First thing you should see is the following chart showing CO2 emissions by nations and by continent. It looks at major contributors.
The chart tells us that China is the primary source of CO2 emissions. The chart also shows what the two other major industrialized contributors, the North American continent and the European Union. The North American Continent is made up of Cananda, Mexico and America with the America being the biggest emitter.
The worldpopulationreview provided this list:
Top 10 Countries with the Highest CO₂ Emissions in the World (Unit: million tons CO₂) – 2020 EDGAR:*
These numbers are a little dated as the US emissions continue to decrease and the Chinese and Indian emissions are increasing.
Asia, consisting of China, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, etc. are already emitting twice as much as North America and Europe combined. Leading the Asian nations are China and India. They are not going to stop building coal based plants. Their rationale is that they need this to bring the living standards of their people up to our standards. China and India’s populations are each more than 1 billion. They are on their way to more than triple the emissions difference. Excluding Japan, Korea, and Australia , many of the other Asian nations are underway with plans to use fossil fuels to create wealth for their people.
China has said that in 2030, they will begin to reduce CO2 emissions. I doubt that they will, because for years they have announced they were through building coal based power plants. Rather they continually change their mind and announce they are building more of them. They are the world’s largest manufacturer of solar cells. So, it is not that they do not have renewable energy access, but rather they are enlightened enough to know that solar and wind will never replace fossil fuels.
And what are we doing? Why, we are spending trillions of dollars on wind and solar energy sources. The idea of replacing fossil fuels is an illusion. Certain factions are touting a future where wind and solar are the sole sources of energy. No North American or European nation have ever been able to supply their customers on a 24/7 basis and it is doubt full that they ever will. For example, Germany, with wind and solar nameplate capacity in place, that exceeds the nation’s electrical demand, have been unable to run without their fossil fuels plants.
And now, a couple of quotes:
“Even if the United States were to get rid of all fossil fuels, this would only make a difference of two-tenths of one degree Celsius in the year 2100, according to Heritage Foundation chief statistician Kevin Dayaratna.”
And a quote from President Biden’s Climate Tsar, John Kerry.
“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what — that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world,” Kerry said in 2015.
Open Letter to Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy
Your leadership regarding Climate Change is very important. Your members must weigh in on the nearly a half of trillion dollars of subsidies for the so-called renewable energy projects and directing legislation to stop the urge of the Democrats to rush headlong into unproven schemes to replace fossil fuels.
Your Email for contributions has a list of your objectives beyond just energy that are things I hope you can obtain though it will be uphill with the Senate and Executive in the hands of the Democrats. I hope you can find ways to block the Biden Administration’s plans.
This letter is to focus on just one part of the House’s objectives and that is to counter the disinformation that the global warming alarmists have been spewing. The way things work now are—-Media support the alarmist’s “experts” and they know that there will be no significant effort by skeptics to counter the alarmists.
Now that you can control the Committee’s agenda, your members should standup to the global warming alarmists. This will take some courage on everyone’s part because some members are afraid of the media. Fox’s post titled “Politico Urges readers don’t believe the polls showing sinking levels of trust of media” One of Politico staff protested the results of the Gallup poll. But the poll says:
“The recent polling showed only 16% of Americans said they have a “great deal or quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers with only 11% of Americans having confidence in television. It represented a 5% decrease since 2021 and was also the lowest rating given towards newspapers since Gallup’s original poll back in 1973.
And there is no need not be afraid of the title “skeptic”. Almost without exception skeptics believe that the globe is warming.
The skeptics need a microphone that is so big it can work around the media. I think the House of Representatives can do this.
The House could have regular sessions of skeptical testimony. The House should rely on the skeptical experts, of which there are many, to counteract the alarmists. Don’t be afraid to allow the alarmists “experts” to testify, too. The alarmists usually get beaten in debates with the skeptics. In fact they have a reluctance to debate. Try getting Al Gore to debate any skeptical expert. No way, he always backs out. You will be doing this to help educate all of the Members of the House of Representatives. Record all the sessions and publish them on YouTube.
The site names 1010 experts listed by country. (The site needs to update the list as it has now grown to 1499 experts.)
The Skeptical Daily post a summary regarding the skeptics on the lists and some notable quotes. They call the list of the skeptic experts a Declaration.
“The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. A lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd.
The Declaration is an event of enormous importance, although it will be ignored by the mainstream media. But it is not the first time distinguished scientists have petitioned for more realism in climate science. In Italy, the discoverer of nuclear anti-matter Emeritus Professor Antonino Zichichi recently led 48 local science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”. Professor Zichichi has signed the WCD.
