Category Archives: CO2

Paris Agreement As Viewed By Alarmist Postings.

Posted on March 5, 2021 | 2 comments

Climate Home News is a publication that believes we are doomed unless we achieve net carbon zero as promoted by the Paris Agreement.   They are disappointed by the reluctance of some of the developed nations to actually comply with drastic reductions in fossil fuel emissions of CO2.  And two nations that are not “developed” nations, those being China and India are not into reductions either.  From Climate Home News recent email message to me, they give voice to their dilemma. The following are a few of their recent postings:

    They believed China was going to get religion and begin backing off from     fossil fuels, particularly Coal.  It did not happen.

China was expected to use Covid-19 cutbacks as a step to reduce use of fossil fuels.  Surprise the Chinese once again fooled the fools that believe Chinese environmental promises.

      Survey says Russian pipelines are leaking more methane than had    been previously believed to be the case.

French climate bill set for rocky ride after citizens’ assembly slams weak ambition

French climate bill is too weak for the warmers.  They cite some of the alarmist groups that are protesting the bill.

Oh my, the Japanese are building new coal plants and neither the US or Japan have a plan to phase out coal.  The Germans have a plan. They are planning on using coal until 2038.

A bonus entry by cbdakota that was not included in the recent Climate Home News postings.

Did you hear that the Russians blocked a UN plan to declare global warming a global emergency?    UN Security Council hears of climate threat, does nothing – POLITICO

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, China, Climate Alarmism, CO2, fossil fuels, Paris Agreement

Natural Causes for The Declining Global Temperature Part 1.

Posted on February 8, 2021 | 1 comment

The global temperature anomaly, as read by the UAH satellite system, dropped in January about 0.03 C to + 0.12C.  This follows a drop of 0.25C to +0.15C in December of last year.  Since the last El Nino, when the anomaly peaked out at +0.50C in February 2020, the anomaly has dropped by 0.38C.

. NOTE: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.

Dr Spencer’s note above, alerts the reader that the anomaly chart was change beginning in January 2021. I believe the scientific organization are all remaking their charts to comply with the new averaging period.   I suspect that it is to make more room above the averaging period.  

Why is the global temperature falling? Has something happened to the Green House gases?  Let us take a quick tour of the natural forces and see what part they are playing.

El Nino-Southern Oscillation

Currently the La Nina is dominating the Tropical Pacific Ocean.  NOAA published an advisory saying:

La Niña—the cool phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation climate pattern—was firmly in place across the tropical Pacific in December 2020. Forecasters estimate a 95% chance La Niña will last through Northern Hemisphere winter. La Niña can influence seasonal climate in the United States. Conditions so far have not looked especially La Niña-like, but winter is far from over.

El Nino -La Nina is a naturally occurring phenomena in that it has been observed much longer than the industrial era of fossil fuel C02 emissions. 

Solar Cycle 25

Solar Cycle 25 has been underway since December 2019.   The forecasts comparing SC 25 to SC24 were mostly that they would be comparable. Cycle 24 was the least active SC in 100 years. 

The more active the sun is, the more solar wind and conversely a less active sun produces less solar wind. The Sun’s magnetic field carried by the solar wind regulates the number of cosmic rays that enter the atmosphere.   The less active the sun, more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere.  Thus, low activity should form more cloud cover, thus increasing the albedo. A briefing on how this works is briefly described by a posting on GWPF titled “Force Majeure, The Sun’s role in climate control”, written by Henrik Svensmark:     

“The fundamental idea is that cosmic ray ionisation in the atmosphere is important for the formation and growth of small aerosols into CCN, which are necessary for the formation of cloud droplets and thereby clouds. Changing the number density of CCN changes the cloud microphysics, which in turn changes both the radiative properties and the lifetime of clouds.” (CNC is an acronym for Cloud Condensation Nuclei)

 This would reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface, thus reducing global temperature.

Currently, the solar activity is at a low.

 So, where are we?

The El Nino is a natural phenomenon, that raises the global temperature, and it is usually followed by a La Nina that results in a lowering the global temperature.  We are experiencing a La Nina now.

