#agw #acidification #tcot
The proponents of climate alarmism claim that increasing temps and CO2 would severely harm the major coral reefs of the world's oceans.
As has been done in previous studies, a group of scientists conducted scientific research to determine if claimed harm would come to two different coral species of the Great Barrier Reef.
For the research, they used the following coral species: Acropora tenuis and Acropora millepora.
Their peer-reviewed conclusions:
"Chua et al. say they "found no consistent effect of elevated pCO2 on fertilization, development, survivorship or metamorphosis, neither alone nor in combination with temperature." As for warming, they also say that it "had no consistent effect on fertilization, survivorship or metamorphosis." However, they observed that the two degrees of warming actually increased rates of development. And that is good news concerning the future of these organisms!"
http://ow.ly/DnQGN #tcot #gop #climate2014
We have plenty of stories here regarding that pile of B.S., which the White House easily got the mainstream press to spread.
But that story was pushed to the sidelines when it was revealed that the principal Obamacare architect had knowingly and proudly deceived Americans about Obamacare - to the point where he was caught on video boasting about sandbagging, as he called them, "stupid" Americans.
So as a result, a new term 'grubering' (or to 'gruber') has entered the global lexicon - and its root name is from the man pictured above, Jonathan Gruber.
As this despicable lefty elite reminded us, most politicians, academics, scientists, journalists and bureaucrats (the "elites) are pathological liars, besides being serial exaggerators. Their entire modus operandi appears predicated on a collective strategy of deception employed against taxpayers and the electorate.
And, as CAGW skeptics are well aware, this level of 'grubering' is part and parcel of the techniques used by proponents of the climate-doomsday dogma. The climate lies, deceptions, exaggerations and denigrations by climate alarmists are practiced on a daily basis.
With that said, again here are the rest of this past week's stories.
The global warming "warming" hiatus/pause continues for the continental U.S.
The last 18 years of 12-month periods ending in October reveals the unsettled, anti-consensus and indisputable science of empirical evidence that Americans do not face catastrophic global warming from human CO2.
Which the voters are fully aware of.
Update: From the comments: "The graph should show 18 years, but it's only showing 16 years." Actually, NOAA's chart above represents 18 12-month periods (ie fiscal years, so to speak) starting with the following period: 199611 - 199710. This is how the NOAA web site produces chart when choosing 1997 as the start point, with October 2014 being the ending month - it's not intuitive but that's how they do it.
Witnessing the unequivocal rejection of global warming alarmists' policies and their politicians by the voters was more than just stellar news.
For more on the election's implications and many other climate/energy stories, go here.
This chart plots the global warming trends versus CO2 growth trends over a wide variety of time periods (last 30 years through the last 10 years, as of 10/31/2014).
As one can easily discern, while CO2 growth is exploding up, global temperature trends are collapsing over the same time.
In essence, the warming temperature trends have decelerated into cooling trends.
Visually, it is clear that modern CO2 growth has affected temperatures contrary to the predictions of the IPCC and AGW alarmists. In fact, the correlation between the CO2 and temp trends is negative.
Simply put, the trace gas CO2 does not regulate temperature; it does not act like a control knob or thermostat; and the greater growth in CO2 levels has not caused accelerated, dangerous warming.
Those are the stubborn facts. And it does not matter how many IPCC climate "experts" claim that CO2 is a 'control knob' or how many computer virtual simulations predict future dangerous temperatures based on CO2 being a 'regulator.' The climate reality of satellite empirical evidence falsifies those wildly speculative claims.
And it's not just the satellite empirical evidence that reveals the ongoing CO2/temperature disconnect.
Note: Download the source RSS and CO2 datasets. Excel used to make calculations, per century trends (slope function), and chart. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
As usual, their latest scare-predictions are well covered by the collaborative mainstream-hysteria press.
And for your reading pleasure, go here for many other climate/science headlines of interest from the past week, including the usual climate-doomsday stuff...
Well...er...be happy, unless the long-term global temperature deceleration continues into a miserable and dangerous global cooling situation...as the GISS (NASA) empirical evidence indicates, CO2-caused "catastrophic" global warming is an absolute non-issue..... (click on below chart to enlarge)
Yes, one gets the above two charts, revealing interesting, empirical climate science truths, such as:
1. The chart on the left (for periods ending Sept. 1999) reveals an acceleration of global warming trends, while the CO2 growth trends (see black dotted curve) across periods were fairly stable.
2. The chart on the right (for periods ending Sept. 2014) reveals a deceleration of global temperature change that over the 'last 10 years' reached a very slight global cooling status; yet, as can be seen, the CO2 growth trend was accelerating, reaching a rate robustly greater than those periods ending in 1999.
3. Other than a single datapoint (blue column), all the long-term temperature trends for the left chart exhibit warming greater than 1.5 degrees per century; in contrast, the majority of trends (blue columns) for the right chart are below 1.5 degree per century, despite faster CO2 growth and the associated higher atmospheric CO2 levels.
4. Rapid, dangerous, scary, undeniable, indisputable, irreversible, accelerating and catastrophic global warming claims made by various politicians, scientists, bureaucrats, celebrities and "journalists" are unequivocal lies. Long-term global temperature trends below 2 degrees (and going lower) are clearly the opposite of those widely-used, deceptive descriptors.
5. If it was not obvious before, CO2 is not a global "control knob" nor some type of "planet thermostat" - CO2 does not have much, if any, influence on temperature trends.
6. Confirming what climate skeptics (often called "deniers" for denigration purposes) have been stating for the last several decades, the climate changes constantly, primarily from natural forces. As a result, global temperature trends change frequently, exhibiting both cooling and warming modes across time spans.
We call it 'natural' climate change and ancient and historical climate records are replete with it. It happens often and, my goodness, it can be really extreme.
Now some caveats. The charts display a wide variety of temperature trends - they are not predictions for the future. They represent a snapshot in time and can change quickly.
One cannot conclude from the right chart that global temperatures will continue to decelerate into a glacial freezer. That would be exactly the same mistake that the climate "experts" made with the chart on the left - concluding that the temperature trends would just keep accelerating until hellish warmth would end-civilization-as-we-know-it.
And, these two charts cannot be used to claim that humans have no influence on global temperatures. Besides emissions of greenhouse gases, humans are constantly changing their environment which does have an impact (e.g. turning a corn field into an asphalt parking lot or massive deforestation in the world's major tropical rainforests or laying down a carpet of black soot on ice sheets).
Putting aside any further caveats, as an added bonus, the charts can be used to identify climate-liars. These are personalities and organizations that would never publish temperature charts as seen here. Instead, they resort to visual or verbal representations that today, or this month, or this year was the 'warmest' ever. This is not only the worst kind of cherry-picking, it is also incredibly lame.
Since the Little Ice Age (LIA), the world has been warming. It will continue to do so. Thus, we are going to keep experiencing warm(er) and warm(est) events - it's a no-brainer due to natural warming rebound. It will only stop happening when the world enters another mini ice age or worse. Those are the stubborn facts, which essentially makes CO2's trivial influence irrelevant.
When one hears the 'warmest' or 'warmer' refrains, that is when it becomes apparent one is in the company of a climate deception-meister.
Finally, let's all hope the global temperature deceleration shown on the right-most chart stops before it gets really ugly.
Note: Temperature dataset and CO2 dataset used to produce Excel charts and 2nd order fitted trend of the trends. Excel's slope function was used to caluclate each period's trend, then multipled by 1200 to produce a per century trend. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Greenhouse gases, including CO2, looking less and less the major drivers of global temperatures and climate change.
When objective (non-IPCC) science research is done, without the political agenda, Earth's climate seems dominated by natural forces.
