Category Archives: Climate Alarmism

Can We Trust The EPA? Part 3—Secret Science


The last two postings discussed an EPA regulation being imposed on coal-based sad_danbo-t2power plants to reduce mercury (hg) and Air Toxics. The regulation is based on questionable/maybe fraudulent science because the full data used will not be provided to other scientists so they may verify the findings.

The use of Secret Science in the above is not the first use. From the Committee Report on the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015:

“EPA also has a record of relying on science conducted outside the Agency that is not available to the public—or to the EPA—and therefore cannot be replicated or verified by independent research- ers. For example, virtually all Clean Air Act regulations under the Obama Administration have been justified by data sets collected by two non-governmental institutions over 30 years ago, which have been withheld from the public and cannot be replicated. In 2014, Congress learned this data either no longer exists, is of such poor quality that modeling results cannot be replicated, or has not been coded to facilitate independent analysis. However, EPA continues to rely on this data to support major regulations. “

Continue reading

Can We Trust The EPA? Part I— Mercury


Enforcement of an EPA regulation that would shut down many, if not all, of the US coal based power plants has been stopped by the Supreme Court.

The Science and Environmental  Policy Project  reports:

“By a 5 to 4 vote, the US Supreme Court overturned a decision by a lower Austin power-plantcourt enforcing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) rules on Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) released from power plants. . Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that it was not appropriate for the EPA “to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.” The EPA argued that it factored in cost later in the process of crafting the rules, even though the EPA has failed to calculate costs of some of its earlier regulations. In fact, the EPA has long publically asserted that it is not required to include the costs of regulations under the Clean Air Act.”

There it is. The EPA says it isn’t required to factor in the cost of regulations. That is convenient in that they believe that they can do any thing they think is appropriate.

Lets look at the EPA reasoning behind the MATS regulations and see if the regulations are really needed.    Lets look first at mercury (Hg) emissions  which they say are bad for the children. How do they know that? Some actual data on Hg from “Bogus Mercury Scare Used To Shutdown Coal Electricity Generating Plants“:

Mercury Emissions – Natural and Man-Made

Source Emission Quantity, Mg/Year % of Total
Natural 5207 69
Manmade 2320 31
            TOTAL 7527 100
North American Coal Plants 65 0.9

 Data From Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5951–5964, 2010 by N. Pirrone, S. Cinnirella, X. Feng, et al.

The  total mercury emissions from the North American coal-based plants are less than one per cent of global emissions!!  So the effect on the health of people in the US through reduction of some fraction of the coal-based plants mercury emissions is essentially too small to measure.  Even if they had data showing that Hg was causing a problem, shutting down US coal-based plants to reduce Hg would likely not have any measurable effect at all.

Tests of communities where fish is the main staple in the diet have not shown any measurable IQ problems in the children—(see Bogus Mercury Scare Used To Shutdown Coal Electricity Generating Plants above).  Pat Michaels gave a talk at the 10th International Conference on Climate Change where he reported the EPA,  developed their cost model using a hypothetical group of 240,000 women that would give birth to a child. From this they claimed to have calculated the harm caused by Hg to our nation’s children. Because some fish do accumulate Hg, this pretend group of women would pretend to each eat 300 pounds of fish per year. Almost a pound per day on average.

The EPA decided that each child had a resulting loss  of 0.00209 IQ points. And they calculated that loss of IQ would yield a $1425/per year loss in income per child. The grand total loss annually for the nation would be $3,350,000. If you are not rolling on the floor laughing your behind off, I am very surprised. Only hypothetical people in the US eat 300 lbs of fish per year. IQ scores have a +/- 10 points 95 % confidence level. And the EPA has audacity to think that a 0.00209 IQ loss can actually be measured and used to provide meaningful data?

So much for the Hg scare.

Next we will look at the secrete science behind the EPA’s claim that certain air toxics are potential killers. But that will take up some more words so it will be saved for part two.

cbdakota

Pursuit Of The Dream Of “Carbon-free Energy” Is Creating An Ecological Catastrophe


Christopher Booker writes for the UK’s Sunday Telegraph.  On 4 July 2015, he posted “Why are greens so keen to destroy the world’s wildlife?” From this posting he said:

”All in all, wherever we look, this pursuit of the dream of “carbon-free energy” is creating an ecological catastrophe. Like so many of the great crimes of history, this one is being perpetrated by people who imagine they are doing something praiseworthy. In this case, possessed by their delusion that they are battling for nature and the future of the planet, they are in fact doing as much as anyone to destroy the very things they kid themselves they are trying to save.”