Solar Cycle 25 in underway and it is forecast to be of low activity.  Time delays are often suggested for the impact of Solar Cycles activity.  This may be the case here and that the impact of Solar Cycle 24 is just now beginning to be felt.

Part two will look briefly at two other natural phenomena that many believe are important in effecting the global temperature.   They are the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in CO2, ENSO, Global Temperatures, NOAA, Solar Cycle 24, Solar Cycle 25, sun and climate, Sunspots, UAH Satellite Temps

Alamists Have the Media on Their Side.

Posted on January 27, 2021 | 4 comments

I have been consulting or blogging about climate change for some 20+ years.  I began in an advisory role to a member of Delaware’s Legislative body.  That followed by setting up a climate change website.  Alas, I gotten older.  My zeal has not changed but my reduced stamina for research has resulted fewer postings.  And my level of frustration is peaking.

Unfortunately, one thing is unchanging.  That is the alarmists’ predictions are way over the top. I mean by that, their global temperature forecasts, principally made by their computers, are always higher than the measured temperature.  Their statements pronouncing that things are worse that they ever have been, like tornados, hurricanes, droughts, sea level rise, disappearance of the polar ice, end of snow, etc. are refuted by the data regarding those issues.  

I believe that the number of skeptics has increased over those 20+ years, thanks to the increase in number of outstanding skeptic blogs, like WUWT, Icecap, Climate Depot, Principia Scientific, Junk Science, DrRoySpencer, SePP, GWPF and a whole host of other outstanding ones—-just too many to name.

But the skeptics still have trouble getting through the walls erected by the mainstream media. Why the media have dropped their investigative role and adopted a full- throated support for the alarmist is beyond my ability to understand.  Because the predictions of apocalypse by apocalypse made by the alarmers that have not come true, you would think that the media would treat the continuing barrage of over-the-top predictions with distain.  Instead, the predictions get headlines and sycophantic stories.

The alarmist’s kind of “science” should not be the basis for formulating legislation.  Politicians may be good lawyers, but they are typically poor scientists.  Some are opposed to capitalism and want socialism.  Look at President Biden’s Green New Deal site and you will find many of them.  Others are swayed by the media pressure and think they better go along with the crowd.  Some may actually believe the alarmists rants.  Very few of them are scientifically knowledgeable enough to see through the scam.  Today, I do not have confidence that a majority of the Senate Republicans are skeptics.  

The science is not settled so no new legislation, please!

It seems to me that there are only a few things that will swing the pendulum our way.  One is a decline in the living standards and the economy.  Higher prices for everything caused by the cost of electricity, the cost of gasoline, the cost of home heating, and generally the subsequent rise of the cost of living. These are issues that the typical citizen feels and that might change the politicians.

As former President Obama said, 

 Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket – YouTube

The other pendulum swinger is for the global temperature to go flat or begin to drop.  The global temperature went flat for about 15 to 18 years around the turn of the century.  It began to climb again when two El Ninos happened.  They are natural causes, not atmospheric CO2 concentration.  

I have been researching what may bring about big cost of living rises and what are the factors that will cause global temperature to rise or fall in the future.   If I can get something cogent on those two topics, I will post my thoughts.

cbdakota

4 Comments

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Global Temperatures, Media Bias, warmer prediction fails

UN Says The US Is The Most Successful Major Country in Carbon Emissions Reduction

Posted on January 8, 2021 | 4 comments

The UN released its global emissions and carbon report last month.  The U.S. is the most successful major country at mitigating its own pollution carbon dioxide (CO2).  So successful according to a Forbes posting written by Ellen Wald titled “The U.N. Says America Is Already Cutting So Much Carbon It Doesn’t Need the Paris Climate Accord”. 

“According to the report,

“The United States of America emits 13 per cent of global GHG emissions.” Comparatively, “China emits more than one-quarter of global GHG emissions.” The U.S. still contributes the most greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world, but, over the last decade, the country’s GHG emissions have been in decline (0.4 per cent per year). “Greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the U.S. are dropping precipitously while those of China, India and Russia continue to rise. With the world’s most successful economy (over $21 trillion in 2019), it is not a surprise that the U.S. pollutes more per person, but the U.S. is making great strides in changing this.” 