From 1950 to 1987 a strong relationship existed between the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomaly, interrupted occasionally by volcanic eruptions. After 1987 the relationship diverged, with temperature anomaly increasing more than expected, but was re-established after 1997 at an offset of ~0.48°C higher. The period of increased warming from 1987 to 1997 loosely coincided with the divergence of the global average temperature anomalies over land, which are derived from observation station recordings, and the global average anomalies in sea surface temperatures. Land-based temperatures averaged 0.04°C below sea temperatures for the period 1950 to 1987 but after 1997 averaged 0.41°C above sea temperatures. The increase in the global average temperature anomaly and the divergence of land and sea surface temperatures also coincided with two significant changes in global average cloud cover. Total cloud cover decreased during the period from 1987 to 1997 and, for most of the remainder of the period from 1984 to 2009, decreases in low-level cloud were accompanied by increases in middle and upper level cloud. These changes can be found in both global average cloud cover and in each of the six 30°C-latitude bands. The impact of these changes in cloud cover can account for the variations in HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies and the divergence between land and sea temperatures.
While the EU's elite idiot-savants willfully tie their panties in knots over non-measurable "extreme" climate change from CO2, they continue to ignore the rogue elephant in the solar system.
Instead, those EU elites should start reading the real climate science articles.
The EU members have just agreed to reducing, by 2030AD, their own CO2 emissions by 40% based on 1990 levels (4.5 billion CO2 tonnes in 1990), for the next 17 years (including 2014, until the end of 2030).
That would simply average out to a 106 million tonne reduction per year. The result by end of 2030 would be 1.8 billion less tonnes emitted by EU countries, per year - assuming they can force every single EU country to comply (stop it! no laughing).
For context, the EU since 1990 has reduced their annual CO2 emissions by 598 million tonnes, total. That is an average of 26 million tonnes per year of reduction success since the end of 1990 - a fraction of the 106 million tonne per year reduction average needed for the next 17 years.
What would be the impact on global temperatures if the EU could wave a wand and immediately reduce their current emissions by 1.8 billion tonnes/year?
Absolutely NOTHING....their reduction plans essentially have an unmeasurable yearly impact of global temperatures (i.e. 'unmeasurable' not being at least a 2 decimal point degree (C) decrease/increase, for example, -0.01, -0.02, +0.01, +0.01 and etc.).
The basic arithmetic of CO2's past impact on global temperatures can be determined utilizing the standard 3rd party estimates of total global temperature increase and total CO2 emissions from 1850 on.
Using the historical CO2 emission and temp records, since 1850 global temperatures have increased by 0.00000000000061°C per CO2 tonne emitted (assuming the climate-doomsday alarmists' claims that all warming is due to CO2 and that all human emissions remain in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years).
As can be seen with the above depiction of the 'C3' CO2/temperature estimator, the total reduction of 1.8 billions tonnes of CO2 emissions will have absolutely no yearly measurable impact on global temperatures (top panel of depiction).
(The various arithmetic calculations are not difficult, however they are tedious. So instead, one can use this simple 'C3' estimation tool to broadly estimate the impact of CO2 reductions/avoidance (or additions) on global temps.)
Since an immediate 1.8 billion tonne annual reduction is not possible, but a 106 million tonne reduction/year over the next 37 years (including 2014 through the end of 2050) could possibly be accomplished, what is the temperature impact with that scenario?
Again, absolutely no measurable impact on global temperatures (bottom panel of depiction). That's zero impact after 37 years of avoiding 106 million emission tonnes/year.
And by now you are probably asking yourself just how many years the EU has to reduce their CO2 emissions by 106 million tonnes per year for a measurable impact to be produced (i.e. -0.01 degree change)?
Approximately 165 years from end of 2013! But wait...there's more absurdity...if they're reducing CO2 emissions by 106 million tonnes per year, the EU finally gets to zero CO2 emissions by year 2056 (43 years from end of 2013 - currently, the EU emissions per year are about 3.9 billion tonnes per year).
Well, it means the EU won't ever reach the 165 year mark in CO2 reductions to achieve a -0.01 degree impact. And two, over the next 43 years, despite the 106 million tonnes/year reduction, the EU will still emit another 74.5 billion tonnes in total. That translates into a global temperature impact of +0.04.
On top of this obvious futility from the EU's newest CO2 moral posturing, the other countries of the world will just keep emitting CO2, completely wiping out any reduction the EU achieves. Simply put, no one gives a flying f*#k what the EU does any longer - not Russia, not China, not India, not Brazil nor any other nation on the cusp of climbing out of economic poverty.
Even if other major emitters were to go along with the EU's preening, they will simply ignore their CO2 promises to protect their economies and their citizens. And what will the EU do do enforce their moral superiority? Hmmm...think Russia's wars with the Ukraine and Georgia or think Iran and nuclear weapons - yep, you're right, in diplomatic-speak, the EU can't and won't do squat.
The EU's latest CO2 self-righteousness is as worthless as used toilet paper and everyone knows it.
If the EU's existing CO2 reduction achievements since 1990 continued through 2030, total EU emissions would be 63.1 giga-tonnes.That would produce a global temp increase of +0.039.
If the proposed 40% CO2 emission reduction by 2030 can be achieved, total emissions from 2014 through 2030 would 50.3 giga-tonnes. And that would produce a +0.031 increase.
It would seem the EU's plans to spend directly/indirectly billions-to-trillions of Euros to reduce global temps, by maybe only 8-thousandths of a degree, is tantamount to collective insanity by the elites.
Note: Global temperature source; historical and modern CO2 emission tonnes used by the 'C3' estimator tool. This tool is a quick and dirty means to calculate CO2's impact on temperatures. More information here.
By year 2050, how much warmer will it be?
As the climate "experts" and $billion$ computer models have proven decisively, they are completely clueless when it comes to predicting future global temperatures.
Fifteen years ago, this graph's red curve, representing temperature trends, was tracking right along with the CO2 grey curve - such that, as of the end of September 1999, the 10-year temp trend was on a 2050AD warming pace of +1.1ºC.
But as the adjacent chart now reveals, by end of September 2014, that previous +1.1ºC trend has changed to a -0.03ºC cooling trend despite the continuous acceleration of atmospheric CO2 levels. A powerful testament to the overwhelming significance of natural climate change that far exceeds the influence of of a trace gas such as CO2.
And remember, not a single IPCC or NASA/GISS "expert" predicted this outcome - just the opposite in fact.
As the graph's red plot depicts, global warming trends have been on a deceleration path for an extended period, indicating a strong likelihood that global warming by 2050 will be nowhere close to he current official predictions.
Did we mention 'pussy cat' warming yet?
Obviously, the "settled" science of slam-dunk global warming is in shambles. And natural climate change made it so, much to the chagrin of those elites pushing "consensus" anthropogenic dogma.
Without doubt, in the scheme of urgent, priority issues facing the nation - global warming ain't one of them, which the American public already knows and reflects.
EU researchers analyzed multi-mission satellite records in a new study and determined the following:
1. A huge bulge in the Western Pacific is responsible for much of the past "global" sea rise.
2. Since 2002, sea level rise has greatly decelerated.
3. Globally, on average, sea levels are currently increasing at a 2.31 mm/year rate (that's a 3.2 inches by year 2050 rate).
This research confirms what other scientists have already recently found by analyzing tide gauge records around the world.
For example, a group of scientists examined sea level rise around the North Sea. What they discovered was an absence of evidence confirming the doomsday predictions of soon-to-be submerged coasts.
==> "Based on their analysis of all the available data, the four researchers determined that "linear long-term trends in the Inner North Sea (1.6 mm/yr) are similar to global trends (1.7 mm/yr) but smaller in the English Channel (1.2 mm/yr)." And they report that "although the recent rates of sea level rise were high, there is no evidence yet that sea level rise has accelerated over the last decades in the North Sea region.""
