Don’t Believe ‘Hottest-Year’ Hype

By Larry Bell | Monday, 14 Mar 2016 07:51 AM

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). 

 

Germany’s Wind Power Meltdown

Posted: March 28, 2016 by tallbloke in Energy, government, greenblob, Incompetence, solar system dynamics, wind

turbine-failRepost from Stop These Things

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:

Germany’s Wind Power Debacle Escalates: Nation’s Grid on the Brink of Collapse

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.

Explaining The Extreme Weather Events That Did Not Happen

MARCH 17, 2016

By Paul Homewood 

image_thumb67

https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/

Unable to persuade the public that a slightly warmer world is a bad thing, the climate establishment has turned to peddling the myth that global warming is leading to more extreme weather.

There have been a number of studies which have attempted to connect the two. Even then, as I showed with the above AMS attempt a few months ago, most extreme events cannot be linked, and those that are claimed to be are extremely tenuous.

Of course, weather is an impossibly complex affair, and it is inevitable that some weather events may be made more likely or more intense in a warmer world. But, equally, the opposite is also true – that some events are less likely. Naturally, we never hear the absence of extreme weather analysed in this way by the likes of the AMS or Met Office.

So, I invite them to have a go at these examples:

Hurricanes

US land falling hurricanes have been at record low levels in recent years, and it is now more than ten years since a major hurricane hit.

image

image

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html

Tornadoes

There has been a long term decline in both the number of tornadoes, and particularly, the frequency of stronger ones.

image_thumb54

image_thumb55

Droughts

Droughts were much more commonplace, prolonged and severe prior to the 1970s.

mudltigraph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/pdsi/ytd/12/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Summer Heatwaves

There has been a marked absence of extreme heatwaves in recent years, and nothing approaches the run of intensely hot summers in the 1930s.

mulstigraph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tmax/3/8/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Bitter Winters

According to NOAA’s albeit highly adjusted data, extremely cold winters are a thing of the past in the US.

multigramph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tmin/3/2/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Precipitation

As with drought indicators, US rainfall has tended to be greater since the pre 1970 period.

There is no indication, however, of precipitation becoming more extreme since then. The wettest year was 1973.

multigrapph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/pcp/ytd/12/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Regional Precipitation Extremes

National totals can, of course, cover up regional imbalances.The NOAA chart below shows the balance of extremely wet and dry areas. As with PDSI, very dry areas are much less common, while the area of very wet weather is stable.

(NOAA’s graph is not well presented; although it says “December”, it is in fact for all months since 1895. Each bar represents a single month)

multigraph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/uspa/?area=wet-dry&month=0&submitted=View

The Boulder Clean Power Plan

Posted on by

Screen Shot 2016-02-28 at 8.11.34 PM

So, what they are proposing is this :

2016-02-28141658

Of course they can’t get rid of the other power plant, because this week the wind only blew for a few hours.

Screenshot 2016-02-27 at 08.52.00 AM

NCAR Foothills Lab Weather (english, weekly)

So basically what they want to do is spend huge amounts of money to destroy the environment – and accomplish essentially nothing. The climate of Boulder isn’t changing.

BOULDER_CO_AverageMeanTemperatureAnomaly_Jan_Dec_1950_2015

‘Nonsense’: Top Scientists Demolish Alarmism Behind U.N. Climate Summit

Michael Bastasch

A panel of prominent scientists debunked one of the most popular global warming arguments ahead of a major United Nations climate summit to take place in Paris later this month.

The scientists slammed policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as “nonsense,” and they criticized politicians and activists for claiming the world was on the path for catastrophic global warming.

“The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc.  — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point,” Dr. Richard Lindzen, a veteran climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” said Lindzen, who is also a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

President Barack Obama and his activist allies are calling for U.N. delegates to sign onto a global treaty to reduce CO2 emissions. Obama has been heavily pushing for this treaty for the past year or so, even lobbying the Chinese government to sign onto an agreement.

“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense,” Dr. Will Happer, a physicist at Princeton University, said during the panel Thursday hosted by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path,” Happer argued.

Scientists and environmentalists have added urgency to the U.N. climate summit by arguing 2015 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record based on surface temperature readings. Scientists warned this month Earth has warmed 1 degree Celsius since the late 1800s.

But Lindzen and his fellow panelists said claims of the hottest year on record are “nonsense” because there’s so much uncertainty surrounding surface temperature readings — especially since scientists often make lots of adjustments to weather station readings.

“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense,” Lindzen said. “This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree.”

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made,” Lindzen added. “If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.”