Continue reading

Recent Research Papers Show That IPCC Climate Sensitivity Is Too High


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes, every 3 to 4 years, their version of the science supporting their theory of global warming. Laboratory tests would indicate that for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature should rise about 1C. That is not really very threatening. Their theory says that a doubling will bring about a 3C temperature increase.   The theory postulates that the temperature rise caused by CO2 would increase the amount of water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere. This increase in water vapor, the major so called greenhouse gas, would result in an additional 2C rise— thus when added to the 1C from the CO2 effect would give the 3C rise for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is their view of climate sensitivity. The warmer’s climate models are programmed with this sensitivity. And if you follow this topic at all, you know that the models have predicted much higher temperatures than the real, measured temperatures. And the gap between actual temperature measurements and the climate model forecasts keeps growing.

A 20 June 15 posting on Niche Modeling titled “Published measurements of climate sensitivity declining has a chart that compares the current research versus older research into  climate sensitivity. From that posting:

” Scientists made numerous estimates of climate sensitivity over the last few decades and have yet to determine the correct value.  The figure shows the change in published climate sensitivity measurements over the past 15 years (from here).  The ECS and TCR estimates have both declined in the last 15 years, with the ECS declining from 6C to less than 2C.  While one cannot extrapolate from past results, it is likely that the true figure is below 2C, and may continue to decline.  Based on this historic pattern we should reject the studies that falsely exaggerated the climate sensitivity in the past and remember that global warming is not the most serious issue facing the world today.

#2climatesensitivities

Frow Wiki, an expanded definition of ECS andTCR:

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.  The transient climate response (TCR) is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year. The transient response is lower than the equilibrium sensitivity, due to the “inertia” of ocean heat uptake.

Over the 50–100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is likely to follow the TCR.   With atmospheric CO2 now at a level of about 400 ppm and some experts claiming that the amount of CO2 will never rise to 800 because fossil fuels will be depleted by then.  I don’t know how to assess that but getting to 800ppm is a long way off into the future.

cbdakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letterman versus Lomborg—Interview on Letterman’s Late Show


Bjorn Lomborg was invited on the David Letterman show to discuss global warming. The video, below, sheds little new light on the issues, but the contrast wave generatorsimagesbetween two global warming advocates is pretty striking. Lomborg never pretends that he is a scientist but he is quite knowledgeable about the topic of global warming. He is a believer in the theory of man-made global warming but with a difference. The difference is that he does not buy into the alarm that many, if not most, of his fellow believers use routinely when discussing global warming.

Letterman is not a scientist nor is he knowledgeable about global warming. Letterman is an alarmist. And worst of all, Letterman is an anti-capitalist, or he gives a very good imitation of one. According to him, the industrialists of the world are all in a cabal where they wont let anything get out that might improve the world if they can’t make a profit of it.   I bet Letterman bought many of those kits that would allow you to make gasoline out of water—the ones that those industrialists suppressed.  And how about those batteries that always stayed charged.   Oh, yes,  and those tires that never went flat. Cars could be so much better if Ford and GM would be forced to put those secrete things out on the market. Just think what we could do with those wave machines that David would like to work on, if only those………..

So, have I biased you enough, if so, click on watch the video.

cbdakota

 

 

Tenth International Conference on Climate Change


global-warming-south-carolina-political-cartoonI attended the “Tenth International Conference on Climate Change” held in Washington, DC on June 11-12, 2015.   It surpassed my expectations. The panel presentations were uniformly excellent. While I consider myself to be reasonably well informed regarding this topic, I realized that are certain important areas of which I knew little.     For example I learned many things about the way the EPA operates that makes me very angry. Several of the current Republican candidates for President have announced that if they are elected they plan to shut down the EPA and let the State’s environmental groups handle these issues.   I plan a future posting about this topic.

Mainly the Conference covered global warming science. However there were some tributes to contributors who have made an impact.   One interesting presentation was Christopher Monckton’s defense of Dr Willie Soon.

The entire conference is on video. It can be seen by clicking on this link

cbdakota

Pope Francis Is Poorly Informed About Global Warming


For centuries, the “consensus science” stated the Earth was the center of the universe. In 1610 the skeptic, Galileo Galilei, publicly disagreed saying the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the other way. The Catholic Church leaders called this a fallacy.  Galileo published his theory in 1632 and was found guilty of heresy and placed under house arrest where he remained until his death 9 years later. It now looks like the Church is about to make the same mistake of picking sides concerning the controversial scientific theory of catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW). It is said that Pope Francis will issue an Encyclical saying that World should support the United Nations plan to eliminate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It doesn’t make sense.