The following chart is from the UN report showing total and per capita emissions:

President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017.

“In 2017, the White House said, that if it remained a part of that agreement, “compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.” Instead, the U.S. continued decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions faster than any other major polluter, and it did so without the Paris agreement.”

Unfortunately, we know that the president elect, Joe Biden, wants to sign up again.  It may be too late to negate any signing even though the Paris Agreement appears to be a treaty which requires a 2/3 majority of the US Senate to approve it. The Senate is going to be controlled by the Democrats for the next two years.  Whether or not this is a treaty may not get resolved is a question.

The UN comment about the US not needing to join is frivolous. The Paris Agreement requires that the developed nations need to contribute $100billion every year to a fund for the under-developed nations to use to reduce CO2 emissions.  And you will not be surprised to know, that the biggest contributor to the fund is expected to be the US.  So far, I don’t believe the fund has  ever reached $100billion cumulatively, let alone annually.  The US has voluntarily contributed to the fund.  Why, I do not know.

So, the UN is desperate for the US to rejoin. 

cbdakota

4 Comments

Posted in China, CO2, Environment, fossil fuels, Paris Agreement, President Trump

The Paris Agreement Augments China’s Global Ambitions.

Posted on December 30, 2020 | 5 comments

I am forwarding a posting by RealClear Energy titled “China’s Green NGO Climate Propaganda Enablers” with the following subtitle:
“Climate change is a national security threat – but not in the way the national security elite assumes.”

A quote from with in this posting sums up China’s objectives.
“China is a great power using global warming to advance its geopolitical interests. Unlike the Soviet Union’s sclerotic economy, China’s is far from a state of collapse. Indeed, China is likely to be the only major economy to emerge larger at the end of 2020 than at the beginning. For China, climate change offers a strategic opportunity. Decarbonizing the rest of the world makes China’s economy stronger – it weakens its rivals’ economies, reduces the cost of energy for its hydrocarbon-hungry economy, and sinks energy-poor India as a potential Indo-Pacific rival.”

By Rupert Darwall
December 21, 2020

Shortly before the Soviet Union collapsed, Greenpeace opened an office in Moscow. It enjoyed the patronage of a leading member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and enjoyed Kremlin funding, laundered through a state-owned record company. The green activist group made clear that it would have nothing to do with environmental groups in the Baltic republics. Recycling standard Soviet propaganda, Greenpeace denounced them as little more than separatist organizations.

This was by no means a one-off. The inconvenient truth: the environmental movement fought on the wrong side of the Cold War. In the early 1980s, it used the “nuclear winter” scare to try to stop Ronald Reagan’s nuclear build-up and undermine the West’s ability to negotiate the arms agreement that effectively ended the Cold War. It turns out that nuclear winter had been concocted by the KGB and transmitted to America by executives of the Rockefeller Family Fund. A nuclear winter conference held in 1983 was supported by 31 environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

This pattern, wherein the West’s enemies use the environmental movement – whether NGOs like Greenpeace, foundations, or “concerned scientists,” to undermine Western interests – is now being repeated, this time in respect to China. A report by Patricia Adams for the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation released earlier this month lays bare the role of the green movement in acting as China’s propagandists.

Pages: 1 2 3

5 Comments

Posted in AGW, China, CO2, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, NGO's eg Greenpeace/WWF, Paris Agreement

Biden’s Energy Plans Are Setbacks For The US and Boosts For Our Enemies

Posted on December 7, 2020 | 3 comments

If Biden does become President, he is likely to cause some serious setbacks for the USA and boosts for our enemies.  

Forbes posted “The Coming Energy Shocks Under A Biden Administration” that, based upon Biden’s campaign promises, are very disruptive.  I have selected parts of the posting, with some comments of my own, as follows:

“But don’t be lulled by soothing thoughts of policy continuity under a Biden-Harris administration. The contrast between Republican and Democratic world-views of fossil fuels and global energy geopolitics could not be more stark. And nowhere are the costs as extravagant as in the promises made regarding the Green New Deal. The adverse impacts on US domestic affairs will be as profound as they will be on the global stage. The policy discontinuity expected to take place in the oil and gas sectors under a Biden administration is about as radical as one can contemplate in US and global affairs.