As the world speeds towards Paris, Republicans have ramped up efforts to stop President Obama from being able to carry out his global warming agenda and impose a U.N. treaty on Americans.

Senate Republicans have passed two resolutions opposing carbon dioxide regulations on power plants, and lawmakers introduced a resolution opposed to any U.N. agreement Obama signs onto at the Paris climate summit.

“We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” Dr. Patrick Moore, an ecologist and the co-founder of Greenpeace, said of attempts to fight global warming during Thursday’s panel.

“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said. “CO2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years.”
Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/nonsense-top-scientists-demolish-alarmism-behind-u-n-climate-summit/#ixzz41PvXmpTl

Millennials Are Well-Meaning but Misguided on Energy Policy

By  February 16, 2016

A recent USA Today/Rock the Vote survey of millennials shows 80 percent of millennials support transitioning to “mostly clean” or renewable energy by 2030. Although their hearts may be in the right place, few millennials appear to realize how much energy their lifestyle actually consumes, where this energy comes from, and how much it would cost to transition to a nation that’s powered predominantly by renewables by 2030.

As a millennial myself, I’m quite familiar with this phenomenon. Many of my peers don’t understand electricity doesn’t just come from the wall; e-mail isn’t necessarily green because it isn’t printed on paper; and a lifestyle that revolves around binge-watching Netflix has a real impact on the environment.

One environmental group estimates U.S. data centers in 2013 consumed an estimated 91 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, the same as the annual output of 34 large (500-megawatt) coal-fired power plants, and estimates are these data centers will consume the equivalent of 50 coal-fired power plants by 2030.

It’s ironic the generation that will consume more energy in their lifetimes than any before them, one that uses energy-gobbling technology for virtually every aspect of their lives—including dating apps, social media, finding a taxi, and even ordering from Taco Bell—can be so oblivious of how much energy they consume and where it comes from.

Most of the millennials I’ve spoken to drastically overestimate the amount of energy generated from wind and solar power in the United States. I am often met with incredulous looks when I explain the United States generates only about 2 percent of its total energy consumption from wind and solar combined and that these two sources of power produce less energy for the nation than burning wood.

Just four sources of energy account for 89.5 percent of the total energy produced in the United States. Thirty-five percent comes from oil, 28 percent from natural gas, 18 percent from coal, and 8.5 percent from nuclear.

These forms of energy dominate the mix because they are the most affordable sources and because renewables simply aren’t ready to be used as the country’s primary power sources. Wind and solar are unreliable; they generate energy only when the wind blows or the sun shines, and we have no way of storing this energy. Think of an electric car with no battery, and you will have an idea of why our power system can’t rely on renewables.

For these reasons, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates the world will still generate approximately 80 percent of its total energy from fossil fuels in 2040.

Germany and some other nations have aggressively pursued renewable energy, and they are paying a big price for it. Consumer electricity prices in Germany are approximately three times as high as prices in the United States, and wind and solar constitute only about 8.9 percent and 5.7 percent of Germany’s electricity generation, respectively.

Although renewables are unlikely to become staples for energy generation anytime soon, it’s not surprising millennials would want to transition to an economy powered mostly by clean or renewable energy; many of us grew up with our teachers telling us the world would soon run out of fossil fuels and we had to prepare for a switch to renewable energy. Those predictions were completely wrong. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, virtually guarantees decades, if not centuries, of oil and natural gas, and it has made theories of “peak oil” a thing of the past.

Surveys and polls are very susceptible to how the questions are worded. When questions offer people a presumed benefit, without discussing the costs or consequences of the policy in question, results are overwhelmingly positive. This was likely the case with this survey. If provided with all of the information, including the disadvantages, of renewables, millennials would likely be less enthusiastic about relying so heavily on renewable energy.

[Originally published at Inside Sources]

Green Electricity in Denmark, Germany, costs three times as much as US

By Joanne Nova

It’s a bit costly trying to control the weather:

“Germany has been paying over $26 billion per year for electricity that has a wholesale market value of just $5 billion (see here).”

That’s $21 billion that could have been spent on health or education that was used instead to feed the Green Machine. A few handy facts to memorize. The cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour:

Denmark, 42c; Germany 40c, and the USA, 12.5c. ( — Forbes)

Wind and solar power supplies 28% of electricity in Germany (is it really that high?) This is what Australia is aiming for?

Industrial energy prices, electricity, germany, US, UK

Europe is a “green energy” basket case. Washington Post

“Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.”Der Spiegel

Europe’s Energy and Electricity Policies are a Bad Model, Jude Clement, Forbes

“The direct loss of industry because of higher cost electricity is particularly destructive. Manufacturing jobs are very high-paying and the manufacturing business greatly advances nations with a massive “multiplier effect,” where 1 new manufacturing job can create as many as 6 or 7 across the overall economy.