A 1.7mm/year increase converts to a 2.16 inch rise by 2050AD and for the English Channel, 1.2mm/yr equals 1.8 inches by 2050.
Conclusion: Ahhh...those damnable stubborn facts. By 2100, and certainly 2050, the North Sea coastline (and others across the globe) will retain its majestic beauty, still existing as it is known today. Thus, proposed trillion dollar tax hikes and higher price schemes for fossil fuel usage are a total waste since lower cost adaption techniques can be effectively implemented to deal with the such meager rises the world likely faces.
Previous sea level articles.
The science is undeniable: the majority of plant life, including major agricultural crops, prosper under climatic conditions that are warmer and enriched with CO2.
Despite the recent significant pause in the global warming trend, world temperatures still creep up, always presenting opportunities for fearmongering-style reporting.
Yet the global warming doomsday prognostications of these "reporters" never materialize - even the International Red Cross report is not so blind to the climate "disaster" reality.
And as this adjacent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) chart clearly documents, the world's major food crops produce greater bounty as the climate warms.
On the chart, superimposed is the latest NASA/GISS two-year average temperature on the chart, which indicates the slow creep of global warming. As greenhouse growers have known for over 100 years, a plant's productivity increases with a warmer climate environment.
It would seem that corn, wheat, rice and soybeans are no different than other plants.
In fact, from this report we learn:
Previous food-flood-drought-fire articles.
The class action tort community must be starting to salivate.
Since the construction and installation of wind turbines involves a lot of potential deep-pockets to sue, this could be a lucrative market for the ambulance chasers.
With the science of hearing impairment building an ever stronger case, the wind power industry might be facing some very unwanted asbestos-like litigation.
Is it time to short wind futures? Go long into the renewable-ear market?
#peoplesclimate #tcot @gop
As the opinion polls document, Americans apparently not influenced very much by the mainstream media's mass hysteria and gross decptions about global warming and global warming.
How much global warming (or cooling) will take place by 2050AD?
The flat-out, scientific truth is that nobody really knows. Not the IPCC. Not the climate models. Not the experts. And certainly not the green crony-facilitators, Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben (fyi...crony Al Gore just loves them to death.)
This chart plotting the IPCC's gold-standard (HC4) of global temperature trends, of past and present, reveals why it is so incredibly difficult to predict climate change, be it of short or long-term nature. Climate change is constantly happening - going from one warming acceleration to the next cooling acceleration extreme, rather rapidly.
And note, this takes place regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels (see black curve), and associated human CO2 emissions. Clearly, the skyrocketing CO2 levels since the 1950's are not responsible for such wide variance in temperature trends, since they can even be observed a century before.
In fact, based on a visual inspection, one could surmise that climate change extreme trends have lessened since the modern increase of CO2 levels.
As can be seen, shorter cooling/warming trends have been highly variable from the very start of recording instrumentally-measured "global" temperatures. The light red (12-mth) and green (60-mth) plots readily show this.
So, when did the greatest acceleration of warming trends take place? Amazingly, all the warming spikes that matched or equaled ±20°C took place (see yellow-tinted boxes) prior to the last 40 years of massive human CO2 emissions.
Regarding the 10, 20 and 30-year climate change variability, there is no question that the wild and natural extremes of the short-term always return to a rather mundane long-term variability. The dark blue, cyan and bright red plots indicate long-term climate change that is...well...pretty mundane.
Compared to a 12-month climate change extreme trend of +25.0°C reached in 1878, the 30-year trend extreme only reached a maximum of +0.72°C (during 2003) and has now been reduced to a August 2014 30-year trend of 0.61°C - and relative to the 1940's, that's a trend only eight-hundredths of a degree greater.
Conclusion: Climate change never stops. Whether short-term or long-term, global temperature trends constantly accelerate/decelerate. Human CO2 emissions have nothing to do with this extreme variability - it is a natural phenomenon that is chaotic, totally unpredictable and unstoppable. The climate change indicated by today's temperature trends is insignificantly different than the past climate change. And those are the stubborn facts.
Note: Linear temperature trends do not represent predictions (any trend today can be drastically different in the future). Excel's slope function was used to calculate the moving trends for each time span (by month) and to plot them. To calculate the trends by 2050AD, the derived slope for each month and each time-span trend was multiplied by 424 months (after August 2014, there are only 424 full months until January 1, 2050AD). HadCRUT4 global dataset and CO2 (ppm) datasets used for chart can be found here.
The researchers found the following:
1. Warming is stronger during the nighttime hours.
2. Warming is stronger in the winter months.
3. Warming is stronger in the Arctic latitudes.
4. Warming is strongest for extreme low temperatures.
"The scientists' conclusion was the following: "Overall, our results are consistent with those reported in previous studies, particularly in the sense that Canada has become much less cold but not much hotter."
In other words, most of the warming took place at the lowest temperatures; during the coldest hours; at the coldest regions; and during the coldest seasons.
And this peer reviewed finding confirms what many other regions of the world have experienced: global "warming" is not about ever hotter maximum temperatures, it is more about the warming of the coldest temperatures (i.e., warmer minimums).
Previous peer-reviewed articles.
http://ow.ly/C2kAx #peoplesclimate #agw @gop @housegop @nrsc
Hollywood celebrity started the week with a bang...confirming corruption is alive and well within the 'green' activist brigade.
Note: for regular 'C3' blog readers, above are hashtags and urls for 'C3' twitter feed; click on first url to visit other 'C3' headline site
Based on current U.S. subsidies to promote non-CO2 emission vehicle purchases, what would be the cost to the U.S. taxpayers for supporting a goal of avoiding a +0.01°C global warming increase?
The answer? Over $40 trillion.
To simplify this example, we compare a modern all-electric vehicle (aEV), the Nissan Leaf, to a modern high MPG gas vehicle, the Nissan Versa. Customers are provided a very large tax subsidy for the former, while the latter receives none. (Substitute any all-electric vehicle for the aEV Leaf and any high MPG gas auto for the Versa and the issues remain the same.)
In order to achieve the goal of 0.01°C potential reduction in global warming, how many Leafs would need to be bought instead of the Versa vehicle? And how much would that cost the American taxpayers?
Summary: Some 5.6 billion Leafs would need to be purchased, putting Americans on the the hook for $42 trillion in subsidies.
For those interested, we now go to the arithmetic behind those two answers. (Here is a different analysis approach to the same issue.)
The modern gasoline Nissan Versa achieves a 35mpg rating; with each gallon burnt producing 19 pounds of CO2. If on average, each Versa is driven 12,000 miles per year, a total of 342.85 gallons would be consumed. That amount of gas gallons equals 6,515 pounds of CO2, which converts to 2.96 metric tonnes of CO2 per year per the average driven Versa.
Since 1850, through the end of 2013, there has been 1.44 trillion metric tonnes of CO2 emissions. During that same span, the average annual global temperature has increased by +0.86°C. By dividing this temperature increase by the total metric tonnes of CO2 emissions since 1850, it is determined that one CO2 metric tonne is associated with an increased global temperature of 0.0000000000006.
Put another way, each CO2 tonne hypothetically equates with 6 ten-trillionths of a degree (C). And that means each Versa's 2.96 tonnes of emissions would hypothetically equate to a temperature impact of 18 trillionths of a degree, per year.
How many Versas would have to be sold (instead of the CO2 clean Leaf) to equate to a +0.01°C increase?
5.6 billion Versas.
Now flip the coin. To avoid a 0.01 degree increase, Americans would have to buy 5.6 billion Nissan Leafs, instead of the Versas. For Americans, that's a 'Leaf' in every pot, garage, attic, bedroom, basement and all bathrooms, so to speak. (Hey good news!...only 560 million need to be sold if each vehicle survives 10 years; of course, the batteries will wear out way before then.)