The Biden Plan for a “100% clean energy economy [which] reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050” will require his administration to sign in its own words “a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track”. The 4-year, $1.7 trillion Biden plan – reflecting an even more aggressive “climate crisis” action plan set out by the House Democrats — includes banning fracking in federal lands and waters, denying federal permits for new fossil fuel infrastructure projects, and ensuring 100% clean renewable energy by 2035 in electricity generation, buildings, and transportation.”

Executive orders are band-aid measures that Presidents use to set policy for issues that can not gain Congress’ approval.  However, ambitious program such as net-zero and Green New Deal will require gun-shy Senators and Representatives to vote for the massive financing that those programs will require. Congress’ appetite for bravery has been in short supply in recent years.

Continue reading →

3 Comments

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Paris Agreement

Mayor’s, Governor’s, and Corporate Exe’s Green Virtue Signaling is Exposed.

Posted on October 25, 2020 | 2 comments

When President Trump walked away from the Paris Agreement in 2017, Democrats, principally, around the US, were enraged.  They decided they would show the world that even without the support of the Trump Administration they were “woke” and would do the job without him.  Mayors, Governors and Corporate Executives rallied one another and began setting carbon dioxide reductions goals. Most of these goals contained the CO2 amounts and timelines.   I am reasonably confident that most of this crowd does not understand the real-world consequences of their actions.  I think they were motivated by politics.

The Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank, surveyed the top 100 cites to see how they were doing. On 22 October 2020, E&E News posted their take on the Brookings Institute survey titled “U.S. cities struggling to meet lofty climate goals”.  They began by saying:

“Most major U.S. cities that have signed on to the climate fight with pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions are failing to meet their goals or haven’t even started to track local progress, according to a survey by the Brookings Institution.

The report, “Pledges and Progress,” looked for climate policy and actions in the nation’s 100 most populous cities, finding that two-thirds have made commitments to address citywide emissions.”

 The E&E News continues:

But the Brookings analysis found that actions taken by cities aren’t matching up with their pledges to address climate change.

Among the 100 largest cities, only 45 set specific targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions during the past decade and inventoried emissions levels within city boundaries as baselines for measuring progress.

Twenty-two more cities have made general pledges to address emissions. But the Brookings analysis found they haven’t set emissions targets or inventoried current emissions levels.

“Half the cities aren’t doing anything,” said David Victor, co-chair of the Brookings Initiative on Energy and Climate.

Ok, you may be thinking that the corona virus is the reason.   E&E reports that Brookings does not think that is the major reason: 

“But roadblocks facing mayors in the climate campaign were obvious even before the coronavirus pushed the nation’s economy into a dramatic downturn.

The Brookings results point to the challenges faced by cities whose climate commitments diverge from policies at the state level. Another challenge for cities is the limits within which they operate. City governments can’t control everything that happens within their borders.

For example, when Pittsburgh inventoried greenhouse gas emissions in 2013, it estimated an annual citywide total of 4.8 million metric tons. Emissions from operations directly under City Hall control came to just 115,069 metric tons. The city government plans more reductions in part by buying refuse trucks that run on lower emission compressed natural gas. Its Parking Authority is teaming with Duquesne Light Co. to bring 16 new electric vehicle chargers to city parking lots.

These are marginal changes in a city and county with nearly 694,000 registered passenger vehicles. Most of them run on gasoline engines that pump out carbon emissions.”

The Paris Agreement is the Green’s framework for reducing CO2 and the timeline for reaching their goal of preventing the global temperature from ever rising more than 0.5C over the current global temperature,  I sure you have heard that the world is all in step with this goal, except for the US, of course. Well they are not.  First of all, the nation that leads in emissions of CO2 is China.  And by agreement with then President Obama, they do not need to start to reduce their emissions before 2030.  By then they will probably be emitting twice as much CO2 as the US.  Further, India, the number 3 CO2 emitter has no plans to stop increasing their emissions.