While the manufacturing sector in the EU now employs about 30 million persons directly, down from 37 million 10 years ago, the real devastation is far worse because manufacturing is a building block of a strong economy.”

German Handelsblatt: German Households Getting Crushed By Green Energies To The Tune Of 28 Billion Annually!

Here’s one for the stubborn clingers of green energies like wind and sun. German financial daily Handelsblatt here writes about the harsh reality of these so-called clean, free-for-the-taking energies.

In the earlier days of green energy (some 10 or so years ago, then German Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin famously claimed that the cost of wind and solar energy would be easily affordable – equivalent to no more than one scoop of ice cream a month. Environmentalists like David Suzuki once said in a video, “Hey man, it’s for free!” Nothing could be further than the truth.

The Handelsblatt concedes the real (painful) costs of green energy. It writes:

The costs of the Energiewende [transition to renewable energies] for power cosumers in Germany is now running at 28 billion euros annually. A household with a power consumption of 3500 kilowatt-hours annually is thus paying 270 euros a year for implementing the Energiewende.”

That’s the result Germany’s Institute for Economy (IW) calculated on behalf of the Handelsblatt. North American readers should keep in mind that their household energy needs typically run two or even three times higher than the very conservative figure of 3500 kilowatt-hours a year used by the Handelsblatt, this due in large part to harsher winters and hotter summers.

Website The Irish Energy Blog here presents a chart depicting electricity cost as a function of installed sun and wind capacity for all European countries:

wind-strompreis_n

Chart source: irishenergyblog, by BP2015 and Eurostat

The relationship is totally clear: The higher the share of wind and solar power in the power generation, the higher the electricity prices for consumers.

The Handelsblatt cites one industry group representative, Carsten Linnemann: “The consequences of the Energiewende are developing into a dangerous competition factor because it is frightening investors and is costing jobs.”

There’s another sinister side to Germany’s careening Energiewende, the Handelsblatt writes. Because wind and solar power are given the right of way to the power grid over conventional fossil fuel generated power, the conventional plants are forced to run part-time at inefficient levels, which makes them unprofitable. The Handelsblatt continues:

A total of 57 conventional power plants are to be shut down, reports Bild newspaper on Monday, citing figures from the German Power Regulatory Board. That is nine more than at the start of the year. The reason, according to the plant operators, is the lack of profitability due to the Energiewende.”

Of course there will be some out there who will obstinately keep their heads stuck in the sand, and wish all of this wasn’t true.

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/29/german-handelsblatt-german-households-getting-crushed-by-green-energies-to-the-tune-of-28-billion-annually/#sthash.lCiPuo1n.dpuf

————

NOTE: In the United States, the Northeast States and California have the highest electricity rates. Regulatory assault on fossil fuels by the EPA would cause rates to double in the next few decades, and drive up the cost of all energy for heating and transportation.

Screen Shot 2016-02-11 at 7.59.45 AM

 

UNPRECEDENTED!!! THE GROUNDHOG DIED!

A groundhog died a year ago November near by back steps. It was followed by the coldest January to February (and snowiest) on record since 1895 here in the northeast and southeast Canada. Yes official government sources in both countries forecast a warm winter.

Sunrise's Swansong

Sad news has come from Canada. The cute and cuddly woodchuck “Winnipeg Willow” expired early on Saturday, January 30. Groundhog Day willow-groundhog

Unconfirmed reports state that Winnipeg Willow was seen drinking heavily on Friday night, and was heard screaming, “I can’t take it any more, I tell you! I’m vermin! I break horses legs with my holes, and can demolish an entire vegetable garden’s worth of spring seedlings in one night! My Momma didn’t raise me to be no teddy bear! But for five years I’ve had to put up with this @%$#&^%,  @#(**&  @#$$^%. I can’t take it! Don’t they know the only time a woodchuck is ever good is in a stew?”

The caretaker could not be reached for comment.

The news that the groundhog died apparently set off panic in Canada’s large community of Global  Warming Alarmists, who have stampeded to the southern border, making it hard for our reporter…

View original post 141 more words

‘Climate change’ lawyers quietly lay groundwork for EPA takeover of U.S. energy

By Michael Bashtach

Environmentalist lawyers have been pushing a legal theory that would give the Environmental Protection Agency cover to regulate every facet of state energy policy — effectively eliminating states’ authority to craft their own regulations.

“Buried in the Clean Air Act is an extremely powerful mechanism that effectively gives EPA carte blanche to tell states to make drastic cuts to their emissions,” Brian Potts, a partner at the law firm Foley & Lardner wrote in Politico Monday.