The Declaration notes that the Earth’s climate has varied for as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm periods. “It is no surprise that we are experiencing a period of warming,” it continues. Climate models have many shortcomings, it says, “and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any beneficial effects. “CO2 is not a pollutant,” it says. “It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth; additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yield of crops worldwide.”
Last year, Steven Koonin, an Under-Secretary of Science in the Obama Administration, published a book titled Unsettled in which he noted that, “The science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what our actions will be.” He also noted that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate change is settled demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, “retarding its progress in these important matters”. In 2020, the long-time green activist Michael Shellenberger wrote a book called Apocalypse Never in which he said he believed the conversation about climate change and the environment had in the last few years “spiraled out of control”. Much of what people are told about the environment, including the climate, is wrong, he wrote.
These experts get printed in skeptic websites, but we need to widen the audience.
Firstand foremost the media, the alarmists and some educators have convinced the young that they may die soon. This poisoning of our childrens minds must be stopped.
“The climate crisis can be overwhelming. (Click on that climate link. See what the kids are being taught.)
Statistics often paint a dire picture of the earth’s trajectory. The UN has warned that existing climate pledges provide ‘no credible pathway’ to preventing temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Deadly floods and fires are on the rise, while global wildlife populations have shrunk 70 per cent since 1970.
Presented with these facts, it’s easy to sink into eco-anxiety. Previous studies have proven that this distress is heightened in children and the new survey confirms this.”
Secondly, the public should know that the basis of the catastrophic climate change is the computer forecasted global temperatures. It goes, things get very hot, glaciers melt, sea level rises, cities are deluged with sea water, crops cannot survive, creatures cannot adapt to temperatures and huge extinctions occur, etc.
The following chart shows that the forecast temperatures by the alarmist are higher than the actual temperature readings and that the forecast temperatures become more ridiculous as time goes by. These temperatures are the ones They use to forecast catastrophe.
All the squiggly lines are individual computer forecasts. The Red line is the average global warming temperatures predicted by the computers. The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period. Note that as the years go by, the computer forecast gets further away from the actual measured temperature. The actual temperatures noted in the chart are based upon weather balloons and satellite measurements. The actual temperatures are rising but not at the rate that will cause a catastrophic outcome. The computer produced temperature forecasts are used to brain wash our children.
“In 2023 it’s hard to avoid seeing images and headlines like these. The result for many is a deep seated fear[5], anxiety[6][7], and pessimism[8][9] about the future. The topic of Climate Change (CC) has seeped into nearly every facet of our lives, and never in a positive way. It’s always present as a dark cloud hanging over society; a source of guilt for those who indulge in some of life’s most basic pleasures, the basis of moralistic judgments by those who like to signal their concern, and the cause of nihilism[10][11] and hopelessness[12] felt by many in the youngest generations.
Why does CC have such deeply negative connotations and harmful effects on people’s mental well being? Because we are constantly reminded of the six dark and destructive consequences of CC:
1) heat will cause millions to die or live in misery
2) tens of millions (some say billions) will be forced to migrate
3) a million or more species will become extinct in just a few decades
4) sea level rise will have disastrous world-wide consequences
5) agricultural production will be devastated, causing widespread famine
6) humanity will suffer floods, droughts, and other terrible natural disasters
These are the six pillars of climate change despair that activists and the media obsess over. The activists do it because they think they are saving the planet; the media do it because bad news gets more clicks than good news. Plus, they both do it to appear virtuous. They both keep ramping up the rhetoric so that with each passing year the predictions about each of these consequences become even more frightening and apocalyptic. There are some lesser concerns (eg. Arctic and glacier melting), but these six are the catastrophic ones.
No wonder so many people are depressed and pessimistic about the future. It shouldn’t be surprising there’s an epidemic of “climate change anxiety”.
But is it in any way justified? What is the truth (if any) behind these catastrophic predictions? That’s what I want to examine here. The fact is, every one of these pillars is made of sand, and crumbles apart when subjected to the slightest critical scrutiny.
The author, Doug R Rogers, puts together a comprehensive essay. Please read it to it end by clicking here.
The Fourth issue is the headlong race to decarbonize the world. Renewables (mostly wind and solar) are believed to be the future energy sources, leaving fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to be only available chemical feed stocks, for example. Combined with electric vehicles (EV) the globe will be free of carbon dioxide gas vented into the atmosphere they say.
The benefits accrued by fossil fuels are discounted in this rush to decarbonization. The benefits from vented CO2 are enormous. The greening of the globe has been the result of the vented CO2. Crops, such as wheat, oats, rice, potatoes, cane, etc. have skyrocketed in quantity feeding billions of new people.
