Category Archives: CO2

Pew Research Report Data Not Supported By The Interviews. Human Caused CO2 Claimed To Be 48% But In Reality Is 31%

Posted on October 6, 2016 | 1 comment

Pew Research Center has just released a survey of American’s opinions about global warming. They interviewed about 1500 people over a period from 10 May to 6 June this year. There are many findings but the one I want to take issue with is their claim that about half of the American’s interviewed say Earth is warming due to human activity. From the Pew Research Center survey the chart displayed says that 48% believe Earth is warming because of human activity, 31% because of natural patterns and 20% say there is no solid evidence that Earth is getting warmer.

2016-10-05-3

The Pew document presents the results of the interviews. The above conclusion was made from the following interviews:

2016-10-05

 

Above is the first interview results. Only 26% said global warming is caused by human activity. Wow that would not do. I guess they were saying “how can we fix this. We can’t publish this.” So they came up with a plan.

Some of the interviewed said they were not sure or had no answer. So they decided to re-interview these people to see which of the three statements would be their second choice. Now there were 1534 interviewees in the beginning. Thus the “not sures” and the “no answers” would be 0.15X1534=230 people. In the next chart it appears that they only re-interviewed only 156 of the 230. Below are the results of the re-interview.

2016-10-05-1

The results of the re-interview is that 29% said their second choice would be human caused warming, 20% said the warming was natural and 41% there was no evidence that the world is getting warmer.

Now comes the magic. You can see it in the bottom part of the above chart where it says the “combined responses” gave a new set of percentages for each of the three possible answers. However the answer for one of the three changed. It now includes both human caused and natural caused warming even though there still is a natural caused warming category.

I have gone through the math. The “human caused” in the first interview was 26% or 398 people. The “natural” was 45% or 690 people. “No evidence” was 14% or 215 people. As noted above the number re interviewed was 156 although the percentage would have called for 230. Note also that the percentage listed in the chart is only 90% or 140 people. The bottom line for people actually giving an opinion looks to be 1443 rather than the 1534 they began with. But the discrepancies in total number make little difference to the outcome. The human caused would be 398 original people plus 45 of the re interviewed for a total of 443 representing the share of the total 31%. Natural 690 plus 31 for a total of 721 and 50%. No evidence came in with 215 plus 64 for 279 and 19%. So only 31% said warming was human caused.

Obviously the surveyors could not let the initial result stand—–only 26% thought warming in human caused. So they came up with a way to obscure the results.

I have plowed through the rest of the interview material. It is obvious that most of the people have little concept of the issues surrounding renewable fuels/renewable energy.

2016-10-05-6

Their level of the science knowledge is probably pretty well summed up by the interview question shown above where they were asked to name the major gas that makes up our atmosphere. Seventy-three per cent did not know the answer. I would hazard a guess that most of our politician would do no better on that question.

If you want to look in detail at the full report and the interviews click here and then click on “Complete Report PDf

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Fracking/Shale Gas, Renewable Energy, solar cells, Windpower

Study Says CO2 Not Statistically Significant In Global Temperature Change

Posted on October 2, 2016 | 1 comment

This might be the most important report written in 2016 and perhaps in this century. In my simple understanding of things global warming, it seems that any honest scientist that reads this must be able to show this report to be wrong or, if not already, join us as a skeptic. By zeroing out natural causes, this report shows why man-made CO2 does not have a statistically significant impact on global warming. It validates other studies, especially ice cores,that show that CO2 is a lagging variable, not a leading variable.

A new report “ On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “& The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” demonstrates that CO2 has only minimal effect on the global warming. The authors of the report challenge critics of these finding by saying :

“Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused the reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?”

Some background. The damage to the US economy caused by the EPA claiming that CO2 emissions will eventually lead to catastrophic increases in Global temperatures was first permitted as a result of the US Supreme Court telling the EPA to determine if CO2 was hazardous. So if the EPA could make an endangerment  determination, then the Court would allow CO2 (and several other minor greenhouse gases) be added to the Clean Air Act (CAA). CO2 was considered in detail by Congress when they passed the CAA and Congress rejected its inclusion. Once again the Supreme Court, fully aware of Congress’ rejection, decided to legislate –not their prerogative– by including CO2 if the EPA said it was hazardous.