And each and every one of those Leafs would potentially get a $7,500 tax credit, paid for by the American taxpayer - amounting to a $42+ trillion cost for reducing potential warming by a hypothetical 0.01 degree.
Of course, there are other all-electric vehicles sold in the U.S. that are also available with the hefty tax credit. Since 2010, when the $7,500.00 tax credit began, there has been an estimated 100,000 all-electric vehicles sold in the US. A tiny dirt clod on the mountain of 5.6 billion needed. The aEV niche market remains very tiny, for a lot of reasons.
If the 100,000 number is accurate, then it would appear that Americans have already subsidized some $750 million on this 'green' fiasco in order to achieve a hypothetical future temperature reduction, which can't even be globally measured - that's a lot of $$$-something for absolutely climate nothing.
This is just another example of the hugely stupid and expensive 'green' policies that politicians have saddled the American taxpayer with.
Why did this happen?
Frankly, it's mostly due to the mainstream press fanning the flames of mass climate doomsday-cult hysteria. Instead of journalists producing sober and reasoned reporting, they drank the cult's global warming 'kool-aid' and became cheerleaders of wildly irresponsible reporting - essentially hysterical, anti-science claims. (Here's a recent example of mainstream media's insane global warming doomsday-cult style of reporting.)
Prior to this legislation being passed by legislators pressured by special interest groups, journalists could have been investigating the empirical evidence and doing the calculations themselves. Their research would have generated tough questions that could have been posed to the politicos and bureaucrats, forcing a rational and scientific debate. However, it would seem, the "journalists" did no due diligence other than reading and then reporting verbatim the press releases of special interest groups.
So, instead of $750 million flowing into research dealing with, say, children's cancer, Alzheimers, ebola and other important scientific endeavors, the hundreds of millions went to crony-capitalists and the very wealthy. Sadly, even more of this taxpayer lucre will flow for each new aEV sold with no meaningful climate result.
Helloooo, Washington D.C.... maybe new legislative commonsense rules should be imposed for any future 'green' policies and regulations to be considered.
An example: no legislation will even be considered unless the scientific empirical evidence (not computer models/simulations) confirms that any new policy/rule/subsidy will achieve a global warming reduction of at least 0.01 degree within 10 years for a cost that does not exceed $10 billion/year for taxpayers and consumers. 10 years at $10 billion is a $100 billion cost, which is still a ludicrous, mind-boggling amount for such a measly result.
(If readers have ideas for new common sense rules that Congress should commit to in order to avoid any more costly 'green' stupidity, leave a comment or two.
And BTW politicos...if wealthy Americans want to certify their own 'greeness' they can start paying for it on their own dime, not steal from the wallets of less fortunate Americans.
Note: Supposedly, the ludicrously large tax credit for all-EVs is going to expire. The likelihood of this incredible waste of taxpayer money being ended is extremely low since few Washington politicians possess the courage to vote against the powerful corporate welfare lobbyists, while also ending the subsidies to the wealthy purchasers of the Nissan Leaf, Tesla and other aEV cars.
The CO2 emissions expended to manufacture a Nissan Leaf are not included in this analysis; nor the CO2 emissions used to charge the Leaf every night/day; nor the other significant environmental impacts and costs associated with producing batteries for an aELV; nor the taxpayer loans (ie. cost) car aEV companies like Nissan received from the US government.
Download an Excel spreadsheet with pertinent data and calculations used to determine Versa CO2 production, temp impact and taxpayer dollars per 0.01 degree.
Has two-decades worth of cumulative CO2 growth in the atmosphere caused the "experts'" predicted dangerous and rapidly accelerating global warming?
That's the straight-forward question.
And the straight-forward answer is?
Well, despite all that CO2 growth, global warming has slowed to a creep on the Earth's surface, and in the atmosphere, global warming has flat-lined.
Using the IPCC's gold-standard global surface dataset (the UK's HadCRUT4), this chart plots the cumulative growth in temperature along with NOAA's reported cumulative growth in atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm).
For CO2 (grey curve), there is a clear and consistent upward growth of CO2 levels - unrelenting would be an apt description. In contrast, global temperatures are all over the map, with highs and low being constantly...er, variable.
The end results over the 20 years ending August 2014 are fairly obvious:
How easy is it to say, three times quickly?: catastrophe-climate-doomsday-cult-is-discredited.
So, does all the above empirical evidence mean that human CO2 has no impact on global temperatures? Nope. Does it mean the world will no longer warm? Does it mean humans don't have an impact on continuous natural climate change? Nope. Does it mean that the world should quit trying to be energy and carbon efficient? Not at all.
What it does mean, though, is that the public and the policymakers were greatly deceived by the "consensus" science and computer models that loudly declared (and btw, still do) imminent disasters and doomsday global warming.
As the current climate conditions now indicate a slow, creeping climate change scenario, it provides policymakers and the public the luxury of time to continue moving to a more carbon-efficient economy, thus improving the environment without needlessly sacrificing quality of life and living standards.
In summary, it's another case of those stubborn facts: the empirical evidence does not lie; but computer models and "experts" do.
Note: Download HC4 and CO2 datasets. Excel used to make calculations, trends and chart. The chart covers 240 monthly records, starting with Sept. 1994. For this graph, both the temperature and CO2 datapoints were set to zero; then the cumulative changes for both were plotted each month - does not affect linear trends when done this way.
http://ow.ly/C2kAx #peoplesclimate #agw @gop @housegop @nrsc
Note: for regular 'C3' blog readers, above are hashtags and urls for 'C3' twitter feed; click on first url to visit other 'C3' headline site
Let's cut to the chase - are human CO2 emissions causing an increase in U.S. forest acreage being decimated by flames?
The adjacent chart is a plot of U.S. wildfire acreage going back to 1926, through the end of 2013. The green curve represents acres burnt (in millions).
In addition, the chart includes the plot of lumber harvested (billion board-feet) from U.S. forests and atmospheric CO2 levels over the same approximate time span. The brown curve is the lumber harvest; the grey curve is CO2 (ppm).
What does the chart indicate?
Wildfire acreage burnt collapsed after the 1930s. Not only did this collapse coincide with a growth of atmospheric CO2 levels from human CO2 emissions, the huge decrease in acres burnt took place when the harvesting of lumber from U.S. forests grew massively.
Then, as the total amount of harvested lumber declined and reached a significantly lower level - due to new environmental regulations - the number of acres burnt each year started to incrementally increase during the 1990's.
Intuitively this makes sense. As the dead and disease-infected trees started to pile up from lack of harvesting due to environmentalist concerns and government regulations, the U.S. forests became wildfire tinderboxes, easily set off by lightening and human carelessness - the law of unintended consequences from passionate 'green' policies strikes again.
Per the statistical relationships, both board-feet harvested and CO2 levels have an inverse correlation (-0.6 and -0.5, respectively) with the acreage scorched, across the entire time span.
Conclusion: It's always dangerous to draw firm conclusions from just statistics, but the empirical evidence strongly suggests that both lumbering and higher CO2 levels makes for less wildfires. The record clearly shows that wildfire damage over the last two decades are not unprecedented, and it remains well below the horrendous amount of acres burned during the early 20th century. For policymakers, the sanest recommendation towards improving U.S. forest health is to increase the amount of allowed lumbering, thus thinning forests of tinderbox materials; plus, to recognize any future CO2 increases as a potential contributor to healthy forest growth.
Note: The wildfire acreage burned during years 1926-1959 and the lumber board-feet harvested came from this congressional testimony by scientific forestry expert; post 1959 data from this government agency site. CO2 datasets found here. The chart's right axis represents both atmospheric CO2 levels and harevested board-feet. For the latter, the largest number at the top, '1300', reads as 13 billion board-feet; for CO2, it would read 1,300 ppm.
Since the HadCRUT folks just released their August global temperature dataset, it was time to update the adjacent graph of the (in)famous NASA climate model versus the reality.
