Category Archives: CO2

Global Temperature Only Lowered By 0.01C. Is It Worth All The Pain?


President Obama unveiled the “Clean Power Plan” prepared by the EPA. It claims much but testimony EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, gave at a Congressional hearing make those claims very questionable. She does not dispute that global temperature will only be lowered by 0.01degree C., — we goreandhairdryermust set the example for the rest of the world, she says. But 8 months ago, Obama agreed to China increasing their CO2 until 2030 at which time it will be three times greater than our emissions. What kind of example is that? The health improvements are touted but many are based on “secret science” that she wont let anyone see outside the agency. And some is based upon hypothetical set ups; hence, make-believe science. She was quoted as saying she “doesn’t actually need raw data in order to develop science. That’s not how it is done?” Since when, other than on Planet EPA?

Continue reading

Did CO2 Cause North Korea’s Environment To Collapse?


Why is North Korea’s environment in a state of collapse? Well it is not due to global warming, global climate change weather weirding or what ever the new evasive title is. From the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) “Nova” program titled “Inside North Korea’s Environmental Collapse” we learn this:

“North Korea has been hiding something. Something beyond its prison camps, its nuclear facilities, its pervasive poverty, its aching famine, its lack of energy—electrical, fossil, or otherwise. What the hermit kingdom has been covering up is perhaps more fundamental than all of those: an environmental collapse so severe it could destabilize the entire country. Or at least, it was hiding it.”

What initiated the collapse? Nova had this to say:

“North Korea’s isolation means detailed data on environmental conditions are hard to come by. However, a 2004 study by the Korea Environment Institute based in Seoul, South Korea, reports that forest cover in North Korea dropped by 17 percent from the 1970s to the late 1990s. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, which provided oil to its communist ally at a discounted “friendship price,” oil imports dropped by 60 percent. Unsurprisingly, the use of firewood for heating more than doubled.

nkoreanwood(North Korean soldiers hauling firewood back to base. Fuel for heating is scarce, so many rely on what wood they can find, including, apparently, the normally well-supplied Korean People’s Army.)

“What resulted was an increasingly barren landscape. Even saplings are felled for fuel, stripping forests of their ability to regenerate. “They don’t have trees to hold the soil,” says Jinsuk Byun of Sookmyung Women’s University in Seoul. Byun was not a part of the recent delegation but has closely followed environmental conditions in the country. “When it rains the soil washes into the river, landslides occur and rivers flood. It triggers a really serious disaster.”

nkoreahillside

(Farmers preparing a field for the planting season outside Wonsan, North Korea, in the shadow of a denuded hillside.)

And this satellite photo from drroyspencer.com posting, “Is North Korea Cutting Down All Its Trees?

North-Korea-deforestation-2013-vs-2015

The Nova program cites loss of wildlife as follows:

” The lack of birds and other small animals noted by the scientists on their recent visit are a direct result of the famine in the 1990s, Demick says. “The frogs disappeared because everyone caught the frogs,” Demick says. “You see many fewer birds and small animals in North Korea than other countries. People living near the sea ate seaweed but that also ran out.”

Energy to heat homes. Energy to provide light . Energy to power the equipment to farm and do other forms of manufacturing.   The supply of fossil fuels is not sufficient to support the North Korean population.  This is a lesson for those who believe the world can manage without the use of fossil fuels.  Someday, perhaps it will, but alternative forms of energy–wind farm, solar cells and biofuels  are not ready for prime time, so be careful for what you wish.

In this case the North Korea leaders, present and past, are just plain crazy—- imposing a dictatorship that controls all aspects of the lives of the people. As the North Koreans are the same people as their cousins in South Korea, one would expect if the government quit regulating every aspect of their lives, they might be able to restore North Korea. Open up the country and spend the countries money on fossil fuels (energy) and stop spending it on nukes.

cbdakota

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

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

 

 

Bjorn Lomborg Says Global Warming Is A Poor Place To Spend $


Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish economist, joins the “consensus” supporting the theory of man-made global warming (AGW), but not catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW). He is disliked intensely by the wamers but not because he doesn’t believe in CAGW. He gets this lack of love because he believes that the money spent in the name of global warming is largely misspent. He says the money would be better spent to reduce malnutrition, make immunizations available, better education, prevention of AIDs, providing electrical power to reduce air pollution, etc. These beliefs are laid out in the TED talk video below.

This a fascinating talk.  He shows how much improved Earth has become from 1900 to 2013 and projects changes to 2050.

Continue reading

Sunspot Number History Change Is Underway


For those readers of this blog that follow the monthly update of Solar Cycle 24, things are about to change. For the better I think, but until the final report is 400yrsofsunspotcyclesUnknownreleased, we wont know for sure. Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations (SILSO) a part of the World Data Center has issued a Sunspot Bulletin that says:”

                                           Warning of Major Data Change

Over the past 4 years a community effort has been carried out to revise entirely the historical sunspot number series. A good overview of the analyses and identified corrections is provided in the recent review paper: Clette, F., Svalgaard, L., Vaquero, J.M., Cliver, E. W.,”Revisiting the Sunspot Number. A 400-Year Perspective on the Solar Cycle”, Space Science Reviews, Volume 186, Issue 1-4, pp. 35-103.

Now that the new data series has been finalized, we are about to replace the original version of our sunspot data by an entirely new data set on July 1st. On this occasion, we decided to simultaneously introduce changes in several conventions in the data themselves and also in the distributed data files.

Continue reading

NOAA Alleges New Temperature Data Refutes The “Pause”–But Does It?


A New NOAA data set is being touted as having proved that the global temperature “pause” does not exist. Examination of the new data suggests that this is a desperate attempt to remove the “pause” before the December United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 meeting in Paris.   Bob Tisdale has posted a “before and after” chart for this century.  (click on chart for clarity).

pusebusteranimation-2How does this new temperature finding compare with the other measuring systems?   The magnitude of the change of the new data are incredible. A discussion of what was changed will follow after we look at how this new temperature finding compare with the other measuring systems.

Continue reading

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