Category Archives: Global Temperatures

Biden Green Plan Costs $1.7 trillion and Reduces Global Temp 0.1C

Posted on November 10, 2020 | 1 comment

Let’s see how you answer this question—Yes,  No.

“It worth it for the American taxpayers to pay $1.7 trillion to lower the Earth’s temperature by 0.1C (0.18F) “

 If you answered YES, I dub you Captain “Gullible”.    Oh, by the way, maybe  you would like to buy some of my ocean front property in Arizona.

The $1.7 trillion is the cost estimate of Joe Biden’s planed phase out of fossil fuels in the US.  The Biden plan would lower the global temperature by 0.1C as calculated by the Alarmist’s Climate Action Tracker.

All of this comes from the pages of the UK Guardian newspaper. This newspaper is perhaps the world’s biggest media supporter of the climate change alarmism.  The stated cost and the results are Guardian’s bona fide.

My guess is that when 2050 arrives, there are three likely outcomes. 

Outcome A

The plan was dropped after it was clear that no apocalypse was going to happen.

The Alarmist’s computers that predict the future temperatures have been much higher than the actual temperature measurements.  The Alarmists are alarmists because they refuse to recognize the facts that their   computers are flawed.

See posting “Michael Shellenberger Exposes Global Warming Alarmists”

Outcome B

The plan was dropped because it was too costly and that adaptation, if necessary, was deemed less costly.

Let’s assume that in 30 to 70 (2050 to 2100) years, sea levels rise several feet, mankind would have the capability to adapt to the change.  It would not happen overnight, but rather slowly over years.  And the odds are that equally good that it will not raise several feet. 

Outcome C

The plan was dropped when the West realized the Chinese were never planning to follow any carbon reduction program.  Consequently, China dominated the globes economy because their energy costs were vastly lower, and it was more reliable than the nations of the West’s energy.

Wind and Solar will be deemed failures.  They are unreliable and must be backed up. Currently, it is necessary to have fossil fuel-based production facilities that can supply the demand reliably.   During this time as more wind and solar are added, the price of electricity would “skyrocket” (as predicted by Former President Obama.)  China has world domination as their target.  The Biden plan will be a big help to the Chinese toward realization of their objective.   

Ultimately, nuclear energy-based electricity production will become the major source.  The alarmist does not want nuclear to succeed as they have seen it as a threat to imposition of wind and solar.

I see anyone of the three as likely to happen.  Maybe it will be all of them will be realized and that will cause the Biden plan to be dropped.   

And a commonsense addition—-  how many people are going to believe the stopping a global temperature rise of just 0.18F as worth S1.7trillion is worth it? Less that one fifth of one degree!  Or even necessary!

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, China, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, Global Temperatures, Paris Agreement, solar cells, Windpower

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

Michael Shellenberger Exposes Global Warming Alarmists

Posted on September 8, 2020 | 1 comment

The man-made global warming eco-alarmists are composed of a cabal of scientists and bureaucrats that use scare tactics to frighten the public into supporting them.  Their objective is to destroy capitalism and replace it with Marxism.  This is fact, not opinion. Their leadership have repeatedly said that their movement is not about environmentalism. To accomplish their objective, for years they have been making predictions designed to frighten the general populace.  The literature is filled with predictions of the apocalypse that have never happened.  One of their most recent one is that the world is doomed in something like 12 years if we do not empower them to do the things they say need to be done.  To these eco-alarmists, the cost of their plans is not an issue.

Why am I highlighting Shellenberger as he is not the only one that has challenged them? First, Shellenberger is a certified environmentalist. He was Time Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment”. He has testified before Congress as an expert and he was invited to be an expert reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) next Assessment Report.  A summary of his background can be found by clicking here.