Back around 1988, James Hansen of NASA presented his climate model computer simulations, which predicted that global warming would be excessive and dangerous if CO2 emissions continued in a similar 'business-as-usual' (BAU) manner.
On the chart, the green curve is NASA's depicted BAU scenario for global temperatures. This was referred to as 'Scenario A' for global temperatures and was associated with a CO2 emission metric tonne growth that exceeded 1.5% per year.
For the record, over the last 15 calendar years CO2 emission tonne growth has clocked in at about 2.5% per year - well over the 'BAU' bar that Hansen and NASA had proclaimed as an end-of-the-world disaster as we know it.
Putting this into a context of proper comparison, the 15 years ending 1987, before the 1988 prediction, had a per year emission growth that averaged about 1.9%, less than the 15-year average growth ending 2013.
So what happened to the global temps? Indeed, the chart tells the story - not too much.
Hansen and NASA predicted that a BAU scenario would produce a global warming in 2014 that is represented by the large red dot on the chart. In reality though, both the NASA/GISS and HadCRUT global temperature datasets reveal warming by 2014 that is significantly below the climate model BAU prediction.
In fact, both global temperature datasets reveal a climate-reality outcome that resembles the NASA 'Scenario C' (see aqua/cyan curve) that could only happen if global CO2 emission tonnes were reduced to a mere fraction of the "dangerous" 1.5% growth.
Why this obvious and immense failure by government scientists and advanced computer technology? It's simple...CO2 emissions are not causing rapid, accelerating global warming, which the failed billion$ computer models assumed would happen due to growing CO2.
And embarrassingly, they still do, despite the almost two-decade 'pause' in the global warming trend.
Previous climate-model charts.
http://ow.ly/C2kAx #agw #climate2014 @gop @housegop
Note: for regular 'C3' blog readers, above are hashtags and urls for 'C3' twitter feed; click on first url to visit other 'C3' headline site
Well, the NOAA empirical evidence from their global temperature dataset indicates that longer term changes in atmospheric CO2 levels are definitely not producing anywhere near the expected long-term changes in global temps, as predicted.
Indeed, "wrong" is likely an understatement.
As a result, the experts' CO2-induced CAGW IPCC hypothesis is revealed for its true nature - basically, a hypothetical nothing-burger.
Let's be clear: the actual NOAA empirical evidence, from the global temperature climate instrumental records, does not support the hypothesis that long-term changes in atmospheric CO2 levels produce rapid accelerating, dangerous global temperature changes.
The adjacent graph of 10-year CO2 change plots, and concurrent 10-year change in NOAA global temperatures, is unequivocal: there is no correlation between the two, unless one wants to argue that a r2 of 0.08 somehow indicates a strong relationship.
The chart includes a 60-month average (purple) curve of the 10-year temp changes; likewise there is a similar average curve (dark grey) for the 10-year CO2 changes. Obviously, these curves show no relationship and essentially are now moving in opposing directions. The purple curve (temps) reflects a pattern of climate ups and downs, while the grey curve (CO2) since 1960 suggests an exponential growth situation.
In addition, it has been noted on the chart when extreme 10-year temperature changes have taken place - those rare increasing/decreasing temp changes that equal or exceed +0.6/-0.6°C. There have been 8 such events, 6 of which took place prior to 1960 (see light-yellow boxes on chart).
Hmm...what's that you say?...growing human CO2 emissions have caused a greater frequency of extreme climate incidents during the modern era? Ahem...a definitive 'Nope!' will suffice at this point.
In summary, if long-term changes in atmospheric (ppm) CO2 levels caused long-term changes in global temperatures, then the chart would have plots of the two principal change datasets tracking each other - in reality though, they're demonstrably different.
The NOAA empirical evidence strongly undercuts the CAGW hypothesis and, btw, demonstrates for the related hypothesis (which states that CO2 acts as a climate thermostat/control knob) is laughable nonsense.
Does all of the above indicate that human emissions have zero influence of global temperature changes? In fact, it does not indicate that; instead, it indicates that the CAGW hypothesis is without factual merit and that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is likely significantly lower than the IPCC "experts" proposed.
With all that said, the data strongly suggest, at best, a rather trivial CO2-influence on longer-term temperature change and its being indisputably non-dangerous.
Note: Temperature dataset; CO2 datasets. Excel was used to calculate 10-yr changes (ie. differences); to calculate r2 using the slope 'correl' function; and to produce plots and 60-mth average curves. To calculate a 10-yr. temp. change example: subtract the August 2004 temp. anomaly from the August 2104 anomaly. The same subtraction method is used to calculate 10-yr. CO2 level (ppm) changes. Starting with January 1890, the 10-yr chg. calculations can be made for each subsequent month, resulting in 1,496 'decadal' datapoints (NOAA monthly dataset commences at January 1880). Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
It is known that there exists a major asymmetry of the El Niños versus the La Niñas. If climate models can't accurately simulate this asymmetric relationship it makes for poor global climate predictions.
Scientists published a recent study to determine the success of modeling the ENSO asymmetry - the results were not encouraging.
===> "With respect to their findings, Zhang and Sun report the following: (1) "the underestimate of observed positive ENSO asymmetry measured by skewness is still a common problem in CMIP5 coupled models," (2) "all the models are also found to have a weaker ENSO asymmetry than observations," (3) "CMIP5 coupled models have a significant cold bias in the mean sea surface temperature," (4-6) "biases in zonal wind stress, precipitation and subsurface temperatures ... are also too symmetrical with respect to ENSO phases," (7) "sea surface temperature warm anomalies over the far eastern Pacific are found to be weaker in the coupled models than in observations," (8) "most models also have a weaker subsurface temperature warm anomaly over the eastern Pacific," (9) "most models have a weaker precipitation asymmetry over the eastern Pacific," (10) "most AMIP models have a stronger time-mean zonal wind over the equatorial central and eastern Pacific," and (11) they "underestimate the observed positive skewness of zonal winds in the central Pacific.""
Conclusion: The multi-billion $$ climate models have proven time and again that they are incapable of predicting future climate with any level of accuracy. Policymakers would be best served by completely ignoring the computer simulations as they poorly match the empirical observations of the global and regional climates. However, the models still hold value for the researchers, but that is their only benefit.
A wall/ceiling poster for any 2014 GOP candidate's bedroom.
Before turning out the lights at night, remind yourself that tomorrow you will again hammer your Democrat opponent for being anti-American, anti-middle class, anti-cheap energy and anti free-market.
Remember, all Democrats have aligned themselves with extreme leftists, socialist and communists. If elected, your Democrat opponent will always vote with Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid, who support the fringe extremist anti-U.S. rhetoric of unabomber-greens and progressives.
Point out that your Democratic opponent did not denounce the extremist language and propaganda of the NYC climate parade.
Hmm...how about this gem from a typical marching limousine-liberal Democrat to prove your point.
Remind your electorate that it is the wealthy, sanctimonious hypocrites of Hollywood and New York who want to imprison middle class Americans into an energy impoverished state, while they continue to flaunt their selfish, excessive CO2 lifestyles.
As they say, like shooting fish in a barrel.....
Source for poster pics: multiple Twitter tweets and PJ Media.
Note: Original poster mage was too large for Typepad. So, clicking on adjacent poster will go to 'Imgur'; then click on poster to see enlarged version (can be downloaded).
Climate scientists who are not of the payroll of 'Big Green' NGOs, nor dependent on government research grants, find it much easier to speak out against the utter nonsense and myths of anti-CO2 activists and the slimy crony-greens.
An example: As climate scientist Judith Curry indicates, there is no basis for a magical 'knob' that would allow today's politicians and bureaucrats to dial-in a desired climate outcome for next month, or the next year, or the next decade, or the next century.