Renewables are not reliable. What we know is that wind and solar are dependent on the weather. No wind, no sun, no renewable produced electrical energy. No where has a major grid sourced by solely wind and solar been demonstrated. No plans have been made to prove a grid can actually run solely on wind and solar. Grids have to be supplied 24/7 with NO interruptions. Yet we find that the politicians, urged on by the media, are willing to build more wind and solar capacity and prematurely shut down fossil fuels before they can prove that renewables can provide 24/7 with no interruptions.
The enormous upset that has occurred in western Europe would not have been so serious if renewable could have done the job. For example, Germany has renewables with name plate capacity greater than the nation’s electrical needs. But at times in September ‘22 the wind did not blow, and the sun shined only intermittently. So no matter what their nameplate capacity was, wind and solar were producing little to no electricity. That happened and they stumbled through, saved by natural gas and coal based production of electricity.
Obviously, there are many more issues than the several I have mentioned. I picked them because the first one, traumatizing our children has to be stopped NOW. The other three go right to the heart of the problem. The experts could line up excellent debates or testimonies at House Committee requests.
Expert testimony by skeptics has been ignored by the media. So how can we get around that?
Freelancers Wanted: Help Knock Out the Mainstream Propaganda Machine authored by Matt Taibbi is a plan to create a team to produce a document that knocks out the mainstream Propaganda machine. Perhaps supporters that could fund similar skeptical teams. There must be NGOs that are skeptical in their view. Find them, give them help with finance, programs and topics
Another interesting team is the Center of the American Experiment. The Center of the American Experiment is a Minnesota-based think tank that advocates for conservative and free-market principles.[5] One of their tasks has been to target the objectional courses that public schools in Minnesota are putting into their schooling. The Center of the American Experiment has people and programs to show what is going on and how to change it. The group will speak to PTAs school boards or other interested groups. This group has been successfully getting schools to drop radical racial material. This could be a model for another skeptical group to copy.
.
Work with the local TV stations. They are often in need of topics to produce for their locality. Hire people that know how to do communications. Make sure that Federal Departments that award research money gives skeptics fair treatment. If they don’t, you can have your way with their funding.
The November global temperature as reported by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) ***came in at an anomaly of +0.17C. The black dot on the chart is shown to be + 0.17C above the arbitrary fixed line. Recent monthly global temperature readings were
July +0.36 ; Aug. +0.28; Sept. +0.24 ; Oct. +0.32 ;
The measurements are the up and down lines, and the fixed line nominally has half of the temperature measurements above and half below the line. The two peaks, about 2017 and 2020 are the effect of El Ninos, naturally occurring phenomena. Not man-made.
Temperature has been declining since those two El Ninos. The opposite effect is a La Nina that usually occurs following an El Nino. Currently the global weather is experiencing a La Nina. La NInas typically result in drought conditions in the southwestern part of the US, for example.
Chart is courtesy of Dr. Roy Spencer.
While the chart is up there, following the very large El Nino that occurred in 1998/1999, the average temperature from then until about 2014/2015, did not rise. This 15/16-year period experienced continual rising of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, you can draw several conclusions as to why did it not rise? One is that there are natural forcing agents that were cooling the atmosphere. Two, is that maybe CO2 is not really what is theorized to be.
Detailed look at regions like North America, Southern Hemisphere, the Arctic, etc.by clicking here DrRoySpencer.PhD
***There are a number of organizations that chart global temperature. The best source is the UAH satellite data. It is the first that used satellites when it began in 1978/1979 and has continued to date. The satellite system measures the ocean temperature as well as the ground temperature. Others source temperature data from stations located around the globe. But these stations are concentrated in places that are inhabited and for the rest of the globe, they make estimations.
Confirming the accuracy of the UAH temperature measurements is that they match closely to the primarily land-based radiosonde (weather balloons) temperature measurements. The real temperature of the globe is contested. But the change in temperature from month to month is generally agreed to. You may have wondered why the Alarmist always speak about an anomaly increase in temperature of 1.5C., and not a specific temperature.
The severe weather forecast Europe says we are likely to have a cold early winter. The blog authored by Renato R Colucci, makes these forecasts: (click to enlarge charts)
0
“Snow Extent in the Northern Hemisphere now Among the Highest in 56 years Increases the Likelihood of Cold Early Winter Forecast both in North America and Europe.”
“Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere at the end of November represents an important parameter for the early winter forecast. This year snow extent is running much higher than average and according to existing global estimates, it is now beyond the highest ever observed so far. Winter forecast, especially in its early phase and in Europe, might be strongly influenced by such a large snow extent, although many other factors need attention.” (My emphasis on sentence,)
The posting also shows that fall snow extent is increasing lately. The following charts show the trend.