Secondly, despite what you may have read, skeptics are not the recipients of large sums of money.  The eco-alarmists are recipients almost all the money spent on global warming.  Anyone that does not toe the line, endangers the alarmist’s incomes.  There are few scientists that are willing to sacrifice their jobs by openly speaking out. Shellenberger insists that he believes in the man-made theory of global warming, but he cannot sit by and let the alarmist poison the scientific dialog. That is unacceptable.

I think that he represents many scientists that do not agree with the alarmists but are afraid to speak their mind.  Perhaps Shellenberger’s example will encourage others to follow his lead.   A Skeptic, on the other hand, might not be able to instill the needed courage.

I have purchased Shellenberger’s book. It is powerful.  I recommend it.  He has developed an outline of his book and the following are excerpts:

Continue reading →

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, crop yields, Electricity, Electricity from Coal, End of the Earth, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Ice Melt, IPCC, Nuclear Energy, radical environmentalists, Renewable Energy, Sea Ice, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes, warmer prediction fails

Can Global Warming Be Used To Bring Down Capitalism –Part 3 Failed Predictions of the Apocalypse

Posted on September 4, 2020 | 6 comments

The previous two posting show that the real purpose of the leaders is to take down Capitalism using man-made global warming as the cover.  They concluded that global warming probably would not likely be dramatic enough if they just reported their scientific findings.  So, let’s see what a spokesperson of this movement decided would have to be done:

“On one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.”

“On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.”

“That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.”

“Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” Dr. Stephen Schneider, former IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, APS Online, Aug./Sep. 1996

Schneider knows that to be honest will not work.  He is obviously endorsing the scary scenarios.    And it worked.

Along the way, some of the scientists challenged Schneider’s plan.  For example, emeritus professor Daniel Botkin related this story:

“Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve.”

” Wolves deceive their prey, don’t they?’ one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.”
emeritus professor Daniel Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at the University of California, Wall St Journal 17 Oct 2007

 Obviously, they disregarded Botkin’s opinion.   But those scientists have left a body of exaggerated predictions that demonstrate how poorly their technique has been. Yet, however poorly their predictions have been, the media has fulfilled Schneider fondest wish without thinking twice.  For example, they not only do not care how many bad predictions Al Gore has made, and often they find the most alarming part of his prediction and exaggerate it even more.  There is a problem with the reporters.  Do you remember what Ben Rhodes said about the reporters that covered his press releases promoting the then President Obama’s pact with Iran regarding Iran’s plan to make nuclear weapons?: Rhodes braggingly said that he could get them to write anything he wanted because:

 “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Ok, so what about these predictions?  You are going to have to work a little to see them.  The work will be to click on links to these predictions.  There are many lists of failed prediction available, but alas, if I included them all, this would not be a posting, it might be more like a tome.

Continue reading →

6 Comments

Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, fossil fuels, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Greenhouse Gas Effect, Hurricanes, Kyoto, Media Bias, Nuclear Energy, Paris Agreement, polar bears, radical environmentalists, Sea Ice, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes, Tornados, warmer prediction fails

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

Will Solar Cycle 25 Bring On A Period of Global Warming?

Posted on May 17, 2020 | 2 comments

I have been wondering if the very quiet Solar Cycle (SC)24 would result in a slowing down of the rise of global temperatures.  And that it might even halt the rise or perhaps even result in a downward trend.  Certainly, the prognostications by many of my compadres, the skeptics, have been for that to happen.   I look at my go-to anomaly temperature chart, the satellite measuring system know as UAH, (University of Alabama at Huntsville) and I see that the temperature continues to rise.   The Watts Up With That site’s ENSO meter (below) had not gone into the la nina area, but in fact, seems to be indicating more el nino.  However, for several months, now,

it is in the neutral zone.

 

 

Courtesy of WattsUpWithThat

And the UAH temperature anomaly has taken a significant two month drop.
Dr Spencer’s site posted “UAH Global Temperature U pdate for April 2020:+0.38 deg. C. Spencer says:

“In April, 2020, the Northern Hemisphere experienced its 2nd largest 2-month drop in temperature in the 497-month satellite record.”