China has a political move going called the Belt and Road Initiative.  The less developed nations in south east Asia, for example want to improve their citizens lives by providing electricity.   The World Bank bans making loans to these countries as the Bank, taking guidance from the UN does not want them to put in coal plants.  But China is loaning them the money.  This raises China’s political standing in these nations.  More than 1,600 coal plants are scheduled to be built by Chinese corporations in over 62 countries and that will make China the world’s primary provider of high-efficiency, low-emission technology.

And quoting from a posting by the Global Warming Policy Forum, titled “New Coal War: China and Japan Compete For Hundreds Of New Coal Plants in Southeast Asia” we get this:

But Japan is not exactly twiddling its thumbs, either. Since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, Tokyo has ramped up coal use and has raced ahead in clean coal technology development. Japan now boasts the world’s most efficient coal-fired plant, which uses less coal to produce more electricity. Seizing on this competitive advantage, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has tried to capitalize on these capabilities in a bid to increase Japan’s reach across Southeast Asia – and in China’s backyard. Through the Japan-led Asian Development Bank, Tokyo has pledged US$6.1 billion for projects throughout the Mekong as well as for various other projects from Vietnam to Myanmar, providing an alternative to China’s regional designs.

A coal plant can be made more efficient, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that this makes them close to the much lower CO2 emissions created by a natural gas-based facility.

And do not think the European Nations are still on board with the Paris Agreement.  The EU leadership in Brussels are deeply into this the Paris Agreement, but most of the Nations have not even met their meager 2020 commitments. Each year the required commitments become much greater, too.   And the nominal leader of the EU, German politicos are not getting much support from their industries. They see themselves becoming non-competitive with China and all these developing nations.  Their auto industry sees themselves even becoming non-competitive in the US market.

Former President Obama also committed to be the big sugar-daddy for the Paris Agreement fund to give money to the underdeveloped nations to hold down production of CO2  Each year the developed nations are to pay $100 billion to the fund.  This as I have noted is not a once and done fund, it is to be refunded each year.  So, assuming that the Trump administration are not playing nice with the Paris Agreement, those Mayors and Governors and Corporate Exes are going to have pay at least $5 billion every year.  And get this, China is not obligation to put money into this fund because they are said to be a developing nation.  Meaning China can draw money from the fund for their own use.

cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in Climate Alarmism, CO2, Coal, Electric Vehicles, Electricity, Electricity from Coal, Global Temperatures, Paris Agreement, President Trump, United Nations

Are Our Political Leadership Ignorant Of Global Warming Science?

Posted on October 13, 2020 | Leave a comment

Is the inherent ignorance of global warming science in our political leadership leading us over the cliff?  A posting on WattsUpWithThat by Dr Tim Ball tells us that, with the exception of President Trump, these leaders are weak, ignorant, and pandering  .  Ball’s views are as follows:

World Leaders’ Ignorance About Climate Change Continues Despite Simple, Obvious Evidence.

 Guest Blogger / May 18, 2019 Guest opinion Dr. Tim Ball “

To be able to fill leisure intelligently is the last product of civilization.” Arnold Toynbee

Until Trump, and very obviously with his exception, weak, ignorant, pandering, people lead the western nations. They want leadership positions but with no intention of doing the job, or, for that matter, any talent to do it. We are a long way from Toynbee’s “last product of civilization.” Worse, we are moving further away every day. What can you say about America, supposedly the most advanced civilization in the world, with a regular TV program about 600-pound people in prime time? Is that filling leisure intelligently? What can you conclude about western leaders listening to and, worse, heeding Swedish teenager, Greta Thuneberg about climate change who claims she can see carbon dioxide in the air? This skill may be because she is a 16- year old child who, regrettably, has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Asperger’s Syndrome. We know this because her mother, who needs for child abuse, told us so in the family book ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate.’ Historically, it was a child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. Now the ill-informed, used and abused, children are pointing out the emperor is wearing a cloak of green.

None of this is surprising as the world moves past madness into insanity. A US Senator, Elizabeth Warren, is running for President. This after admitting she claimed a nonexistent native heritage to jump the line at Harvard Law School and to get called to the Bar. There is another Senator also a lawyer, Richard Blumenthal, sitting on the Judiciary Committee where he cynically sits in judgment of other people’s truth and credibility. He claimed involvement in live combat in Vietnam when he was never even in the country. How can such exposed and admitted liars continue to retain positions of power?