Real data is again conflicting with the Alarmists forecasts of an apocalypse.
Anyone want to bet if some “scientist” will try to show that this is due to global warming,
Growing realization by the climate establishment that the threat of future warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years.
Summary: The climate “catastrophe” isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC AR5* Report, RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5 oC by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed RCP4.5 with 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach (now deemed to be the “threshold of catastrophe”),[i] the goal posts were moved in 2018 to reduce the warming target to 1.5 oC. Climate catastrophe rhetoric now seems linked to extreme weather events, most of which are difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency.
The main stream media is currently awash with articles from prominent journalists on how the global warming threat less than we thought. Here are some prominent articles:
At the heart of this good news is abandonment of RCP8.5 from UNFCCC policy making. The hero of science behind this abandonment is Justin Ritchie, a recent Ph.D. graduate (whose work has been cited.
The COP26 and now the COP27 have quietly dropped RCP8.5 (and SSP5-8.5) from their considerations, focusing on the envelope between RCP4.5 and RCP2.6. The grand poohbahs of the IPCC apparently didn’t see this coming (or preferred to keep spinning the alarm), since they instructed climate modelers for CMIP6 to continue a focus on SSP5-8.5, and climate researchers continue to focus on this scenario in their impacts publications. The IPCC AR6 prominently featured SSP5-8.5, although WGI did make this lukewarm statement
The second so-called scientific advance is lower values of climate sensitivity. The so-called advance is associated with the IPCC AR6 decision NOT to include values derived from climate models (which have dominated previous IPCC reports). They implicitly acknowledge that climate models are running too hot and that you can pretty much get whatever value of climate sensitivity that you want from a climate model (this has been blindingly obvious to me and many others for over a decade). The IPCC AR6 lowered the upper likely bound of ECS to 4.0oC (from 4.5oC previously); this further acts to reduce the amount of projected warming. The IPCC AR6 also raised the lower likely bound of ECS to 2.5oC (from 1.5oC). Raising the lower bound of ECS is on very shaky ground, as per the recent publication by Nic Lewis
The COP27 is working from a value of expected warming of 2.5oC by 2100. This is arguably still too high for several reasons. IPCC expert judgment dismissed values of climate sensitivity that are on thelower end (that should not have been dismissed as per Nic Lewis’ paper). Further, the IPCC projections do not adequately account for scenarios of future natural climate variability. See these recent posts:
In addition to an insufficient number of solar and volcanic scenarios, the climate models ignore most solar indirect effects, and the climate model treatment of multidecadal and longer internal variability associated with ocean circulations are inadequate. While in principle these factors could go either way in terms of warmer vs cooler, there are several reasons to think these natural factors are skewed towards cooler during the remainder of the 21st century:
Baseline volcanic activity since 1850 has been unusually low
Most solar researchers expect some sort of solar minimum in the mid to late 21st century
Solar indirect effects are inadequately treated by climate models, which would act to amplify solar cooling
A shift to the cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is expected in the next decade, which influences not only global temperatures but also Greenland mass balance and Arctic sea ice.
Once you include alternative scenarios of natural variability, temperature change by 2100 could easily be below 2oC and even 1.5oC. Recall that this warming is with reference to a baseline of1850-1900; 1.1oC warming has already occurred.
*AR stands for Assessment Report. These are based upon the content in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) full reports, assembled by working groups. AR6 is the most recent report. The reputation of the ARs is in dispute. The full report, the 6th, is condensed to an AR6. The dispute is that many nonscientific personnel, such as delegates from industry, NGOs, etc. can force change that make the AR inconsistent with the full report.
The alarmist’s climate crisis is encountering some serious headwinds. Not just from we skeptics but also from the ranks of the man-made global warming adherents. This posting will be to set the table for the subsequent postings that will illustrate the headwinds. Another posting that will illustrate the profound damage that the crisis crowd are doing to the young people will also be posted.
I posted in April 2021 how the alarmist’s computer forecasts were biased. Two concepts are the primary tools that the computer operators use to make predictions of future temperatures. One is the representative concentration pathway (RCP) and the other is the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)
RCP
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is an estimate of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time.
The chart below shows the range of RCPs the computer programmer can use. The chart has RCPs portraying the forecasted amount of accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere out to the year 2100. The chart has a bit of dialog as well. More on this will appear in the upcoming posting on this topic.