The UAH temperature anomaly is shown below.

One can see the last two El Ninos on this chart.  The El Nino that peaked in 2010 followed by a La Nina brought the anomaly down to the zero line.  Then the temperature anomaly began to rise and peaked out during the 2016 -2017 El Nino. But after a drop, it turned into a rather depressing climb.

More on Solar Cycle 24.  It began in December 2008. It has been the least active SC  for over 100 years.  The SCs activity beginning with SC17 through SC 23 is unprecedented and this period is often called the “Modern Maximum”.

Sunspots are considered a proxy for solar activity. The more sunspots the more activity.  Sunspots were first recorded by Galiello  in 1610. Formal recording of sunspots began about 1750.  The naming of SCs began from that time. SC nominally are 11 years long.

So, does mean that low solar activity may not have a significant, if any effect on global temperature.  But maybe there is a time delay.   I guess we will have to wait and see.

When you look at the following chart, there is one very notable dip in the number of sunspots attributed to SC5 and 6 beginning about about 1800.  The temperatures recorded during this time dropped significantly.  For example the Thames River is said to have frozen over in the winter during that period.  This period is known as the Maunder Minimum.  Chart is courtesy of Solan In fo

 

SC 21, 22, 23 and 24 are plotted on the following chart.  Comparing SCs 21, 22, 23 to SC 24  makes evident the low activity of SC24.  The Chart is courtesy of Solan Info.

Because SC 24 is reasonably a match to SC5 and 6, one can see why many of our scientists considered history would repeat itself by experiencing low global temperature

This is probably the time to see what some experts are prediction for SC 25. What will SC25 turn out to be.  The next posting will provide expert solar scientist predictions for SC25’s likely activity. 

 

 

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, Global Temperatures, Solar Activity, Solar Cycle 24, Solar Cycle 25, Sun, sun and climate, Sunspots, UAH Satellite Temps

The Paris Agreement is Failing

Posted on June 18, 2019 | 2 comments

Germany, Poland, etc., for example, are not meeting their self-imposed commitments regarding CO2 emissions reductions. In fact, the Paris Agreement bookkeepers show that almost no one is meeting their commitments. Let’s look at the graphic they have developed to show the status:

 

 

 

The chart shows how the key nations or national groups are performing with respect to meeting the self-imposed commitments for CO2 emission reductions.  The Paris Agreement objective is to hold Global Temperature rise to 1.5C by 2050.   These initial commitments are not enough to do that but were planned to be a start with the nations and national groups accomplishing further reductions as time passes.  That may be problematic if they can not even make the “easy to accomplish” initial commitments.

I hope you can read the chart, but just in case you can’t it is constructed as follows:

Across the top are 6 performance categories—   

·         Role Model

·         1.5C Paris Agreement compatible

·         2C Compatible

·         Insufficient

·         Highly insufficient

·         Critically Insufficient

No one has made the Role Model category

Morocco and The Gambia are 1.5cº Paris Agreement Compatible.   Are you beginning to see why I say the Agreement is failing if only these two inconsequential nations (with respect to emissions) make the grade.

The 2cº compatible  category has Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, India and the Philippines. Well, India is a major emitter but what they tell the Paris Group and where the Indian leaders appear to be taking the country are very different.

Insufficient category nations are Australia, Brazil, the EU, Kazakhstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru and Switzerland. The EU is a major emitter, but the others are not.  

Highly insufficient nations are Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea and the UAE.   China is already the world’s No.1 CO2 emitter and they don’t plan to stop increasing their emissions until 2030.

And now for the Critically Insufficient we have Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the USA, and Ukraine.

The US has reduced its emissions as a result of the ongoing change over from coal to natural gas.  That change over is driven by economics, and not by government edict.

There is another surprise waiting for those that think the all is well with the Paris Agreement.  Starting next year, a $100billion fund is to be created by the “developed nations”.  The money is then available to the less developed nations to accomplish CO2 reductions in their nation.  Each year a new $100billion are to be deposited into this fund by those same developed nations, perhaps forever.