To no one’s surprise, the EPA did conclude it was hazardous and began sending out regulations of all kinds based upon their catastrophic global warming theory. The EPA in their CO2 Endangerment Finding said they had found 3 lines of evidence that demonstrates their Finding: They are:

“The assumption of the existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot (THS)” is critical to all Three Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding. Stated simply, first, the THS is claimed to be a fingerprint or signature of atmospheric and Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) warming caused by increasing GHG/CO2 concentrations1. (The new report scientist are challenging this by saying that the proper test for the existence of the THS in the real world is very simple. Are the slopes of the three temperature trend lines [upper & lower troposphere and surface] all statistically significant and do they have the proper top down rank order?)

Second, higher atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs concentrations are claimed to have been the primary cause of the claimed record setting GAST over the past 50 plus years.

Third, the THS assumption is imbedded in all of the climate models that EPA still relies upon in its policy analysis supporting, for example, its Clean Power Plan–recently put on hold by a Supreme Court Stay. These climate models are also critical to EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon estimates used to justify a multitude of regulations across many U.S. Government agencies.

The scientists that issued the report: On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “& The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” have set out in detail their methodology and data used to arrive at their conclusions. These can be examined by clicking on the link above.

In summary, the scientists looked at natural causes for increases and decreases in global temperature as well as man-made causes. CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels is a man-made source. There were three natural factors—an increase or decrease in Solar radiation, volcanic activity, and ENSO (El NINO Southern Oscillation) . Natural factors can not be the result of human actions.

ENSO is a three part phenomenon.. ElNino, LaNina and Neutral

make_enso_plot_v2-r-enso

El Ninos and La Ninas are irregular in their size and frequency. While this chart goes back to the fifties when ENSO was first recognized, Scripps Institute of Oceanography says:

“There have been many El Niños observed in the past. Theres every reason to think that they have been happening for many thousands of years”

Obviously, fossil fuel produced CO2 is not a issue here.

These scientists removed from 13 temperature records the effect of natural causes of temperature changes leaving only the man-made causes. The temperature records were from balloons, satellite, ground and ocean temperature readings.

From the scientists report, here is what they did and found:

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 temperature time series analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in the EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate–13 times in fact–that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.

Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their (critic’s) claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?

I reviewed a website that had discussed these findings that there is no significant statistical evidence of CO2 causing global warming. Not a single challenge using data and facts. All of critics were saying that “97%” could not be wrong or using ad hominem attacks on the author.

So as the authors of the report say about having a factual disagreement, “Where is it?

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, CRU Temps, ENSO, EPA, fuel cells, Government Regulations, IPCC, volcanoes

Sales Of EV’s Are Not Impressive.

Posted on September 25, 2016 | Leave a comment

cartoonevforseptblogSales of electric vehicles (EV) jumped in the second quarter of this year. This was enough to convince Real Clear Energy to post “Surge in EV Sales Bucks Cheap Gasoline, Broader Auto Industry Trends”. The posting says that while President Obama’s goal of 1 million EV’s on US roads by 2015 was not met, it was only about half that number in 2015, the surge “gives reason for fresh optimism about the future…..” EV Sales in the first half of 2015 were 70,296 versus 2016 first half sales of 99,634—a 42% change. That looks pretty impressive in the abstract.

However,  EV sales need to be evaluated versus all US automobile sales

Detailed Data for sales in August are readily available but June 2016 detailed data are behind a pay wall.  In reality the exact numbers are not significantly going to change the fact that EV sales were about 1..2% of total sales.  YCharts forecast annual sales based upon  auto sales by using the current month’s actual sales.  In June , half of the year, the Y chart number for total sales was 17.09 million automobiles.  This number counts cars and light truck and it includes EV sales in this number.  The 2016 auto sales  for the year based upon August July sales was18.15 million. Because the biggest sales months are in the fall of the year,  the official forecast for 2016 sales is 18.75 million.

Anyway,  if the annual forecast at the end of June was 17.09  roughly the year to date sales for the first six months sales would have been about 8.5 million.

The math:        0.1 million EVsales /8.5 million total sales = 1.2% of the total sales were EVs.

Real Clear Energy really has to be reaching to say that this gives them “fresh optimism.”

A hat tip to David Middleton for this story line based upon his posting in WUWT titled “Green math must be a Common Core product“.  I have modified it because I believe his calculation was erroneous. He arrived at number of 0.6% rather than what I believe is the correct number. Middleton’s conclusion however  is unchanged by my calculation of 1.2%.

cbdakota

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Electric Vehicles, Environment, fossil fuels, Personal Automobiles, US Auto Manufacturers

Back In The Saddle Again. (Thanks Gene Autry)

Posted on September 25, 2016 | 1 comment

typing-clipart-1886_picture_of_a_happy_disabled_man_in_a_wheelchair_typing_at_his_deskMy postings since May are nearly zero.  I have been catching up on things that needed doing more than any need to be writing about the faulty catastrophic global warming theories.  The family has to come first.  In addition, to many honey dos weren’t getting done.

