Paul Driessen’s posting covers a lot of territory. He talks about the new “big” issue, methane (CH4) in the atmosphere and the future of (or perhaps the non-future of) solar and wind “renewable energy”. The CH4 fraud that Driessen discusses is reminiscent of what EPA has done to the country with their mercury rules. Mercury emissions are primarily from natural sources and the man-made emission sources from the US are a very small part of the whole.
Quick: What is 17 cents out of $100,000? If you said 0.00017 percent, you win the jackpot.
That number, by sheer coincidence, is also the percentage of methane in Earth’s atmosphere. That’s a trivial amount, you say: 1.7 parts per million. There’s three times more helium and 230 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You’re absolutely right, again.
Equally relevant, only 19% of that global methane comes from oil, natural gas and coal production and use. Fully 33% comes from agriculture: 12% from rice growing and 21% from meat production. Still more comes from landfills and sewage treatment (11%) and burning wood and animal dung (8%). The remaining 29% comes from natural sources: oceans, wetlands, termites, forest fires and volcanoes.
The manmade portions are different for the USA: 39% energy use, 36% livestock, 18% landfills, and 8% sewage treatment and other sources. But it’s still a piddling contribution to a trivial amount in the air.
Back when there was temporary shortage of natural gas, that fossil fuel was the favorite of warmers. When it became abundant, they were against it. They just pretend to be even handed. Well what about nuclear energy? It doesn’t produce carbon dioxide (CO2) but they do not like it. My guess is that many of them are just following through on their objective of destroying capitalism.
However, a group of influential warmers now say they were wrong to oppose nuclear energy.
At the Paris COP21 in December 2015, a press conference was held where 4 noted warmers announced that they were going to back development of nuclear energy.
Using the Sonny Bono’s song title seems right because the Freedom Of Information Act (FOI) revealed the New York Times’ the manipulation efforts to get a really scary story about “Acidification of the Oceans”. And the FOI has shot it down.
Late last year, the Times posted an Op-Ed “Our Deadened, Carbon-Soaked Seas” timed to appear prior to the Second Ocean Conference where “ocean acidification (OA)” would be discussed. The authors of the piece were Richard W. Spinrad, a chief scientist of the U.S. NOAA and Ian Boyd, a chief scientific adviser to the British government.
The cartoon image accompanying the NY Times posting, shown below, is not too subtle.
”Curious, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to NOAA for the e-mail related to the development and publication of the op-ed. I received 443 pages of e-mail in return.
First, the op-ed was actually written by NOAA staff Madelyn Applebaum, not Spinrad or Boyd. The purpose was to tout NOAA not inform the public about ocean acidification.”
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 7, 2016. The event was focused on the “threat” of climate change. A CNSnews.com posting “EPA Chief: Climate Change Is Certain But You Can’t Predict the Future” related the comments made by the Administrator at that meeting.
A CNS News reporter asked the Administrator the following question:
“According to the Energy Information Administration – although alternative and renewables are growing slightly – fossil fuels will still account for 80 percent of U.S. energy needs through 2040. Federal data also shows that U.S. carbon emissions are at almost a 20-year low right now. How do those facts fit into the picture the EPA is painting of the U.S. energy landscape?”
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS) has had three directors since its founding in 1961. It’s first director was Robert Jastrow. From 1981 to 2013, GISS was directed by James E. Hansen. In June 2014, Gavin A. Schmidt was named the institute’s third director.
The last two are noted for their complete commitment to the theory of man- made catastrophic global warming (CGW). Hansen is considered by many as the godfather of this movement. His testimony in a Congressional hearing was the “alarm bell” for the liberal politician. He presented charts that were very alarming and have subsequently been shown to be very wrong. He was (and still is ) an activist having been arrested many times for impeding coal trains and other tricks in an attempt to gain publicity for his cause. But it seems he has been wrong much more than he has been right. The following is one of his many scary predictions that have not been realized. Hansen is informing the newly elected President Obama in January 2009 that there were only 4 years left to save Earth.
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration, he added.
Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. “We cannot afford to put off change any longer,” said Hansen. “We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”
Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.
Doesn’t Hansen contradict himself when he says that Obama can save the Earth but that “current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming”? Sounds like a mixed message to me. And of course, those 4 years pass almost 8 years ago.
Can you trust the science that Hansen communicates?
Hansen’s successor, Gavin Schmidt, gained his notoriety as a climate modeler. Dr Schmidt does promote the theory of CGW but seems to have an aversion to actually debating the topic. The last time he was to debate, he agreed to show up but not at the same time as his debate opponent. HUM, wonder what that means.
According to Wiki he has received recognition for his communicative skills: “In October 2011, the American Geophysical Union awarded Schmidt the Inaugural Climate Communications Prize, for his work on communicating climate-change issues to the public.”
Yet he doesn’t think he can communicate with Texans. Well, let him explain as he does on the Youtube below:
So it is because a Jewish, atheist from New York cannot communicate with Texans. That explains it. He obviously is an open-minded person of the type that is needed to sort though the differences between warmers and skeptics, of course unless they are Texans.(sarc)
By the way, he was born, raised and educated in England.