ECS
Theory is that temperature will rise approximately 1C due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Further, the CO2 induced increase in temperature will result in creating water vapor. Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. That and some other minor changes in atmospheric gases will result in an additional rise of 2C. Thus, CO2 doubling does not just create 1C rise but rather a 3C rise.
ECS is controversial. There are those that do not believe in the CO2 effect at all. They may not appreciate this postings discussion of ECS and RCP, but the posting is addressing what the Alarmist believe. Most buy into the concept but conclude that the effect is much less than a 3C rise,
This is how the ECS theory works. Surface warming due to doubling of the atmospheric CO2. Going from the nominal 400ppm atmospheric CO2 to 800ppm would result in 3C rise. But other test data says it is less.
Jonova chart
The computer programmer puts in the RCP and the ECS. He can get whatever temperature forecast he wants.
The forecast global temperatures are the basis of the catastrophic global warming theory. The alarmists use temperature as the goal post when they tell us that the global temperature since 1890 must not rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. They say if the temperature exceeds that number, it could mean Armageddon. Surely you have heard them tell us that we have about 10 more years to live if we don’t act now. And telling our young people learning in schools that their life span is going to be very short.
So shouldn’t everyone be versed in how the forecasts of global temperatures are derived by the alarmists.
The alarmists have a bunch of computers with various settings that proport to be able to capture the vast number of variables that produce the Earth’s temperature. In fact, almost none of them provide a comparable forecast into the future. When plotted out the projections by the many computers looks like bed of spaghetti.
All the squiggly lines are individual computer forecasts. The Red line is the average global warming temperatures predicted by the computers. The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period. Note that as the years go by, the computer forecast gets further away from the actual measured temperature.
As aside observation, can you imagine what each line would look like if not mixed in with all the others. Can you imagine how much confidence you would have for a computer that predicted temperatures that would rise and drop so precipitously over very short times. Real temperatures don’t do that.
In science, it is said that if you have a theory and you make predictions from it and it does not match actual results, your theory is WRONG, So the alarmist’s temperature forecasts are wrong and should NOT be used to make public policy.
I have worked at this topic a number of times. Pretty much the same narrative. Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know https://wordpress.com/post/cb-dakota.com/108-Part 3 Biased Computers is a posting that shows how the computer programmers can make the temperature forecast hotter.
Cbdakota
The chart was made by Dr. John Christy. On many occasions he has given testimony before Congress.
Bloomberg posts: “China to prioritize energy security over transition to renewables, Xi Says”. President Xi Jinping never has intended to stay with his promise to stop emitting CO2 by 2030. Time and again, the warmers have said how wonderful China is and how bad the US is regarding CO2 emissions. This despite the fact that in the past ten years the US emissions have declined (more than any other nation) while China’s emissions have increased massively. The warmers just recently learned that China had decided in their 5-year plan to up the number of coal plants they planned to install. The warmers just knew that was not going to happen, but sure as the Sun Rises in the east, they were wrong.
Now, Xi says:”
“He will use prudence about governing China’s efforts to peak and eventually zero out carbon emissions.”
So, 2030 is not a firm date anymore.
It happens that I agree with his reasoning (that I underlined). Bloomberg posting related this:
”Xi speech made China’s path to decarbonization clear saying It won’t stop burning fossil fuels until it’s confident that clean energy can reliably replace them. The speech shows more emphasis on energy security and the significant role of coal in China’s energy supply given the resources endowment.
The Bloomberg posting gives the reader background on China and promises:
China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and Xi electrified climate activists two years ago when he vowed to reach carbon neutrality by 2060 after peaking emissions before 2030. The announcement sparked a massive surge in investment in clean energy by local governments and state-owned firms.
But last year focus began to return to China’s mainstay fuel of coal after a shortage triggered widespread power curtailments to factories, slowing economic growth. The country vowed to increase mining capacity, and production has risen to record levels this year, keeping storage sites well stocked and reducing imports.
China will also expand exploration and development of oil and gas resources, and increase reserves and production as part of the measures to ensure energy security, according to a congress work report released after Xi’s speech.
Does this sound like someone planning to cut back.?
Sorry warmers!
No nation should cut back on fossil fuels until wind and solar can prove they are be reliable suppliers. And that may be never.
cbdakota
Hat tip to Net zero posting. “China to prioritize energy security over transition to renewables, Xi Says”
The UAH satellite temperatures for May warmed by 0.13C, making the anomaly +0.08C. I can hear the voice of a friend of mine saying “the change is way beyond the limits of meaningful measurement.” Ok, but the cumulative measurements have meaning in that they do mimic warming or cooling trends. So, I will continue to report these anomalies.
Climate Change Sanity 