SPPI Monthly CO2 Report


The June  SPPI CO2 Report has been issued.  This  monthly report, edited by Christopher Monckton, is the best place to find all of the usual “markers” of the state of global climate change.  You will find the latest charts for atmospheric temperature, ocean temperature, atmospheric CO2 levels,  sea level, Arctic and Antarctic ice extent, solar activity, and more.  In addition it has informative discussions of CO2 induced acidification of the oceans, why the computers programs overstate future global temperatures, etc.  

It is evident from these charts that global warming continues to be global cooling.   To look at this report click here

Cbdakota

Ocean Heat Content


The AGWs are taking much more interest in ocean heat content, it seems, now that the global atmospheric temperature continues to decline.  Logically,  ocean heat content is a more rational measure of global warming.

Measurement of ocean temperature has been limited to surface measurements, primarily.  But the recent deployment of the ARGO Buoys should allow the determination of ocean heat content with an accuracy previously not possible.  By the end of 2003 over 3000 buoys were dispersed in the oceans around the world. The buoys measure ocean temperature and salinity.  They descend to 2000 meters and then rise to the surface.  Once on the surface they transmit the salinity and temperature data to satellites.  Simultaneously the satellite pinpoints the location of the buoy.  The results to date show a slight cooling of the Earth’s oceans.  The following chart is taken from the data provided by the international group that manages the ARGO program.

nino3_4_atlasTo learn more about the ARGO program see

But getting back to ocean heat content, a recent entry by William DiPuccio  in Roger Pilke, Sr.’s  blog, “Climate Science” discusses ocean heat content.   Highlighted are some of his thoughts about ocean heat content versus air temperature a metric:

“Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis?”   William DiPuccio

Despite a consensus among scientists on the use of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW, near-surface air temperature (referred to as “surface temperature”) is generally employed to gauge global warming.  The media and popular culture have certainly equated the two.  But this equation is not simply the product of a naïve misunderstanding.  NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), directed by James Hansen, and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change, have consistently promoted the use of surface temperature as a metric for global warming.  The highly publicized, monthly global surface temperature has become an icon of the AGW projections made by the IPCC.

However, use of surface air temperature as a metric has weak scientific support, except, perhaps, on a multi-decadal or century time-scale.  Surface temperature may not register the accumulation of heat in the climate system from year to year.  Heat sinks with high specific heat (like water and ice) can absorb (and radiate) vast amounts of heat.  Consequently the oceans and the cryosphere can significantly offset atmospheric temperature by heat transfer creating long time lags in surface temperature response time.  Moreover, heat is continually being transported in the atmosphere between the poles and the equator.  This reshuffling can create fluctuations in average global temperature caused, in part, by changes in cloud cover and water vapor, both of which can alter the earth’s radiative balance.

Hype generated by scientists and institutions over short-term changes in global temperature (up or down) has diverted us from the real issue:  heat accumulation.  Heat is not the same as temperature.  Two liters of boiling water contain twice as much heat as one liter of boiling water even though the water in both vessels is the same temperature.  The larger container has more thermal mass which means it takes longer to heat and cool.

Temperature measures the average kinetic energy of molecular motion at a specific point.  But it does not measure the total kinetic energy of all the molecules in a substance.  In the example above, there is twice as much heat in 2 liters of boiling water because there is twice as much kinetic energy.  On average, the molecules in both vessels are moving at the same speed, but the larger container has twice as many molecules.

Water is a more appropriate metric for heat accumulation than air because of its ability to store heat.  For this reason, it is also a more robust metric for assessing global warming and cooling.  Seawater has a much higher mass than air (1030 kg/m3 vs. 1.20 kg/m3at 20ºC), and a higher specific heat (4.18 kJ/kg/°C vs. 1.01 kJ/kg/°C for air at 23°C and 41% humidity).  One kilogram of water can retain 4.18x the heat of an equivalent mass of air.  This amounts to a thermal mass which is nearly 3558x that of air per unit volume.