“This provision, which can now be used thanks to the completion of the Paris climate deal, raises important questions about national sovereignty and states’ rights — questions that Republicans would undoubtedly use to try and kill such a proposal,” Potts wrote. “But the benefits of using this mechanism dwarf those concerns.”

Potts is referring to Section 115 of the Clean Air Act. Liberal legal scholars argue the Paris global warming treaty has triggered this little-known provision of federal law, and now the EPA can launch a full takeover of states’ environmental regulatory agendas.

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act provides an untapped but potent opportunity for achieving many of the United States’ long-term climate change goals,” 13 liberal legal experts wrote in a January brief published by the Institute for Policy Integrity.

Several lawyers working for various environmental law groups want the EPA to use this provision to implement a nationwide cap-and-trade system. Ever since the defeat of cap-and-trade in Congress in 2010, environmentalists have been looking for legal loopholes for the EPA to use to unilaterally impose cap-and-trade on the U.S.economy.

“EPA and the states could implement a Section 115 regime with less difficulty than the current … approach,” the lawyers wrote, “and could instead combine multiple sectors and source types in a single rulemaking that could establish a nationwide, market-based emissions reduction program.”

‘We Saw This Coming’

Attorney Chris Horner isn’t surprised by the arguments coming from these environmental law groups. Horner says President Barack Obama has always sought to use the United Nations agreement in Paris to further his regulatory agenda.

“As we have made plain all along to any who cared to listen, the administration’s intention behind agreeing to the Paris deal was quite transparently to create an argument and a trap for successive congresses and administrations to impose ever-tighter EPA energy rationing rules in the name of catastrophic man-made global warming,” Horner, an attorney with the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Horner has led the charge against the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan, filing lawsuits and uncovering emails showing the agency’s cozy relationship with environmental activists hoping to push more regulations on businesses. Now, Horner has turned his attention to uncovering the legal implications of Obama’s agreeing to cut U.S. emissions.

“Unlike previous global warming treaties like Kyoto, which had a finite life, Paris — which obviously a treaty on its face — includes an evergreen provision promising new rules every five years,” Horner said, adding the Obama administration is already using the Paris agreement as legal precedent to block challenges by states to EPA rules.

“Going forward, expect those arguments in court and in the media echo chamber to help shield EPA’s rules, and to compel more rules every five years,” Horner said. “‘We’ve promised the world!’ Except, only Obama promised them.”

The Path To EPA Rule

Legal scholars say there are two conditions that need to be satisfied before the EPA can take over state regulatory decisions.

First, EPA needs findings from an international agency showing American pollution is harming public health in other countries. Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, has been listed as a pollutant by the EPA.

“The many reports put out by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the past few decades meet this requirement,” Potts argued. “The U.S. is one of the top greenhouse gas emitters in the world, and its pollution undoubtedly endangers public health and welfare in many other countries.”

Next, EPA must show a foreign country that’s harmed by U.S. emissions has given America “essentially the same rights with respect to the prevention … of air pollution occurring in that country,” according to Potts. This is where the recent United Nations agreement comes into play.

“The Paris agreement satisfies this reciprocity requirement because there are now nearly 190 countries planning to reduce their emissions, at least in part, to protect one another’s health and welfare,” Potts wrote.

Potts even argued the fact that the Paris agreement isn’t legally-binding doesn’t matter. In his words, “nothing in Section 115 requires such enforceability.”

But the Paris agreement can still be derailed by the Senate, even though it’s not seen as a traditional treaty. The Senate can still assert its constitutional power over treaties to derail the agreement before Obama signs it.

“It is the complete failure by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to do its job, choosing instead by inaction to cede its shared constitutional role in the treaty process to be one that exists at the pleasure of the president,” Horner said. “Now it is time for others to take over.”

“If the Senate as a whole does not provide its Art. II ‘advice’ — that Paris requires ‘consent’ to mean anything to anyone — prior to the president’s planned “Mother Earth Day” signature, we might as well disband the committee and agree with Sec. Kerry that the treaty process is dead, that binding us into perpetual, unpopular schemes is now a unilateral function of the executive,” he added.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/climate-change-lawyers-quietly-lay-groundwork-for-epa-takeover-of-us-energy-sector/#ixzz3zIWZMLIB
/

Recap of the Historic El Nino Mega storm

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

 

MEGASTORM
NASA Satellite shows clouds off the coast and heavy snow on land

Often in El Ninos, the winter gets off to a gentle start. December was that including record warm Christmas day. El Ninos like this one turn mean instead of green starting in late January, especially in the Mid Atlantic states.