I suppose you are wondering what so difficult about writing a blog, if anything.  Mainly the issue is trying not to make mistakes.  Blovating is pretty easy.  But checking out what is being blovated needs to be reasonably well supported.  —A for instance.—-  I just finished a posting on how small the sales of EVs really are.  I had planed to use as one of my references a posting by a man for whom I have a great deal of respect.  When I tried to confirm his numbers I could not do it.   In this case, I think he made some mistakes, or at least I can’t confirm his numbers.  So I used mine.

I like doing this so, I hope that I am back in the saddle again, —time will tell.

cbdakota

 

1 Comment

Posted in Climate Alarmism, CO2, Environment, Skeptic resources, skeptic science knowledge, sun and climate

Make The Climate Change Radicals Walk The Walk, Not Just Talk The Talk

Posted on July 12, 2016 | 1 comment

Glenn Reynolds, a Tennessee University Law Professor posted in USAToday, where he frequently contributes opinion columns, “ Ban AC for DC “ with the subtitle being “If our rulers think global warming is a crisis, let them be a good example for the rest of us”

goreandhairdryer

 

 

 

Reynolds says:

“In this, I’m inspired by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Tex., who noticed something peculiar recently. It seems that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who spends a lot of time telling Americans that they need to drive less, fly less, and in general reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, also flies home to see her family in Boston “almost every weekend“; the head of the Clean Air Division, Janet McCabe, does the same, but she heads to Indianapolis. In air mileage alone, the Daily Caller News Foundation estimates that McCarthy surpasses the carbon footprint of an ordinary American.

Smith has introduced a bill that wouldn’t target the EPA honchos’ personal travel, though: It provides, simply, that “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay the cost of any officer or employee of the Environmental Protection Agency for official travel by airplane.”

This makes sense to me. We’re constantly told by the administration that “climate change” is a bigger threat than terrorism.  And as even President Obama has noted, there’s a great power in setting an example: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

Reynolds thinks expanding Representative Smith’s proposed legislation would useful as he notes in the following:

  1. Extend Smith’s bill to cover the entire federal government. We have Skype now, and Facetime. There’s no reason to fly to meetings. I’d let the President keep Air Force One for official travel, but subject to a requirement that absolutely no campaign activity or fundraisers take place on any trips in which the president travels officially.
  2. Obama makes a great point about setting the thermostat at 72 degrees. We should ban air conditioning in federal buildings. We won two world wars without air conditioning our federal employees. Nothing in their performance over the last 50 or 60 years suggests that A/C has improved things. Besides, The Washington Post informs us that A/C is sexist, and that Europeans think it’s stupid.
  3. In fact, we should probably ban air conditioning in the entire District of Columbia, to ensure that members of Congress, etc. won’t congregate in lobbyists’ air-conditioned offices.
  4. Speaking of which, members of Congress shouldn’t be allowed to fly home on the weekends. Not only does this produce halfhearted attention to their jobs — the so-called “Tuesday to Thursday Club” — but, again, it produces too much of a carbon footprint. Even if they pay for the travel out of campaign funds, instead of their own budgets, they need to set an example for the rest of us — and for those skeptical foreigners that Obama mentioned.

Reynolds takes a swipe at Leonardo DiCapprio as well. And what about Michelle Obama’s vacations!!!

The full posting is a good read, ( somewhat tongue-in-cheek in some parts.)

Do you think the warmers really believe in this catastrophic global warming stuff? Does not look like it. I think it demonstrates that they are using this to increase the size of the government through regulations (and thus their power.) That was the motivation of the founders of this movement.

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Government Revenues

UK Scientist Doubts Decarbonization by 2050 Is Possible. Thinks Other Unfunded Threats Are More Compelling.

Posted on June 6, 2016 | Leave a comment

M J Kelly, Electrical Engineering Division Department of Engineering, Universtiy of Cambridge has written “Lessons from Technology Development for Energy and Sustainability” and posted on the  Cambridge Journals on Line.

The following is the Abstract from his posting where he sets up the quandary that faces the organizations wishing to decarbonize the planet by 2050.

There are lessons from recent history of technology introductions which should not be forgotten when considering alternative energy technologies for carbon dioxide emission reductions.