The facts, simply stated: There is no science, no computer model, nor any available mechanism(s) that would allow today's humans to tweak CO2 emissions a certain way in order to produce a future climate of specific attributes by, say, 2050.
It's what is referred to as, "no frakking way."
The inner circle of establishment climate science knows this, yet due to political agenda reasons, they are forced to deliver lip service to the ludicrous 'knob' analogies.
The massive failure of billion$ climate models and the ongoing 17+ year pause in global warming provide the necessary and vivid testimonials to the fallacy of a climate thermostat knob, whether controlling natural and/or human CO2 emissions.
In addition, there is the latest empirical evidence that completely invalidates the 'knob' assertion.
This adjacent plot of 5-year temperature change versus 5-year atmospheric CO2 level change is based on the most recent empirical evidence published by the government's GISS/NASA scientists (and they happen to be some of the largest proponents of chicken little global warming calamities).
This empirical science published by NASA is undeniable, and most alarmist scientists accept, although grudgingly - the relationship between changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and changes in temperature are, at best, significantly lame weak.
Indeed, the two dataset plots reveal zero relationship with a correlation that produces a r2 barely above zero. A non-existent relationship from 1880 to the end of August 2014,
Look at the green and red fitted trends. Obviously, the green CO2 trend exhibits rapid, accelerating and even exponential growth after 1950. And the global temps? The red temperature trend depicts very little growth in temperature change, and currently exhibits a deceleration that climate models and "experts" never predicted.
In fact, one could surmise that the temperature changes reflect a natural cycle of ups/downs (ie. a pattern), which the accelerating CO2 growth has absolutely zero influence on.
Ergo, the 'control knob' proposition has the same likelihood of reality as those space alien abductions one reads about, Big Foot enrolling at Univ. of Washington, Congress balancing the budget, or Earth developing a climate of "boiling" oceans.
Which is why at least 97% of actual climate scientists categorically reject this particular brand of Hollywood anti-science fantasy.
And yes, one can be a member of the 97% who believe humans have a warming influence on climate, and yet, still completely reject the existence of this particular mythical CO2 unicorn.
Additional temperature and climate charts.
Note: Temperature dataset; CO2 datasets. Excel was used to calculate 5-yr changes (ie. differences); and to produce plots and 6th order polynomials. To calculate a 5-yr. temp. change example: subtract the August 2009 temp. anomaly from the August 2104 anomaly. The same subtraction method used to calculate 5-yr. CO2 level (ppm) changes. Starting with January 1885, the 5-yr chg. calculations can be made for each subsequent month (GISS/NASA monthly dataset commences at January 1880).
Delusional fantasies? Pretty strong stuff one might say.
Oh well, let's review just six actual climate science facts to make the case.
===>First, we know that these same scientists don't even know where over 50% of CO2 emissions disappear to...
===>Second, we know (and these same scientists know) that the global temperature change response to CO2 has declined significantly - opposite of the IPCC's "consensus expert" predictions...
===>Third, we know that these same scientists have been predicting rapid, continuous, accelerating dangerous global warming for decades but it hasn't happened...
===>Fourth, since it is agreed by 97% of all climate scientists that global warming has essentially stopped for 17+ years (only the fringe quacks disavow this), these same bureaucrat/academia scientists have come up with an overflowing cornucopia of reasons why, which reveal absolutely zero consensus...
===>Fifth, we know that the $billion$ super computer climate models used by these same scientists are fatally flawed, thus absolutely worthless regarding future global and regional climate predictions...
===>Finally, as this accompanying chart of the empirical evidence indicates, while the per cent change in cumulative CO2 emissions dropped in a quasi-continuous pattern since 1979, the RSS annual global temperatures anomalies instead follow an opposite increasing trend.
Simply put, all the above scientific evidence falsifies the entire concept of a CO2 "control knob" for the world's climate.
Yet these on-the-dole scientists keep promoting this delusional, all-powerful climate "knob" fantasy at the major expense of not only the taxpayer pockets, but also the gargantuan expense of sound climate policy-making being derailed from the track of common sense and rationality.
Ahh...those stubborn facts just always seem to muck up the climate delusional dreams and nightmares of so many knob-fanatics and control-freaks.
Note: From this multiple dataset, an estimate of total human CO2 emissions from 1751 to 2013 can be calculated. Since the RSS satellite monthly dataset only goes back to 1979, the chart plots the annual per cent change in cumulative CO2 emissions since 1979 (starting with the calculated cumulative emissions from 1751-1979). The RSS plot represents the 12-month (year-end) average anomalies. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
This list of "consensus" science continues to grow faster than a CO2 ppm bullet.
Currently, the list is up to #52 but we kept it to 50 for this infographic (okay, okay... poster). When 8 more are added, we'll do the #60 poster.
The known climate science of global warming is not a mystery. It is well documented climate physics that just about every scientist agrees with. And for the layperson, it's not terribly difficult to confirm.
To do so, one needs the following:
1. A global temperature dataset
3. A spreadsheet to make the necessary calculations and then plot the outcome.
These items were used to produce the adjacent chart. Five different time periods were chosen, then the warming (degree C) per CO2 tonne was calculated for each time period.
The resulting datapoints were then plotted and connected with a fitted trend (6th order).
Clearly, this actual climate science empirical evidence substantiates the known climate physics.
With this confirmation, one could assume that all warming since 1850 was due to human CO2 emissions, but then the logical conclusion is cast in concrete science - CO2's impact is shrinking towards zero, as observed, and likely will have even a smaller global warming impact in the future.
Note: The chart's fitted trend provides a sense of direction in the past but it has unreliable predictive qualities (if any). Why 1950-2013? Because the IPCC claims human CO2 is principal cause of warming since 1950. Why 1988-2013? Because in 1988, NASA's James Hansen testified that CO2 warming was accelerating and dangerous (it's been neither). Why 1997-2013? Because, it's been approximately 17 years with the 'paused' global warming. The 1850-2014 period assumes 17.5 gigatonnes of CO2 for first 7 months of 2014. Used 12-month HadCRUT averages to calculate deg/tonne.
Adjacent are the top 5 reasons the global warming hysteria has failed.
They are called empirical evidence - datasets of temperature observations confirming there has been no statistically significant warming for over 15+ years.
The "consensus" "experts" and billion dollar computer climate models predicted that human CO2 emissions would generate accelerating, catastrophic global warming.
But it hasn't happened - ooops!
Note: Atmosphere datasets (RSS & UAH); Global datasets (HadCRUT4 & NASA/GISS); Ocean dataset (HadSST3)
All politicians, bureaucrats and scientists are prone to ludicrous exaggerations, lame mistruths and outright lies as techniques to frighten and push the general public towards accepting an agenda...and leftists, socialists, marxists, progressives and liberals are really exceptional talents in this art of public deception...some very recent climate-liar examples:
"Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face" (Hillary Clinton)..."confronting climate change” is “a duty or responsibility laid down in scriptures" (John Kerry)...“Climate change is so much more consequential than ISIS ever was" (Leading Democrat consultant)...“we are not very far” from the point where climate change should be declared an international public health emergency" (UN's Christiana Figueres).....
Any political success that is achieved by deceit, hyperbole and hysteria always requires a sacrifice of the empirical evidence and unbiased science.
Yet it is scientific facts and methodologies that ultimately win...it follows that the public can only be mislead for so long.
Despite the extremist hyperbole and doomsday-cult scenario hysteria, the science of climate change is rather mundane, from a long-term view: it gets cold and, OMG!, then it gets hot, with some periods of in-between. Climate change is constantly in play; and humans can no more stop its chaotic version of ebbs and flows, let alone ever controlling a single cloud, thunderstorm, hurricane or tornado.
This chart, from the science journal New Scientist, is a prime exhibit of real-world scientific evidence that reveals how inconsequential today's climate change is compared to all previous climate change.
