earth!
Emissions from our power plants, cars, factories and farms are causing catastrophic climate change!
Or are they? Is there really a “97% scientific consensus” on this? Or is “dangerous manmade climate change” merely the greatest overheated environmentalist con-job and shell game ever devised to advance the Big Green anti-energy agenda?
See this amazing film on May 2, and find out for yourself. To learn where it’s showing near you, and to buy tickets, visit www.ClimateHustle.com
You’ll be glad you did.
Climate Hustle is hosted by award-winning investigative journalist Marc Morano. A former communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Morano is publisher of CFACT’s ClimateDepot.com. The film is a production of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and CDR Communications. See the movie. Bring your friends. Make it a party. www.ClimateHustle.com
Zhu, Z., Piao, S., Myneni, R.B., Huang, M., Zeng, Z., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., Friedlingstein, P., Arneth, A., Cao, C., Cheng, L., Kato, E., Koven, C., Li, Y., Lian, X., Liu, Y., Liu, R., Mao, J., Pan, Y., Peng, S., Penuelas, J., Poulter, B., Pugh, T.A.M., Stocker, B.D., Viovy, N., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Xiao, Z., Yang, H., Zaehle, S. and Zeng, N. 2016. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3004.
Among the many climate-alarmist fears of CO2-induced global warming is the concern that the productivity of the biosphere will decline if global temperatures rise to the extent predicted by computer models. Yet, for many alarmists, the future is the present. Since 1980, for example, the Earth has weathered three of the warmest decades in the instrumental temperature record, a handful of intense and persistent El Niño events, large-scale deforestation, “unprecedented” forest fires, and the eruption of several volcanoes. Concurrently, the air’s CO2 content increased by 16%, while human population grew by 55%. So just how bad is the biosphere suffering in response to these much-feared events? Or, is it even suffering at all? A new paper by Zhu et al. (2016) provides valuable insight into this important topic.
Noting that global environment change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, Zhu et al. set about to discover just how significant this phenomenon is, as well as what has primarily been responsible for it. This they did using three long-term satellite-derived leaf area index (LAI) records, together with the output of ten global ecosystem models, which they employed to study four key drivers of LAI trends (atmospheric CO2 enrichment, nitrogen deposition, climate change and land cover change) over the period 1982-2009. And what did this effort reveal?
The 32 researchers — representing 9 different countries (Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, the United States and the United Kingdom) — report finding “a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning).” And equally importantly, they report that “factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (4%).”
Could one hope for anything more promising than this? Quite the opposite of what the world’s climate alarmists contend should be happening to Earth’s vegetation, rising atmospheric CO2 enrichment is proving to be a tremendous biospheric benefit, overpowering the many real and negative influences that society and nature have inflicted upon it over the past three decades, as shown in the figure below.
Figure 1. Spatial pattern of relative change of LAI due to CO2 fertilization during 1982 to 2009. The relative change of LAI in each pixel is derived from the ratio of the increment of LAI driven by elevated atmospheric CO2 to the 28-year average value of LAI simulated by model ensemble mean under scenario S1. Source: Figure S12, supplementary information from Zhu et al. (2016)
The Carbon Sense Coalition today urged people to celebrate the true green fuels – oil, coal, gas, nuclear and, in places, geothermal and hydro.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that these fuels have reduced man’s pressure on the environment to such an extent that they should be celebrated on “Earth Day”.
Direct Quotes that may be used:
It was petroleum that provided the kerosene that replaced whale oil in lamps and greatly reduced the slaughter of whales.
Coal saved the forests that were being cut down for smelters, forges, charcoal, heaters and stoves. Steel made with coke then replaced wood for mine props, bridges and tall buildings. As steam engines and iron ships replaced wooden wind-jammers in world navies and merchant fleets, the forests expanded.
Coal gas and clean coal cured the smogs of London and Pittsburgh. Piped gas for home heating and street lighting and the even better “clean-coal-by-wire” (coal powered electricity) worked wonders to reduce air pollution in “The Big Smoke”.