The growth of the ecological footprint of a human population about to increase from 7B now to 9B in 2050 raises serious concerns about how to live both more efficiently and with less permanent impacts on the finite world. One present focus is the future of our climate, where the level of concern has prompted actions across the world in mitigation of the emissions of CO2. An examination of successful and failed introductions of technology over the last 200 years generates several lessons that should be kept in mind as we proceed to 80% decarbonize the world economy by 2050. I will argue that all the actions taken together until now to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide will not achieve a serious reduction, and in some cases, they will actually make matters worse. In practice, the scale and the different specific engineering challenges of the decarbonization project are without precedent in human history. This means that any new technology introductions need to be able to meet the huge implied capabilities. An altogether more sophisticated public debate is urgently needed on appropriate actions that (i) considers the full range of threats to humanity, and (ii) weighs more carefully both the upsides and downsides of taking any action, and of not taking that action.

 

M J Kelly discusses this issue at length in his posting and I suggest you read it in its entirety . This posting will look at conclusions and some suggestions Kelly derives when he examined the current  programs to reduce CO2. He’s not optimistic that decarbonization has much of a chance of accomplishing what the greens want. In fact he thinks the money could be spend better on addressing more immediate threats than those posed by the so-call catastrophic global warming. Here he summarizes his thoughts:

It is surely time to review the current direction of the decarbonization project which can be assumed to start in about 1990, the reference point from which carbon dioxide emission reductions are measured. No serious inroads have been made into the lion’s share of energy that is fossil fuel based. Some moves represent total madness. The closure of all but one of the aluminium smelters that used gas-fired electricity in the UK (because of rising electricity costs from the green tariffs that are over and above any global background fossil fuel energy costs) reduces our nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. 62 However, the aluminium is now imported from China where it is made with more primitive coal-based sources of energy, making the global problem of emissions worse! While the UK prides itself in reducing indigenous carbon dioxide emissions by 20% since 1990, the attribution of carbon emissions by end use shows a 20% increase over the same period.

Interestingly, he talks about the UK exporting manufacturing to other nations in order to reduce CO2 emissions.  Then the goods from these nations come back to the UK made in less efficient factories and the attributed CO2 result in an increase in the UK net emissions.     

It is also clear that we must de-risk all energy infrastructure projects over the  next two decades. While the level of uncertainty remains high, the ‘insurance policy’ justification of urgent large-scale intervention is untenable, and we do not pay premiums if we would go bankrupt as a consequence. Certain things we do not insure against, such as a potential future mega-tsunami, 64 or a supervolcano, 65 or indeed a meteor strike, even though there have been over 20 of these since 2000 with the local power of the Hiroshima bomb! 66 Using a significant fraction of the global GDP to possibly capture the benefits of a possibly less troublesome future climate leaves more urgent actions not undertaken.

Two important points remain. The first is that there is no alternative to business as usual carrying on, with one caveat expressed in the following paragraph. Since energy use has a cost, it is normal business practice to minimize energy use, by increasing energy efficiency (see especially the recent improvement in automobile performance), 67 using less resource material and more effective recycling. These drivers have become more intense in recent years, but they were always there for a business trying to remain competitive.

The second is that, over the next two decades, the single place where the greatest impact on carbon dioxide emissions can be achieved is in the area of personal behaviour. Its potential dwarfs that of new technology interventions. Within the EU over the last 40 years there has been a notable change in public attitudes and behaviour in such diverse arenas as drinking and driving, smoking in public confined spaces, and driving without a seatbelt. If society’s attitude to the profligate consumption of any materials and resources including any forms of fuel and electricity was to regard this as deeply antisocial, it has been estimated we could live something like our present standard of living on half the energy consumption we use today in the developed world. 68 This would mean fewer miles travelled, fewer material possessions, shorter supply chains, and less use of the internet. While there is no public appetite to follow this path, the short term technology fix path is no panacea.

Over the last 200 years, fossil fuels have provided the route out of grinding poverty for many people in the world (but still less than half of all people) and Fig. 1 shows that this trend is certain to continue for at least the next 20 years based on the technologies of scale that are available today. A rapid decarbonization is simply impossible over the next 20 years unless the trend of a growing number who succeed to improve their lot is stalled by rich and middle class people downgrading their own standard of living. The current backlash against subsidies for renewable energy systems in the UK, EU and USA is a sign that all is not well with current renewable energy systems in meeting the aspirations of humanity.