Wow, do I feel betrayed. The promises by the Republicans on how they were going to handle the budget apparently were just used to fool the voters. They really did not mean what they said. The new budget deal doesn’t even address President Obama plans to send reparation money to the UN. From the Daily Signal posting “What’s Wrong With The Massive Omnibus Spending Bill” one of the segments of the bill is “Energy”. I have on several occasions posted that US crude oil should be allowed to be sold outside the US. If the spending bill is enacted, that will happen. However, I would give that up for a reversal of the other provision such as extending tax credit for wind production. But my biggest regret is that the Republican promises to block the use of monies for the President’s climate change schemes did not happen . Read the following:
If you were to put a jelly bean for each energy provision on a two-sided scale, the side being good free-market provisions and the other being corrupt energy provisions, the bad side of the scale would be hitting the floor.
The bluster emanating from the Paris climate talks challenges the Potemkin Villages as the biggest attempted cover-up of the real facts on the ground in history. The agreement produced only voluntary caps on CO2 emissions; only voluntary transfers (reparations really) of money from the 1st world to the 3rd world); and reporting of emissions and international oversight do not exist. Further more, neither China or India will cut back their expected increase in CO2 emissions as they plan to serve their citizens first.
The Paris climate leadership acknowledged that even if the emission cuts would take place as promised, their arbitrary goal of holding the global temperature rise under 2C would not be achieved. President Obama flew a 500+ army to Paris. All they accomplished was to spend our money and a lot of CO2 emisssions.
The President, however, will claim he must have the money to pay reparations to the 3rd world countries and laws enacted to shut-down our industry to reduce CO2 emission. The science is not settled. Why wreck our economy and put our people out of work when there has been no significant rise in global temperatures for almost 19 years and polar ice is increasing.
For the upcoming Paris COP 21, every nation was asked to make known an Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) of their reduction of CO2 emissions by the year 2030. The Paris meeting is intended to begin a process that will keep the global temperature rise less than 2C. It is also intended to provide 3rd world nations reparations for the “damage” done by the industrialized nations.
As of November 5, most of the nations having a significant level of CO2 emissions had submitted their INDC. The major sources of the CO2 emissions are from the US, China and the EU. Using the forecast CO2 reduction commitments, computer runs find that the calculated global temperature reduction by 2100 as result of their INDCs will only be 0.132C. Adding the temperature reduction from the other nations’ INDCs, the new total global temperature reduction change is 0.168C. These temperature reductions are probably too small to even be measured. And they are certainly nearly that of measurement error.
This minuscule effect on the global temperature will be accompanied by skyrocketing prices for energy, disruption of many nations economies and more hardships for the really poor peoples of this world. No gain but lots of Pain
Beginning 30 November through 11 December, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) will hold the 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21) in Paris. As usual this one like the preceding annual COP meeting is being described as the last chance to save planet Earth from the ravages of carbon dioxide (CO2).
COP attendees from all over the world will attempt, once again, to agree on the reduction of the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and settle on compensation payments to the 3rd world countries that have emitted little CO2. Each of the 146 nations that emit 90% of the global CO2 emissions are being asked to submit the amount of CO2 emissions they will reduce by 2030 based away from the amount emitted in 2005 by that nation. They believe this is necessary to keep global temperature growth to two degrees Celsius.
The compensation side is contentious as those getting the compensation want more than those expected to provide it are willing to part with. For example, India says they will reduce their emissions by 33 to 35% but they need $2.5 trillion to accomplish that goal. Even China, the world’s largest emitter of CO2 is one of the nations expecting compensation. What a deal—-they have recently achieved an agreement with President Obama that lets them continue increasing their emissions until 2030 at which time their emissions should be three times those of the US.
Of course the concept of emission reductions and compensation that the COP wishes to accomplish ignores the data that shows that this is probably not necessary. CO2 is the life blood of the plant world. Without it there would be no plant life and that means of the end of humankind. Studies show that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere have had a beneficial effect on food production world-wide. Further the CO2 effect on the global temperatures appears to be secondary to natural forces. And fossil fuel use by the underpowered nations is a better answer to their needs than sending compensation to some dictator who will just pocket it and the people will receive no benefit. Subsequent postings will enlarge on these observations.
The Obama administration has instituted new criteria for supporting their climate change regulations. It is called the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The eventual cost of an increase in atmospheric CO2 is calculated for each regulation. The calculation is based upon their model’s forecasts of temperature, sea level, storms, droughts, etc. All the bad things they believe will happen if the rise of atmospheric CO2 is not stopped. You can be certain that each regulation could prevent millions, perhaps billions, of dollars damage according to their SCC calculation.
The SCC calculations use several discount rates that most rational economist would say were not germane. SSC presumes that the next generations will not have more knowledge and money to adapt to what ever actually happens. For example at the turn of the last century, do you think the forecasters would have come up with airplanes, nuclear energy, penicillin, satellites, for several example of things that have made enormous changes? And the many people that would be lifted out of poverty and provided a much-improved life?
Climate Change Sanity 