From the chart, it is clear that extreme climate change is a constant; there have been much higher and lower temperatures in the past; modern climate temperatures are not excessive in the least; and, the purported human-induced, "dangerous" modern temperature warming is only a fraction of past natural increases.
We say purported, because our existence is taking place during a global cooling phase (look at chart closely and note the pale blue areas) which is rather long-in-the-tooth, and at some point would normally rebound to warmer temperatures, just naturally. Indeed, the entire warming since the Little Ice Age is likely to be predominantly a natural response to the prior millenniums of extended cooling.
As the chart's inset clarifies, the modern warming since the end of 1949 has been very modest, being completely within the bounds of previous ancient and geological warmings that have been identified by empirical science.
And the "tipping point" warming has become even more modest during the 21st century:
Note: Added the red and blue lines to above New Science chart. The added lines represent the HadCRUT4 global 60-month average temperatures at December 1855, December 1949 and July 2014.
The CAGW global warming hypothesis is rather straightforward: increasing atmospheric CO2 would warm the world in an accelerating, out-of-control manner.
For the adjacent chart, that indeed would be the case, if we pretended the green curve represented global temperature and the red curve atmospheric CO2.
But it's just the opposite in reality.
As the chart depicts over 12 different time periods (all ending July 2014), reality is that while CO2 levels keep increasing over time, the long-term temperature warming trend (the red curve) is not rapidly accelerating towards a tipping point of climate catastrophe.
What about shorter-term? (Okay, okay we won't mention this inconvenient fact.)
Well, note the 3-year period mark. Over the last 3 years, the CO2 level has increased by 7ppm and the warming acceleration "spiked" at 3.8°C per century. To put that "acceleration" in historical context, during July 1915 the global warming trend had a real spike...a 15.4°C per century spike without any meaningful increase of CO2 over the prior 3 years.
Note: Monthly GISS temperature dataset source. All chart time periods end as of July 2014. Used Excel to calculate trends utilizing the built-in slope function; plots created by Excel. Monthly CO2 levels estimated from a combination of source-1 and source-2. Interpreting the chart: for example, over the 60-year period ending July 2014, CO2 ppm increased by 86 and the GISS per century warming trend for the last 60 years was 1.3°C.
Science is based on research and empirical evidence, not on speculative guesses or those "likely" predictions from computer simulations.
Over the last few decades, the IPCC and its computer climate models have speculated that Antarctica was melting due to all the human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere.
CO2 emissions that were producing accelerating and dangerous global warming that was being "amplified" across the South Pole.
Democrats, the mainstream media and green progressives have continuously repeated these flimsy, fear-mongering predictions as science "truth," representing the mythical "consensus." Yet, they conveniently ignore the actual hard empirical evidence and real scientific research that the American public has paid for.
Case in point: The South Pole
A brand new peer-reviewed research study conducted by MIT scientists confirm what NASA's satellites have documented (see adjacent chart) - Antarctica is cooling. Ahem...those inconvenient stubborn facts just hurt, no?
"By contrast, the eastern Antarctic and Antarctic plateau have cooled, primarily in summer, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula [C3 Ed: approximately 4% of Antarctica land mass]...Moreover, sea-ice extent around Antarctica has modestly increased.....In other words, the authors find that most of the Antarctic continent has cooled, rather than just the Southern Ocean..."
Mental disorders are a such a wasteful tragedy - coming in waves to affect portions of the feeble-minded, never seemingly to be entirely eliminated from the genetic pool.
Some metal disorders, such as the 'compulsive climate change obsession' (or 'C3O' as some wags might put it), probably dates back to the start of humanity. As hunter-gathers worried whether a given day's strange weather was the harbinger of imminent death and destruction for all by angry goods or a vengeful nature.
You say you don't believe that this disorder exists, or that natural climate change never invoked such silly, useless and obsessive behavior in the past?
While watching the 'Global Warming War' movie, I came across a pleasant surprise - a unique 'C3' temperature chart made it into the movie. When I saw the chart, I made sure to download it so I can keep it for posterity and retain for screen-capture proof, if the need ever arises. (And am I going to buy their movie DVD? Nope...gee, I wonder why?)
Other than the movie using the 'same old, same old' talking heads, it is an excellent presentation of the key facts defining the debate. It certainly makes a very strong case that global warming skeptics rely on the empirical evidence and science, while alarmist arguments are more about emotions, not the facts.
The movie also does a great job of using animations to explain the various scientific topics.
Overall, a good investment of time providing a decent education of the debate for the layperson.
If you feel so inclined, buy a DVD copy (or several) and provide it to you your local public schools to be used when they do the inevitable annual showing of Gore's alarmist propaganda movie.
And Democrat Governor Jay Inslee is no different. He wants the crony-capitalist, corporate welfare "Billionaires Club" to buy the voters in an upcoming election. His tactic is to use anti-science rhetoric based on fear-mongering - namely, human CO2 emissions are "acidifying" the sea waters of the local oyster environment, thus supposedly harming the valuable shellfish harvest.
Big problem, though. The main culprit for the oyster mortality is due to a combination of natural processes, agricultural chemical runoff, low oxygen and a nasty shellfish-maurading bacteria more than the changing pH of sea water.
In fact, the daily natural pH levels change dramatically in local waters without any consequences to oysters, yet Democrat politicians and billionaires plan to totally mislead the state's voting public with false political advertising.
The science of "ocean acidification" from human CO2 is strictly hysterical conjecture - so much so that even the Obama EPA admits there is no basis from the empirical evidence.
"The EPA’s response is that there is insufficient evidence to support an endangerment finding...“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,” the EPA’s motion says. “Nor was there any other information documenting effects on indigenous populations of aquatic life in state waters indicating stressors attributable to ocean acidification"..."
So, since there is absolutely no real science to support the CO2-kills-oysters claims of the Democrat governor, he thus turns to an out-of-state billionaire buddy in hopes of just buying the election.
""Mr. Steyer’s strategy is to spend heavily this fall to help defeat sitting lawmakers who oppose Mr. Inslee’s agenda and pave the way for the governor to move his policies through next year — an example, his critics say, of the insidious influence of big money from outsiders that makes local elections less local...“Mr. Steyer has not said what he will spend in the districts, but his previous pattern indicates it will be hundreds of thousands of dollars for each candidate — a huge amount for a Washington State race.""
And why do out-of-state billionaires want to do this? Well, for sure, their current living styles, nor their past endeavors to create billion-dollar portfolios, indicates they give a flying f*^k about the climate.
Instead...ahem...maybe it's about more money. A lot more money, flowing from the political favors of tax-payer subsidized renewable energy into the pockets of billionaires, plus getting politicians to impose new environmental rules on fossil fuels and nuclear to make them wildly more expensive and billionaire renewable interests more competitive.
For their renewable investments to make a lot of money, the billionaires have to think big and especially rely on election-buying crony capitalism to achieve their goals it would appear - goals that immensely hurt the wallets of the other 99%.
"Climate-policy advocates and solar investors, including hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, called for renewable energy financing to double by 2020 in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent. They also said the world should obtain at least 30 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, and that renewable energy investment should double again, to $1 trillion, by 2030."
Update: Fact-checkers reveal Steyer's climate claims not the real deal.
Previous ocean-acidification articles
Okay...yes, we are exaggerating just a wee-bit here by claiming '40' with our additions of Sharknados and Bush...but heck, by next weekend it's going to exceed that measly '40' count.
And btw, thank-you "97% consensus" scientists! Ain't climate change alarmism just grand?
As the "experts" climate models prediction failures widen while we get deeper into the 21st century, it behooves policymakers and the public to acknowledge that CO2-centric climate models are neither reliable, nor very helpful for policy making.
These gigantic black holes of research dollars essentially suck huge research monies from other scientific fields, while at the same time never being held accountable for their well documented failures.