Figure 1. (a) The 40% growth of global energy consumption since 1995 and the projected 40% growth until 2035, with most of the growth between 1995 and 2035 being provided by fossil fuels, 21and (b) the cause of this growth is the rise in the number of people living in the middle class as described in the text. 22

 

Finally, humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality. Have the engineers been supine and lacking in courage to challenge the orthodoxy? Or have their warnings been too gentle and dismissed or not heard? Science and politicians can take too much comfort from undoubted engineering successes over the last 200 years. When the sums at stake are on the scale of 1–10% of the world’s GDP, this is a serious business.

cbdakota

*M.J. Kelly (2016). Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability. MRS Energy & Sustainability, 3, E3 doi:10.1557/mre.2016.3.

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Renewable Energy

Making It Criminal To Be A Skeptic—The First Amendment Is Under Siege

Posted on June 4, 2016 | Leave a comment

Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) is calling for RICO investigations of skeptics and fossil fuel companies. California legislators writing a bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent—fortunately it died this past  Thursday. Seventeen  State Attorney Generals investigating Exxon. Calls to silence skeptical views are becoming more frequent. A number of major US newspapers are prohibiting discussion of Skeptical views.  This theme parallels the Social Justice Warriors efforts to impose their view of politically correct and thus allowable speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution is under siege by the media and the government itself. The Amendment was designed to prevent the Government from squashing dissenting views and is often considered the medias first line of defense from the government crackdowns such as are common in socialist, communist and dictatorial governments (e.g. Venezuela, China and Iran.)

From an earlier Climate Change Sanity blog:

”Climate science acts like it is fighting a holy war. There are only those who are just and those who must be silenced and stopped at all costs. Anyone who mounts reasonable logical, empirical, or skeptical challenges to the orthodoxy must be ruined, not by counterfactual evidence, but by vicious attack”.

Obviously the warmers are not winning the hearts and minds of free people. One reason for this is that the disinformation primarily comes from the warmers. The predictions of catastrophe are many and they have not come true. And you do not need to be a climate scientist to understand how the warmers continue to get it wrong. The mainstream media is complicit in the distribution of this disinformation.

 

Look at these postings where you can get some idea of how poor their predictions are:

CAGW Predictions –Zombie And Others

Quotes from the Founders Of the Global Warming Movement

More Green Predictions Are Way Off Base

5 IPCC Assessments Don’t Show Correlation Of Temperature and Severe Weather

How Reliable Are Climate Models?

And some stories of manipulation of Data to get the results they want

Can We Trust the EPA Secrete Science

Doctor Brown and Temperature Tampering

Research Papers Show IPCC Climate Sensitivity Are Too High

And Bjon Lomborg shows how just a fraction of the money wasted on these erroneous green studies could really make a difference in people’s lives:

Bjorn Lomborg Say Global Warming Poor Place to Spend Money

These are just a few of postings on Climate Change Sanity that show you need to be a skeptic.

And please contact you legislators and tell them to protect the public from those who want to take away our First Amendment rights.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, Hurricanes, IPCC, NASA/GISS, Tornados

Nuclear Energy Is The Energy Source Of The Future–So Why Is It Dying Now?

Posted on May 18, 2016 | Leave a comment

A posting by Michael Shellenberger, “Clean Energy is on the Decline — Here’s Why, and What We Can Do About It”  discusses the demise of nuclear power plants. He notes that while low natural gas prices have undercut the economics of nuclear plants, the real problem they face is the bias against nukes. He notes than many State regulations refuse to class nukes as “renewable” energy thus not getting subsidized as do solar and wind energy. These same state regulations require a mix of solar and wind generated energy be part of the mix sold by utilities but specifically do not include nuclear power as part of the required mix. Why he asks does nuclear, an energy source that emits no carbon dioxide (CO2), get excluded. And further, nukes are base-load plants. Meaning when put on-line they produce power whether the sun shines or the wind blows.  And an added benefit, nukes produce enormous amounts of power while occupying very little space.

Shellenberger says:

“Consider that in the U.S., utilities have either closed or announced premature closures of seven plants in three years. At least eight more are at risk of early closure in the next two years. In 2011, Germany announced it would close all of its nuclear plants. Swedish utility Vattenfall announced late last year that it would be forced to close several reactors prematurely.”

The irony of this, for example in Germany, is that the nukes are being replaced by brown coal fueled power plants. Brown coal is probably the biggest emitter of CO2 per KWh of any normal power source.

