A number of you have written telling me that you liked the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change—Science. So I will add the NIPCC’s second reference book: Biological Impacts. Click here to link.
cbdakota
A number of you have written telling me that you liked the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change—Science. So I will add the NIPCC’s second reference book: Biological Impacts. Click here to link.
cbdakota
Year end cartoons courtesy of TownHall.com
http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/12/05/137270
Have a great 2016. Happy New Year!!!
cbdakota
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues a report every three or four years about global warming. This UN agency’s charter is not to examine the science of global warming but rather to show that man produced greenhouse gases will result in catastrophic damage to the globe. IPCC does as directed by giving little consideration to data, science or reports that would contradict the charter.
A relatively new report, compiled by the Nongovernmental International Panel
on Climate Change (NIPCC) has been written to answer the IPCC’ reports. The first installment is Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II). This installment is an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science. It is the fourth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the (NIPCC), an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute. Real data and unbiased studies were used in the preparation of this installment.
You can link to Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCRII) by clicking here.
cbdakota
The National Review.com posted “Why Climate Change Won’t Matter in 20 Years”. They subtitled the posting “The perilous business of predicting the future.” The subtitle accurately depicts what happens when politicians or anyone for that matter, think they can safely make the future an extension of the present.
First of all, the warmers should be willing to take seriously the abject failure of their vaunted climate models to make prediction on any time frame. Yet they insist that the Earth in 2100 will be x degrees hotter and the sea level will be y meters higher than today because the climate models told them so. The odds are that they might do just as well talking to Madame Charmaine, the village palm reader.
The author of this posting, Josh Gelernter, put in a lot of effort into showing why projecting the present as a representation of the future is very unlikely to be successful. So I will let him speak:
“Michael Crichton — the brilliant novelist and thinker — posed this
question in a speech at Caltech in 2003, re climate predictions for 2100. What environmental problems would men in 1900 have predicted for 2000? Where to get enough horses, and what to do with all the manure. “Horse pollution was bad in 1900,” said Crichton. How much worse would someone in 1900 expect it to “be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?”
Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, Coal, Domestic Energy, Electricity, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Nuclear Energy, Sea Level, Sun
Mike Van Biezen is a physicist and former believer in catastrophic man-made global warming. His epiphany occurred about 7 years ago, he says, when he realized that between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures had actually declined
a bit all the while CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere at a high rate. Since then, his research into the theory of global warming has converted him to skepticism. Van Biezen says there are many scientific problems with the assumption that human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”. He has picked 10 of the many scientific problems and listed them in his posting on the Dailywire.com. titled “The Most Comprehensive Assault On ‘Global Warming’ Ever”.
I will use his heading for each of the ten problems and pick out parts of his explanation of the nature of that specific problem. Of course you will get much more out of this if you use the link to his posting and read all of his explanation.
California, always trying to be an environmental leader, has recently enacted SB 350 which will require that, by 2030, electrical utilities must get 50% of their power from renewable resources. The bill also requires greenhouse gases emissions (GHGE) be reduced by 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 versus the
1990 GHGE baseline. Dropped from the bill were measures to compel a 50% reduction in petroleum use by 2030.
These reductions are more stringent than those that failed to get accepted by the nations of the World at the COP21 meeting in Paris. California against the world. Further, even if these SB350 mandated changes are met, they will be too small to even be measureable. That is the definition of futility.
The warmers contend that no one studies the role the Sun plays in global warming any more. It is true that measurements of the Sun’s electromagnetic radiation received at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, hardly changes. There are annual variations in the Sun’s energy received because the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is elliptical rather than circular. We are further away from the Sun in June than in January. However the distance effect averages out as it is essentially the same from year to year.
Posted in AGW, CO2, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Radiation, Solar Activity, Solar Cycle 24, Solar Cycle 25, Sun, sun and climate
Wow, do I feel betrayed. The promises by the Republicans on how they were going to handle the budget apparently were just used to fool the voters. They really did not mean what they said. The new budget deal doesn’t even address President Obama plans to send reparation money to the UN. From the Daily Signal posting “What’s Wrong With The Massive Omnibus Spending Bill” one of the segments of the bill is “Energy”. I have on several occasions posted that US crude oil should be allowed to be sold outside the US. If the spending bill is enacted, that will happen. However, I would give that up for a reversal of the other provision such as extending tax credit for wind production. But my biggest regret is that the Republican promises to block the use of monies for the President’s climate change schemes did not happen . Read the following:
If you were to put a jelly bean for each energy provision on a two-sided scale, the side being good free-market provisions and the other being corrupt energy provisions, the bad side of the scale would be hitting the floor.
The American Interest posting of “A Manufactured ‘Success’ in Paris” reviews the fact that the Paris meeting agreement fails to accomplish what the greens had hoped for and in fact may even set back the movement. For example, the money fund part of the agreement does not mention the number $100billion and as we know, there are no mechanisms to make the developed countries actually produce this kind of money. The authors of the posting, Walter Russell Mead and Jamie Horgan suggest that could produce a set back:
” Developing countries can and will excuse their inaction by pointing to the absence of that $100 billion slush fund, and, in any case, the governments of many developing country are surprisingly indifferent to the views of first-world NGO scolds.”
Read the complete posting because it lays out the Paris agreement ‘s lack of real success and some thought on the future of their effort.
I really liked the authors’ views when they said this:
” There will no doubt be many follow-ups, jet-setting conferences in many more attractive destinations, and climate diplomacy will continue to produce more greenhouse gasses than climate agreements block.”
We have been saying that for some long time. There were, by some estimates, around 40,000 people attending this conference. When they begin to do their meetings using Skype, I will take them more seriously.
cbdakota
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, IPCC, United Nations
Secretary of State John Kerry hailed the Paris climate agreement as “a victory for all of the planet and for future generations ” according to the Washington Examiner posting “Kerry says Paris agreement crafted to avoid Congress”.
How did he avoid the US Congress?
Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday the climate agreement reached this week in Paris did not contain any enforcement provisions because Congress would not have approved them.
“It doesn’t have mandatory targets for reduction and it doesn’t have an enforcement, compliance mechanism,” Kerry said during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
“Binding legal requirements would have made the Paris agreement a treaty, requiring approval from two-thirds of the Senate. Because no climate change measure could close to the high bar in the chamber, the Paris deal was written to avoid it.”
Nice work Secretary Kerry. An unenforceable climate agreement is going to save the planet. Actually being unenforceable is probably a victory for the planet, but not in the same sense that Kerry is claiming. Unenforceable provides hope for the poor. Fossil fuel electrical power plants may now be in their future.
The Secretary has crafted another unenforceable agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear program. In just one year, the Secretary has crafted two unenforceable victories for the planet. Certainly this is some kind of distinction.
cbdakota