In contrast, scientists pursuing other avenues of climate research have developed low-cost climate models - not based on the mind-numbing orthodoxy of CO2-alarmism - that are proving to be gigantic improvements over the consensus, high-cost models.
Adjacent is one such model. Clearly, this non-CO2 driven model has performed spectacularly, in a relative fashion, during the period that NASA, NOAA and IPCC models have been abysmal.
At its most essential, Dr. N. Scafetta's model is driven by the oscillations and cycles of influence that exist between Earth, the Moon, the Sun and other solar system planets. The tug, push and pull amongst these various annual, decadal and millennial oscillations/cycles ultimately has an impact on global climate.
By identifying the attributes and periodicity of these oscillations, a 'harmonic' model can be constructed to better predict long-term where the global climate is headed. As can be seen, this harmonic model appears to have a lot more explanatory power regarding the climate versus the traditional (wildly expensive) alarmist computer simulations.
More on Duke University's Scafetta (a man with some 70+ scientific papers to his name) and his harmonic model can be found here.
Previous climate-model articles.
Note: Scafetta's model chart has been updated with an estimated June 2014 HadCRUT3 global temperature anomaly. HC3 estimate was based on recent HC4 June 2014 anomaly.
Hoping that millions of people face death and destruction from a hurricane to promote an agenda of Democrat party politics is pretty freaking sick, unequivocally.
Like many whack-job global warming alarmists before him, he becomes an honorary member of The Very 'Sick-Fưck' Club.
Seriously, at a minimum, his family should intervene and not let him use Twitter any longer, unless of course he's already killed them all to reduce the family CO2 footprint.
The vicious combination of climate "experts" driven by a political-alarmist agenda and the indisputably incompetent climate models has long misled the taxpaying public and policymakers.
As the NOAA chart of the Great Lakes on the left clearly indicates, water levels are above the long-term averages. The predicted "tipping point" water level reduction from global warming and climate change is AWOL.
The frequent and spectacular prediction failures of the computer simulations and experts has been widely noted in the past.
Millennial-scale climate variability over the last 12,000 years has been well recorded by a wide range of proxies. The adjacent chart plots 29 of those proxies, presenting a striking case for the past global variation during the Holocene climate.
A recent peer-reviewed study analyzed the frequent Holocene climate change and came to the following conclusion:
"...although we cannot totally discount the volcanic and solar forcing hypotheses, we are left to consider that the most plausible source for Holocene millennial-scale variability lies within the climate system itself." In particular, as they continue, "Upper Circumpolar Deep Water (UCDW) variability coincided with deep North Atlantic changes, indicating a role for the deep ocean in Holocene millennial-scale variability."
The fact remains that all previous, and frequent, Holocene climate change was entirely due to natural forces, be they ocean-based (or other earthly/cosmic) forces. Human CO2 did not cause any of the past numerous climate change phases, which is highly suggestive that our modern climate change is likely more a result of the same ocean impacts - feel Occam's razor.
One other comment regarding the 12,000-year Holocene proxy chart. The average of the 29 proxies reveals an interesting tidbit that has actually been recognized by the majority of scientists: the average is at its highest some 5 to 7,000 years ago.
Essentially, we exist today in a climate phase of a long-term cooling.
And you thought America's breadbasket was turning into a scorched, summer-month desert based, of course, on the "expert consensus" climate science, no?
As this NOAA chart depicts, an 85-year cooling trend during the June/July months, affecting the huge corn and soybean and agricultural regions, is without any doubt.
NOAA empirical climate records document the 1°F/century cooling that will severely diminish corn and soybean yields if it continues.
The "expert" predictions that this breadbasket area would be scorched by global warming, due to human CO2 emissions, has proven to be incredibly wrong.
Consensus, dogmatic science about "global" warming, which NOAA confirms to be incorrect, continues to mislead American farmers about the cooling trend.
Note: Chart source. (Display options: average temp; 2-month; July; 1929; 2014; Primary Corn and Soybean Belt; Display Trend; 1929; 2014; Show Smoothed Time Series; click blue Plot button)
As the empirical evidence continues to build, the IPCC, its computer climate models and its associated alarmist climate scientists have just an unbelievable, undeniably miserable record at prediction.
The latest edition to the failed prediction list is well documented:
"Specifically, US hurricanes have not become more frequent or intense, so there is simply no basis to expect an increase in normalized losses. Of course, this analysis has been replicated several times as well, using different methods and loss data."
The supposed extreme climate change caused by human CO2 emissions is not producing the predicted increase of intensity and frequency of regional flooding.
A new study conducted by experts comes to an unsettling truth: the consensus climate science of the IPCC, CAGW alarmists and computer models has been spectacularly wrong.
"In a massive review of the subject conducted by a team of seventeen researchers hailing from eleven different countries, i.e., Kundzewicz et al. (2013), we learn the following:
(1) "no gauge-based evidence has been found for a climate-driven, globally widespread change in the magnitude/frequency of floods during the last decades,"
(2) "there is low confidence in projections of changes in fluvial floods, due to limited evidence and because the causes of regional changes are complex,"
(3) "considerable uncertainty remains in the projections of changes in flood magnitude and frequency,"
(4) increases in global flood disaster losses reported over the last few decades "may be attributed to improvements in reporting, population increase and urbanization in flood-prone areas, increase of property value and degraded awareness about natural risks (due to less natural lifestyle),"
(5) "the linkages between enhanced greenhouse forcing and flood phenomena are highly complex and, up to the present, it has not been possible to describe the connections well, either by empirical analysis or by the use of models," and
(6) "the problem of flood losses is mostly about what we do on or to the landscape," which they say "will be the case for decades to come.""
WUWT had a recent article regarding the continuous diminishing impact of CO2 on global temperatures.
The indisputable physics of climate science states that for every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere, that molecule will have a smaller impact than the one before it.
This diminishing return of CO2 is a well known logarithmic function, as described here.
This most recent article elaborates even further on the ever-sooner trivial CO2 influence, which the author summarizes in this manner:
===>"The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile."
A visualization of the diminishing CO2 impact is revealed by the adjacent top graph. Its plot is a simple ratio of total temperature change divided by atmospheric CO2 (ppm) change since January 1850.
As the graph clearly depicts, the ratio declines in the direction of zero as the growing total of added CO2 produces less and less global warming. Ergo, the climate's sensitivity to CO2 emission is shrinking, constantly.
The bottom graph is the same ratio but only for the shorter period, dating from January 1950 to June 2014. Obviously, the huge increase of atmospheric CO2 from the modern period's industrial/consumer engine has indeed produced a diminishing impact on global temperatures.
This is the empirical evidence that the IPCC and CAGW alarmists never want to talk about as it provides the proof that human CO2 emissions will not be causing massive climate calamities. Yes...those same scary catastrophes always being portrayed by the 97% "consensus" Hollywood science and the robustly gullible mainstream press.
Note: Using January 1850 as the base temperature anomaly and CO2 level month, the total change for both parameters was calculated for each subsequent month. Then for each subsequent month, the total temperature change from the base month was divided by the total CO2 ppm change - a ratio, maybe best described as the amount of temperature change produced by a molecule of CO2. The HadCRUT4 monthly global dataset was used for numerator calculations; denominator calculated from the combined CO2 datasets found here and here.
As this NPR article documents (click on image), modern U.S. western region wildfire occurrence (and severity), despite the huge increase atmospheric CO2, is below what took place during historical and ancient times.
The latest research, including the three new studies cited by NPR, is unequivocal about this.
Yet the Obama White House and its science "advisor" tout recent wildfire anecdotal stories without a single reference to the actual empirical evidence of the past - and even no mention of the modern wildfire evidence.
Ahem...that for most people is known as 'lying,' plain and simple. Surprised?
Previous severe/exteme weather articles.