“Everywhere the underlying reason is the same: anti-nuclear forces, in tandem with rent-seeking economic interests, have captured government policies. On one extreme lies Germany, which decided to speed up the closure of its nuclear plants following Fukushima. In Sweden the government imposed a special tax on nuclear. In the U.S., solar and wind receive 140 and 17 times higher levels of subsidy than nuclear. And states across the nation have enacted Renewable Portfolio Standards, RPS, that mandate rising wind and solar, and that exclude nuclear.”

Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Electricity from Coal, Environment, fossil fuels, IPCC, Nuclear Energy

Indian, Japanese and Chinese Scientists Publish Research That Predicts Little Ice Age or Maunder Minimum Coming Soon.

Posted on May 13, 2016 | 1 comment

The Times of India posted “Sunspots point to looming “little ice age” quoting scientists and astronomers from Physical Research Laboratory in India and their counterparts in China and Japan have fresh evidence that Earth may be heading for another “little ice age” or maybe even another Maunder Mimimum.

Their findings are very similar to those of our scientists. They report that:

“….our blazing sun has been eerily turning quiet and growing less active over the last two decades.”

Continue reading →

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Solar Activity, Solar Cycle 24, Solar Flux, Sun, sun and climate, Sunspots

Great Lakes’ Weather Becomes Global Warming And Then Reverses

Posted on May 12, 2016 | 2 comments

Warmers are eager to see global warming in any weather event that seems to have a negative effect.   We all have seen their contradictory claims that global warming causes dangerous warming, and dangerous cold, and dangerous floods and dangerous droughts, etc. .

Another one of their variable weather happenings that was declared proof of dangerous global warming has  come unglued.  A Breitbart Posing “Great Lakes Go From ‘Climate Change-Induced’ Low Water Levels To Record Highs In Three Years” illustrates this point:

Between 2010 and 2013, residents of the states surrounding the Great Lakes were told that climate change was permanently altering their environment and the record low water levels being recorded in the lakes may be the new normal. But now, only three years later, news reports are worried about beach erosion because the lakes have rebounded to record high levels of water.  “implications for the environment and the economy.”

This week, throughout the Chicago media landscape, as well as in reports in Michigan and Wisconsin, stories about a loss of swimming areas on public beaches are filling airwaves and newspaper pages. Residents and city officials are warning citizens that water levels in Lake Michigan and the other lakes are so high that the shallow swimming areas have been reduced as the water rises. Reports are also express worry over beach erosion and fears that the rising water is a danger to other infrastructure like roads.

In Chicago, for instance, notes that water levels have risen a whopping four feet since 2013 and the new water is “swallowing up beaches.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that the northern suburb of Evanston is losing beachfront property. “All our beaches are shrinking,” Evanston parks director Lawrence Hemingway said.  For its part, Chicago’s Fox affiliate worries that the city’s lakeshore bike path is being destroyed by the higher water levels. The Detroit Free Press also noted that the high water is erasing beaches and the water is at highs not seen since the 1990s.

These report are starkly different than those from the 2011 to 2013 timeframe. Then the news reports were warning that the:

“lakes were irreversibly shrinking and that climate change was desolating both commerce and the environment“.

In 2013, for instance, Chicago’s Public Television WTTW bemoaned a “dramatic” change in the climate that was warming the lakes, lowering water levels, and threatening to destroy commerce and the environment.

The local PBS story also went national as the PBS Newshour ran stories on the environmental disaster the lakes were experiencing. In 2012 National Geographic sonorously warned that the “climate-related trend” was on the verge of laying waste to the region. Crain’s Detroit was also writing in 2013 that communities living on the edges of the region’s monumental bodies of water were going to have to “adapt” to the new normal of climate change.

 Naturally, far left sources were absolutely sure that global warming was drying up the lakes. In 2013 far left website Think Progress worried its readers with claims that climate change was “damaging” the lakes and would present. The Natural Resource Defense Council even contemplated lawsuits to prevent cities on the lakes from tapping into them as a source of water.

Still, it is amazing to see the difference in coverage. Today, with water levels hitting record highs, news reporters and city officials worry over their loss of beachfront property and not a word is mentioned of climate change. Yet only three years ago the same officials and news reporters were sure that climate change was here to stay and we’d better get used to the shrunken Great Lakes.

What a difference a few years makes.

I will bet that in a year or two, all the stories about low water levels being a definite indicator of catastrophic global warming will be forgotten and the narrative will be that the rising waters are a definite indicator of catastrophic global warming.

cbdakota

 

 

 

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Drought, Environment, Global Temperatures, Media Bias, Storms/hurricanes