Petrol driven cars and trucks removed horse manure from the big cities, and tractors reduced the amount of land required to grow food for those cities.
Nuclear power is the ultimate “green energy” – enormous amounts of clean energy generated on a tiny footprint, by minute quantities of fuel, with little effect on air or water quality. Its only disadvantage is that, unlike coal and gas, it does not recycle the gases of life to the atmosphere.
Naturally there are risks in every human endeavour but modern energy sources kill far fewer people and wildlife than were once lost in timber getting, horse breaking, wind-jammers, sulky capsize, air pollution and city wildfires. And to believe that man can tweak the climate with carbon taxes is non-sense.
In contrast, the so called “green energy” sources usually lauded on Earth Day have a heavy toll on the environment to produce piddling amounts of unreliable and costly energy.
Both wind and solar energy are so dilute that large areas of land must be sterilised by roads, transmission lines and construction sites to collect significant energy. Already many wind towers have been abandoned and others are being de-commissioned because of high maintenance costs or poor energy production.
Roof-top solar is a joke as a reliable supplier of energy for most of humanity. In most installations of wind and solar power, the facilities would not be built without subsidies and other political props, and it is doubtful that the green-power turbines and panels will generate enough useful energy over their limited life to recover the energy needed for their raw materials, manufacture, construction, roads, power lines, earth works, maintenance and decommissioning.
Green energy is not environmentally friendly.
Where big wind/solar facilities are constructed, many native birds and bats are sliced by whirling swords, or singed and fried by concentrated solar heat rays. Blinded by their obsession with blaming fossil fuels for everything, greens pretend that this unnecessary slaughter of wildlife is not occurring.
Without carbon and nuclear fuels, Earth would be raped for fuel and food by destitute people trying to eke out a living without the greatest boon to modern living – cheap reliable energy. As Alex Epstein, from the Centre for Industrial Progress says eloquently, “fossil fuels are the greenest energy”.
“Despite what most environmentalists would have us believe, fossil fuels have made our lives more livable, not less. Thanks to coal, oil, and natural gas, the developed world has routine access to clean water, better sanitation, and yes, cleaner air. Watch the video here and find out how, rather than destroying the planet, this miracle energy source is actually saving lives.
NOAA and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have histories of tweaking global data and abbreviating recorded timelines to make the past colder in order to have recent temperatures appear remarkably warmer.
In January they rolled out a “hottest year ever” press briefing to report an allegedly dramatic warming trend purportedly based upon 57 years of radiosonde (balloon) records. Strangely, their presentation graph only showed the last 37 years dating back to 1979. Data going back another 22 years to 1957 would have revealed a very different trend line.
As reported by Real Science, radiosonde recordings in the Earth’s atmosphere show no overall warming since the late 1950s. And whereas NOAA’s surface station records indicate about one degree of warming between 1979 and 2010, far more accurate radiosonde and satellite measurements show little warming.
Global temperatures cooled from the late 1950s to the ’60s, and have since risen and fallen with as much pre-1979 cooling as post-1979 warming over the past half century.
Satellite records which date back only to 1979 show that 1998, a major El Niño year, was far warmer than 2015, which experienced an even stronger El Niño that had been expected to influence at least equally high temperatures.
In fact even the year 2010 (which was followed by four years of cooling) was warmer.
Those 18 years after 1998 were relatively flat until last year despite much ballyhooed “record high” atmospheric CO2 levels. The 2015 El Niño is now rapidly dissipating, likely to be soon followed by a cooling La Niña.
Alabama’s State Climatologist and University of Alabama Earth Science Center Director John Christy explained reasons for temperature recording conflicts and uncertainties to the House Science Committee last month.
He emphasized that satellite and radiosonde measurements, which tend to be quite consistent with one another, afford much more accurate and coherent gauges of global temperatures than surface networks.
Christy observed that significant land-based temperature contamination errors result from local “heat island effects” caused by urban developments and careless placement of recording instruments near heat sources such as structures and air conditioner exhausts.