Sadly, it is easy, have you watched debates and proceedings in any legislative body from the US Congress, through the British Parliament and beyond. It is a zoo of childish one-upmanship and petty name-calling, but what makes it worse is they think it is clever. No wonder the ratings of all such bodies are so low.

The major reason for the problem of poor leadership is that natural leaders, who are born, not nurtured, know the populace is not ready to be led. They also know that anybody who steps forward to lead immediately becomes the target of a media who believes its divine function is to destroy anybody and everybody. Understandably, they are not prepared to put their heads on the media chopping block. The impact on society is more than the loss leadership. This creates a vacuum that is almost immediately filled by people who want to lead but have nothing but ambition. These people want the job but lack the skills. They say whatever you want to hear or what they think you want to hear. The sincerity is as thin as the ability. Most of these are the people that Daniel Boorstin identified as being famous for being famous. They are so shallow that they are more vulnerable than most to misinformation and false stories that can become the basis of a political campaign. The biggest of these is the human-caused climate change issue. They, along with everybody else, didn’t understand it, but they deliberately exploited it. Everybody thought climate change was a problem, they didn’t care because it was a superb political opportunity.

A Yale University test on climate titled “American’s Knowledge of Climate Change” proved it. The test was designed to find out

from a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming.

The test given to 2030 American adults resulted in catastrophic results. A full 77% of them achieved a grade of only D or F (52%). I know from 50 years of talking to and dealing with politicians at all levels that their knowledge is as bad. In one way it is worse because politicians take stronger, more definitive positions that preclude an open mind.

Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, crop yields, Environment, fossil fuels, President Trump

SUN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING, NOT CO2

Posted on June 1, 2020 | 2 comments

I usually summarize topics gleaned from postings. But this one is written with a lot of interconnections from one of his 29 bullet points to another bullet point that segmenting it dilutes his reasoning.  The source of this information  is a posting, 11 March 2020,  by Dr. Roger Higgs on the Electroverse web site.

29 BULLET POINTS PROVING THE SUN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING, NOT CO2: BY A GEOLOGIST, FOR A CHANGE (DR ROGER HIGGS)

MARCH 11, 2020

Dr Roger Higgs, Geoclastica Ltd, Technical Note 2019-11, 6th April 2019, amended 7th March 2020 on ResearchGate (LINK HERE).

We urgently need to expose the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy being forced upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by schools, universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and to denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the public, including those youngsters themselves.

Here are the 29 bullet points proving CO2’s innocence:

1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) and at most 1 geologist in the next report (due 2022; see my Technical Note 2019-10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 150 years (since thermometer records began, ~1850), yet Earth is 30 million (sic) times older, 4.5 billion years! Geologists know that Earth has warmed and cooled throughout this time. Climate change is perfectly normal.

2) The IPCC’s very existence relies on public belief in man-made- or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) by carbon dioxide (CO2) emission. IPCC authors, mostly government and university researchers, are biased by strong vested interests in AGW (publications; continuance of salaries; research grants). Similarly, universities have sacrificed their impartiality by hosting institutes mandated to confirm and act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall Centre.

3) The claimed ‘97% consensus among scientists’ that AGW exists is a deception. It refers in fact to polls of recent publications by ‘climate scientists’, i.e. atmospheric scientists, lacking deep-time perspective (Bullet 1), whose numbers opportunistically exploded in the post-1990 AGW boom, creating a strong incentive for bias (Bullet 2).

4) No educated person ‘denies’ global warming: it has been measured (Bullet 11). ‘Global-warming denier’ and ‘Climate-change skeptic’ are deceitful terms for man-made-global-warming doubters and deniers (most of the world’s scientists?).

5) CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’. But, as CO2 rises, its theoretical heat-trapping ability sharply declines, already 67% ‘used up’ at 100 parts per million (ppm) CO2, 84% at 300 ppm (NB 275 ppm when industrial CO2 output began; Bullet 8), 87% at 400 ppm (today 415 ppm) and >99% at 1000 ppm. Moreover, Climate Sensitivity (CS), the warming due to doubling CO2, is guesswork. IPCC ‘estimates’ CS from climate models (circular reasoning) as probably between 1.5 and 4.5 (300% contrast!), but models are defective (Bullet 6). In reality CS might be very near zero, perhaps explaining why up to 7,000 ppm in Phanerozoic time (Bullet 7) did not cause ‘runaway’ warming.