Continue reading

Legates To Receive Climate Change Award


The 2015 “Climate Change Awards” to be given out at the 10th International Conference on Climate Change will go to:

Sen. Jim Inhofe, who will receive the Political Leadership on Climate Change Award, sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, at the breakfast keynote at 8 a.m. Thursday, June 11.

William Happer, Ph.D., winner of the 2015 Frederick Seitz Memorial Award, sponsored by the Science & Environmental Policy Project

David Legates, Ph.D., winner of the Courage in Defense of Science Award, sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation

Anthony Watts, winner of the Excellence in Climate Science Communication Award, sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition

Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., winner of the Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science Award, sponsored by The Heartland Institute.

I know all of them by reputation and they are deserving.  But I only know one of the recipients, David Legates,  personally.  He is a man of principal and a real scholar.   He has faced real adversity from his University and from the politicians in his state.  They don’t want discussion or debate.  They want submission to their point of view. He has faced this opposition and carried on.  And this award signifies he has achieved widespread recognition for the high quality of his work.   Way to go David.

cbdakota

 

 

Green’s Say That Computer Projections Are Just Basic Physics- Ok, But They Only Use A Very Small Portion Of The Physics


Basic physics?   Far from it. The greens are trying to sell this. A recent posting on this site has a video in which Carol Andress of the  Environmental Defense Fund uses this line in a debate with Marc Morano.   Ms Andress seems particularly ill informed so she had to resort to this line of “Just Basic Physics”.

Doug Hoffman on his blog site, The Resilient Earth, had this so say about Basic Physics:”

It should come as no surprise that General Circulation Models (GCM), the basis for more comprehensive computer climate models, are based on differential equations, as are weather forecasting models and hurricane path prediction models. As we all know, weather forecasts are not very accurate, only giving a general idea of conditions a few days out, and hurricane models generally cannot predict the point of landfall until just before a storm comes ashore. But GCMs are different from weather programs even though they use some of the same equations. That is a refrain often repeated by supercilious climate modelers. It is true that climate models also include extra factors like sea ice models and “parametrization” for things like clouds. Unfortunately for them their models are not immune to the laws of computation that make their short term cousins grow more and more inaccurate over time.”

Continue reading

Texas Flooding and CO2 Emissions.


James Spann is an AMS certified meteorologist and Host of WeatherBrains.     His views on the connection between man-made global warming and the severe

Houston Post Photo

Houston Post Photo

flooding that parts of Texas have recently experienced were posted in a Medium Corporation blog, titled “The Age Of Disinformation”.  I have selected several things he has to say :

“No doubt national news media outlets are out of control when it comes to weather coverage, and their idiotic claims find their way to us on a daily basis. The Houston flooding is a great example. We are being told this is “unprecedented”… Houston is “under water”… and it is due to manmade global warming.

Yes, the flooding in Houston yesterday was severe, and a serious threat to life and property. A genuine weather disaster that has brought on suffering.

But, no, this was not “unprecedented”. Flooding from Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was more widespread, and flood waters were deeper.”

“Flood events in 2009, 2006, 1998, 1994, 1989, 1983, and 1979 brought higher water levels to most of Houston, and there were many very serious flood events before the 1970s.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that the Texas record 24-hour rainfall occurred July25 and 26, 1976 in Alvin, Texas. The rainfall amount was 42inches.

I experienced a serious flood event in the 1970s in Beaumont, Texas. One day heavy rain began to fall in North East Texas, supercharging the Neches River. By the time the rain arrived in South East Texas, where Beaumont is sited, the Neches River was running over its banks. Adding to that, Beaumont got roughly 10 inches of rain in a 24-hour period . When the rain stopped, sightseers in canoes were paddling down the street in front of my house.

One more lifting from Mr. Spann’s posting:

“Back to my point… many professional meteorologists feel like we are fighting a losing battle when it comes to national media and social media hype and disinformation. They will be sure to let you know that weather events they are reporting on are “unprecedented”, there are “millions and millions in the path”, it is caused by a “monster storm”, and “the worst is yet to come” since these events are becoming more “frequent”.

You will never hear about the low tornado count in recent years, the lack of major hurricane landfalls on U.S. coasts over the past 10 years, or the low number of wildfires this year. It doesn’t fit their story. But, never let facts get in the way of a good story…. there will ALWAYS be a heat wave, flood, wildfire, tornado, tyhpoon, cold wave, and snow storm somewhere. And, trust me, they will find them, and it will probably lead their newscasts. But, users beware…”

cbdakota