Ocean surface measurements are also unreliable. He pointed out that water temperature trends at a depth of 1 meter “do not track well with those of air temperature just above the water [3 meters], even when both are measured on the same buoy over 20 years.” With regard to determining any human CO2 influences, “it is difficult to adjust for these contaminating factors to extract a pure data set for greenhouse detection because often the non-climatic influence comes along very gradually just as it is expected of the response to the enhanced greenhouse effect.”
As for theoretical computer models which project sharply climbing temperatures, actual atmospheric measurements have shown no such trend whatsoever.
Christy told the House Committee that “The models overwarm the atmosphere by a factor of about 2.5, indicating that the current [greenhouse] theory is at odds with the facts.” This discrepancy “is not a short-term specially-selected episode, but represents the past 37 years.” He reminded the audience that “This is also the period with the highest concentration of greenhouse gases, and thus, the period in which the response should be of the largest magnitude.”
Many will remember a previous “climate crisis” media scare in the 1960s and late ’70s when “leading scientists” were predicting an arrival of the next ice age.
Since 2011, NOAA has creatively revised that original temperature record to make that big chill go away altogether. They aren’t alone in cooking the books. NASA’s GISS, a small surface temperature modeling shop operating out of a midtown Manhattan office building has become a leading player in the political agenda-driven climate scare business.
The next time you hear a feverish declaration that the most recent day, month, year or decade is “the hottest on record,” perhaps consider “since when?” Are they referring to the brief period since satellites first provided the most reliable data? Do they mean since the time a spotty and haphazard global network of mercury thermometer surface stations was established in the late 1800s?
In any case, don’t expect alarmists to cite evidence taken from proxy records including ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica indicating that temperatures were warmer over most of the past 10,000 years . . . or that agricultural records show the climate was as warm or warmer 2,000 years ago during the Roman warm period and again 1,000 years ago during the Medieval warm period.
Also, don’t anticipate any mention that our planet is still warming its way out of the “little ice age” which lasted from about 1300 to 1850. Periods before the Industrial Revolution brought CO2-belching smokestacks and SUVs somehow don’t seem to count.
Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) and the graduate program in space architecture. He is the author of “Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom”(2015) and “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax” (2012).
The Germans went into wind power harder and faster than anyone else – and the cost of doing so is catching up with a vengeance.
The subsidies have been colossal and the impacts on the electricity market chaotic.
Some 800,000 German homes have been disconnected from the grid – victims of what is euphemistically called “fuel poverty”. Power starved Germans, instead of freezing, grabbed their axes and tramped into their forests to improve their sense of energy security – although foresters apparently take the view that this self-help measure is nothing more than blatant timber theft (see our post here).
German manufacturers – and other energy intensive industries – faced with escalating power bills are packing up and heading to the USA – where power prices are 1/3 of Germany’s (see our posts here and hereand here). And the “green” dream of creating thousands of jobs in the wind industry has turned out to be just that: a dream (see our post here).
Those in charge of Germany’s power grid have stepped up calls for an end to the lunacy of trying to absorb a wholly weather dependent generation source into what was never designed to deal with the chaos presented on a daily basis:
The economics are so bizarre, that you’d think its “Energiewende” policy had been put together by the GDR’s ‘brains trust’, before the Berlin Wall took its tumble in 1989.
In Germany, around €100 billion has already been burnt on renewable subsidies; currently the green energy levy costs €56 million every day. And, the level of subsidy for wind and solar sees Germans paying €20 billion a year for power that gets sold on the power exchange for around €2 billion.
Squandering €18 billion a year on power – which Germans have in abundance from meaningful sources – has them asking the fair and reasonable question: just how much power are they getting for the €billions that they’ve thrown – and continue to throw at wind and solar? The answer – at a piddling 3.3% – is: NOT MUCH.
For Germans, that would all be miserable enough, except that – contrary to the purported environmental purpose of their Energiewende – CO2 emissions are rising, not falling as promised and predicted.
If “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then German energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed. And what an expensive failure it is.