 $10billion was to be deposited into this fund over the past 5 years.  Then President Obama, chipped in $2billion.   Last I looked, the fund has not reached the expected $10billion.  These countries can’t come up with $8billion in 5 years.  Make a guess if they are going to contribute another $100billion into that fund next year.  And the year after that, and the year after that, etc.

You might think that the writers of the Paris Agreement wanted to make a joke to see if anyone would catch it by making this arrangement—China, the world’s largest emitter of CO2 and the 2nd largest economy in the world, is part of the group that can draw on that fund, not contribute to it.     Unfortunately, it is not a joke.

Cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, China, CO2, Coal, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Paris Agreement

A Little Perspective on 2 Degrees Centigrade

Posted on June 12, 2019 | 1 comment

The alarmists are telling us that the global average temperature must not exceed two degrees Centigrade.   I think a little perspective is in order. The 2º C is an anomaly. Here is what it would look like on your thermometer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Global Temperatures

Solar Cycle 24 is Nearing Completion.

Posted on June 10, 2019 | 5 comments

Sometime ago, every month I blogged a brief report on the activity of the Sun.  I have the urge to do that again, so here goes.

Solar Cycle (SC) 24 has just about run its course. It is forecast to give over to SC 25 in late 2019/early 2020 and when it does, that’s call the 24SC minimum.

Sunspots are a proxy for Solar activity.  The chart below shows the average number of sunspots in each month.  The blue dashed line is a 13-month averaged sunspot count.  It is the official sunspot number.  (The formula for the count is shown at the end of this posting.)  The official number of sunspots peaked in April of 2014 thus the solar maximum happened then.

The chart below  illustrates how recent SCs compare to SC 24:

 

All three of the preceding SCs were much more active than SC24.

As side note,  the SCs on average last for 11 years, or saying another way, 132 months.  At one time, it was believed that if the SC was over before 11 years it was generally an active SC.  More than 11 years, less active.

 

The chart below shows the 24 SCs and the chart makers attempt at a SC25.  The X axis is in years from 1749 to an estimated 2040.  The Y axis is sunspots

One can see that SCs 23, 22, 21, 19, and 18 represent a very active sun.  The maker of the chart calls this the “modern warm period”.   Looking back the chart maker has noted the time of the “Dalton Minimum” and the “little ice age”.  These periods of low solar activity coincide with the periods of low global temperatures. Perhaps you can see why many scientists are forecasting that global temperatures will soon be dropping.  Also one can speculate that  the global warming  we have experienced may be a product of the past 60 years of a very active sun.    Ok, now one more reading of the chart might suggest that we are due for a period of low solar activity thus a drop in global temperatures.   The chart maker’s projection of SC 25 to  be lowest in recorded history is very likely to be wrong.  However the batting average of the predictors of future SCs is not too stellar  so who knows.

Throughout the recent past, claims were made that the global temperature was going to drop because SC 24 was relatively inactive.  I do not think that the temperature did drop.  I believe I read  one article where the claim was that SC 24 was the reason that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere did not raise the temperature as much as it should  have.  I don’t believe that one.

Was SC 24 definitely an uniquely quiet SC?  I think so.

The sunspot activity of the cycles in comparison. The numbers in the diagram are obtained by summing the monthly differences between the observed SSN and the mean (blue in Fig.1) up to the current cycle month 125. ( I am not sure whom to attribute this chart but I got it from Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Frank Bosse who write the diekaltesonne  blog.)

This shows that at just about 10-1/2 years,  SC 24  has had 4464 fewer sunspots than the average  SC.  It also shows that SCs 5 and 6, had the  fewest sunspot and those two SC are coincident with the Dalton Minimum.   SC 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were way low on sunspots and they coincided with the little ice age.