Remember last year in a weaker El Nino, the green mild start ended abruptly with a big snow the last week of the month and 100 inches fell in the following 39 days. February was the coldest and snowiest on record here. January to March was the coldest ever for the northeast states since records began in 1895 according to NOAA. It followed what had been the 11th coldest winter in the northeast and 2nd coldest March on record here in this part of New England.

This year, arctic air invaded the central and east last week and met up with a classic El Nino storm moving through the south. Snow and ice developed in Arkansas east to Georgia and then the storm turned north. 36 hours of heavy snows set all time records in places. In most cities, more snow fell in one storm than usually occur in the entire season.

Central Park NYC recorded 26.8“, 2nd behind 26.9” in 2006. JFK airport had a record 30.5 inches. Philadelphia reported 22.4″, which was the 6th heaviest in a two-day period in records back to the 1870s.

Screen Shot 2016-01-31 at 5.39.42 AM

In the DC area, Reagan Airport had an unofficial (the snow board and ruler was lost in the snow) 19.4″ inches. second most behind the Knickerbocker storm of 1922 (which collapsed the Knickerbocker theatre).

KnickerbockerInterior

Inside of the Knickerbocker Theatre after the collapse

The White House had 22 inches. Baltimore had 29.2″ the most ever for a single storm and Dulles had 29.3

The Wall Street Journal estimated the storm might produce $16Billion in lost output to the economy.

Predictably, there is talk this is the result of climate change, formerly known as global warming. They forget the UN, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (Environmentalists) that now control most universities in the northeast and NOAA in their reports for the EPA had all predicted snow are becoming increasingly rare in the major metropolitan areas. See this fact check by 14 PhD U.S and Canadian scientists on the UCS claims.

Instead, the major cities have been blitzed with heavy snows last few decades, especially the last 10 years. NOAA tracks major metropolitan snow events in the east since the 1950s. The last decade through last winter has amazed with 25 high impact storms (we obviously added a new one this year…and more are likely to follow).

 

NESIS STORMS DECADAL

The correlation between heavy snow winters and colder than normal temperatures is very high.

This December was warm and SNOWLESS. It turned much colder this month and the mega storm followed. In many El Ninos, the snows have a very sharp northern edge and indeed we had no snow even as areas to the south were hit hard. That may happen a few times but chances are we will see one or two events that impact us too.

But aren’t we dealing with the warmest year ever for the earth? No both surface based data and satellites showed no warming for over 18 years. This inconvenient fact sent scientists scurrying into panels at the annual professional society meetings the last two years, trying to explain why. If their theories fail, the $10s of billions in grant money could dry up. Though we have shown in peer review papers how natural variations in the oceans, solar and volcanic activity can explain all the bumps and changes the last 120 years, they don’t want to open up that Pandora’s box.

The solution instead was to have NOAA and NASA adjust the surface data they control, by adjusting old years colder.

2016-01-10-06-45-38

They then called into question the independently derived satellite global temperatures, which both NOAA and NASA a decade ago said clearly were the most trustworthy. That is because the satellite and weather balloon data were exposing their models’ and theory’s obvious failures and their politically driven adjustments to land surface data.

MODEL FAILURE

Why don’t we hear that in the media? Environmental reporters in the media have an agenda, and their Society of Environmental Journalism even has a handbook that tells them to not tell you the whole story and how to attack and discredit any scientists who don’t agree with their view. It is a primer on global warming advocacy journalism.

Having been an environmentalist and conservationist myself, I attended their annual meeting in 2007 and was appalled at what I heard and saw. Dr. Patrick Moore, Ph.D ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace reacted the same way to radical activists that hijacked his organization. He left the organization. See a brief video here by Patrick Moore https://youtu.be/RkdbSxyXftc. Nobel laureate Ivar Giaeve presents here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

At Weatherbell, our 4300 clients include weather enthusiasts, energy and agriculture traders, winter weather related businesses, retail and transportation pay us to give them accurate short and long-term forecasts and don’t care what we believe about climate or politics (which these days are intertwined). Eisenhower warned about the risk of this kind of political control over science in his farewell address to the nation remembered for his military industrial complex concerns:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

We at Weatherbell correctly warned the 2013/14 winter would be historic near the Great Lakes 7 months in advance when the government forecasts even at the end of November were for a warm winter. Last year we warned the coldest and snowiest weather would shift to the northeast, where again the government forecast warmth. Mild weather will give way to cold again next week. We don’t expect a repeat of last year for extreme snow or cold here in the northeast, but more real winter is likely to return especially to our south.