6) Climate models (by climate scientists; Bullet 3) are so full of assumptions as to be useless or highly misleading, e.g. forecast 1995-2015 warming turned out to be 2 to 3 times too high. Bullet 19 gives another drastic failure. Even Wiki (2019) admits: “Each model simulation has a different guess at processes that scientist don’t understand sufficiently well”. Models dismiss the sun’s fluctuations and omit the multi-decade delay between these and resulting warming or cooling. This time-lag, due to ocean thermal inertia (mixing-time), is grossly underestimated by IPCC (Bullets 21, 22).

Continue reading →

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, CO2, Environment, Global Temperatures, Interglacial periods, Ocean heat content, Sea Ice, Sea Level, Solar Activity, Sun, sun and climate

Fake Science News: Review of Chernobly on HBO

Posted on June 20, 2019 | Leave a comment

Fake science news with respect to

“Chernobyl” on HBO.  This is why nuclear has to swim upstream.

CFACT.org  provided this review of the HBO’s presentation “Chernobly.”

Nuclear sensationalism

Friend,

HBO’s Chernobyl is great entertainment.  So is The Simpsons.  Sadly, the sensational way nuclear power is depicted in popular culture energizes the anti-science, anti-energy Left.

Nuclear energy is perhaps our best source of electricity. Nuclear also emits no CO2 (if that’s your thing).

Dr. Kelvin Kemm is an award-winning South African nuclear physicist.  Check out his detailed review of HBO’s Chernobyl at CFACT.org:

As a nuclear scientist I can tell you that the fundamental story of the sequence of events during the portrayal of the Chernobyl accident were correct. Issues around governance and procedure as portrayed were essentially correct.

But the blood and skin peeling scenes were not. Sadly the producers lied – intentionally, to gain box office income. They succeeded in the income goal. But they insulted we nuclear scientists and insulted the intelligence of those viewers who knew a bit more science than most. They also led many other viewers down a twisted path to further ignorance and confusion, which certainly should not be the objective of a history documentary…

Human bodies do not become radioactive in a situation like that. What can happen is that someone, like a fireman, leaves the scene with radioactive dust on his clothes and maybe in his hair. Any radiation protection officer present would then make him take off all his clothes and take a good shower, before going home.

Firemen were not radioactively contagious, as portrayed by HBO. A fireman could not have irradiated his pregnant wife at home as HBO claimed. Her baby could not have died of heart and liver disease as a result. That is pure HBO bunk. Something like playing a tune on the aircraft fuselage in the Andes, using human bones as drumsticks. Very good for viewer horror, but very far from the truth.

Nuclear energy has a fantastic safety record and the latest designs could not be more impressive.

Germany, however, bowing to its anti-nuke Green movement, decided to scrap its nuclear power plants and invest a fortune on wind and solar.  The result?  Germany nearly tripled its energy prices, while remaining dependent on coal plants to provide the reliable electricity intermittent “renewables” can’t provide.  Although they spent a fortune, German emissions have not declined.

France, on the other hand, went nuclear.

German households now pay around 30 Euro cents per kilowatt hour for electricity while the French pay only 17.

Americans pay around 12.83 U.S. cents per kilowatt hour (11.82 Euro cents).  State energy prices vary widely with pro-energy states paying around a dime, while states with Green regulatory regimes such as California and the New England states paying from 19 cents per kwh to over 23.

Countries such as Germany, Spain and Denmark provide perfect illustrations of what not to do, unless driving people into energy poverty is your goal.

While entertainers have the right to exaggerate for dramatic and comedic effect, Chernobyl goes a step too far.  Frightening people away from clean, abundant, safe and affordable nuclear to sell a cable channel does the world a great disservice.

The facts reveal that nuclear power is a safe, smart, affordable way to generate electricity.

People need to know.

For nature and people too,

 

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in Climate Alarmism, CO2, Fakke Science, Media Bias, Nuclear Energy