It is clear that the sun was much less active as demonstrated by the sunspot record.  I expected a clear sign by the end of its cycle, which we have not yet seen,  of a cooling global temperature  trend. Some think we have that, but I do not see what I expected from the UAH satellite global temperature readings.  The temperature  has declined since the last El Nino but it has not been lowered to the temperature before that El Nino.

Next a look at Solar Cycle 25.

Cbdakota

Sunspot Counting–Woolf Number

The smoothed count is a 13-month averaged sunspot count using this Belgium’s formula:
Rs= (0.5 Rm-6 + Rm-5 + Rm-4 + Rm-3 + Rm-2 + Rm-1 + Rm + Rm+1 + Rm+2 + Rm+3 + Rm+4 + Rm+5 + 0.5 Rm+6 ) / 12
Rs = smoothed monthly sunspot count
Rm = One month’s actual sunspot count
The “-6” through “+6” appended to each Rm is the number of months before or after the month whose smoothed count is being calculated. The beginning and ending months in the formula are only given half the value of the others.*

 

5 Comments

Posted in AGW, Global Temperatures, Solar Activity, Sun, sun and climate, Sunspots, UAH Satellite Temps

Computer Predicted Global Temperature Show Man-Made Global Warming To Be A Lie

Posted on August 19, 2018 | 1 comment

Frankly, I don’t get it. The actual data is ignored by dedicated warmers.  In the period that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the warmer’s authority on all things related to climate science, the forecasted temperatures have greatly exceeded the actual recorded temperatures.  All one must do is look at the following chart:

 

The forecast temperatures, generated by a banks of computers, are well above the measured temperatures.  The satellite and balloon actual measurements confirm one onther, And the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is higher than the warmer computer operators expected so the gap between real and computer forecast temperatures should even be greater.  If this gap had only existed for just several years, one might say that we should wait a while because It might possibly start to get smaller. But that is not been the case. As the years go by it has grown larger.  The chart shows the satellite and balloon temperatures  as rising in this chart. That was caused by the El Nino. Those temperatures are now trending down.  Overall, the measured global temperature as shown is rising, but this is  due to natural forces with only a minimal amount due to CO2.     

Temperature is the driver for their forecasts of all the catastrophic thing they imagine will happen.   Melting glaciers, disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, sea level rise of many meters, droughts, floods, tornados, hurricanes, loss of species, massive migrations, diseases moving in a polar direction etc. are all a function of the very high projected global temperatures. 

They keep teasing you by telling you that there is “tipping point” that if reached will result in an uncontrollable ramp-up of temperature that will have catastrophic results.  Can we really believe this as their prediction batting average is not very good? 

I used to be a frequent contributor of “letters to the Editor”.  Most of my letters asked why the media continued to publish these outlandish forecasts that did not come true. That they should review the history of what they have published and that they would see the prediction’s failure rate was very high. Aren’t the media supposed to be skeptics?  Not necessarily about just global warming but everything?  They are not fulfilling their obligation to their subscribers.  And that is reflected, obviously, by the decline of subscribers and their withering loss of credibility which has them now rated near the bottom of the polled lists.

To summarize, if the actual temperature is not skyrocketing, the warmer catastrophes are not going to happen. All their bloviating is just that, blovating.  They must keep you worried so they can continue to get money from you and the government to keep them alive.

 

PS

Some of you may have noticed that my postings have almost been non-existent for many months.  I have had some health setbacks that have kept my posting near zero.  Trigeminal neuralgia is a nasty thing to have. I am on my second bout with it. About 14 years ago, I had my first encounter.  As Trigeminal sometimes does, it went into remission after about a year.  But now it is back. Medication allows me to have mostly pain free days. Having compared notes with my niece who has had Trigeminal longer than I have and much worse, we both find that moving your neck in the ways that one does when typing and reading, really aggravates this damned condition.  I think I am now in condition to continue my blogging- I hope.

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, ENSO, Environment, Global Temperatures, Hurricanes, Ice Melt, IPCC, Sea Ice, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes, Tornados