Some level of time lag will enter into the direction, up or down, that will be evidenced in ocean temperatures.  Thus it would seem likely that now that the temperatures are on the decline, it might be years before any change in direction will be seen.

To read all of DiPuccio’s entry click here

For more on this ocean heat content

Ocean Heat Content-EPA Uses Computer Predictions Rather Than Observed Data

Cbdakota

Satellite Temps for June 09


The University of Alabama-Huntsville manages a satellite system that measures global temperature.  These measurements are much better than the land based measurements because the satellites cover more of the Earth’s surface and are not subject to the typical errors that plague land based measurements systems. The satellite system has been in operations since 1979.

The oceans represent about 3/4ths of the Earth surface.   The land based do have some  ocean temperature  measurements  but nothing like the satellite coverage.  The raw data from the  land based measurements are mostly readjusted by the managers of those systems.  This could be an invitation to make the  final numbers come out to satisfy your biases.  

The June 09 numbers show decline in the temperature anomaly.   It is consistent with the downward trend of global temperatures in this decade.  

To view the satellite temperature record view

Cbdakota

Cosmic Rays and Climate


Enough of politics for a while. Lets look at climate science. Henrik Svensmark has postulated that cosmic rays provide a mechanism to form clouds and if these clouds are low clouds, they will result in cooling. The cosmic rays are valved in or kept out of our atmosphere by the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field which extends to form the interplanetary field. A strong field limits the cosmic rays and a weak field permits entry. Currently the Sun’s magnetic field is the lowest ever measured by our satellites. see

While it looks like Svensmark is correct,  there are those who disagree with his work.  A CERN team lead by Jasper Kirkby are planning on expanding the research into the formation of clouds by galactic cosmic rays.   (Cosmic rays are really not “rays” but are particles blasted out from exploding stars [supernova see ]).

Kirkby is a British experimental particle physicist with CERN in Geneva.  He says that the Sun and the Earth’s climate are interlinked.  But the mechanism is not fully understood.  His team hope to establish or refute the connection between cosmic rays and the Earth’s climate.

There are two exhibits, both well worth your time to examine.  The first is a video presentation Kirkby made that takes you through the evidence of Sun and Earth’s climate connection and the planed experiments to look at cosmic rays and climate. The video presentation is one hour long.  See it here.  The  charts he used for the video presentation are the second exhibit and can be seen here . The charts take less time and they are much easier to read than seen on the video.  But I suspect that your understanding of the Earth and Sun interconnection will not be very complete without Kirkby’s explanation.

Cbdakota

DARK AGES REDUX-Cap and Trade Bill Details


Steve Spruiell and Kevin Williamson wrote a piece for National Review Online titled “A Garden of Piggish Delights”.   They have gone through the 1300 page Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill and have listed the top 50, main provisions in the bill.  As we know, no one who voted for (or against –hooray  them) it had read the bill when they voted.  So I suspect they might be somewhat surprised and enlightened if they read this summary.  And more to the point EMBARRASED!!!!

 As a teaser, the following are some of Spruiell and Williamson highlights:

  • Eighty-five % of the carbon permits will not be sold but rather given away to utility companies, etc..  The sale of these permits begins in earnest in about 10 years.
  • Some of the monies derived from the permit sales will go to build capacity to reduce  deforestation in developing countries.
  • Projects receiving grants from this legislation must implement Davis-Bacon union wage rules.
  • The farm state Representatives agreed to vote for this bill when agribusiness was exempted from Cap and Trade controls.
  • The bill directs the EPA to ignore the real environmental impact of ethanol and other biofuels.
  • And there are guarantees for loans to build ethanol pipelines.
  • Obama can enact tariffs on any country that fails to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions.   Think China, India, Brazil and Mexico when you read “any country”.    Remember what Smoot-Hawley  high tariffs did to the world economy during the 1930’s.
  • Utilities must supply 20% of their power from renewables by 2020.  Nuclear and Canadian hydro power generated electricity do not qualify as renewable.
  • The EPA is to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks, buses, boats, airplanes,  and other mobile sources. 
  • IT GETS WORSE….

To read the whole thing,  click here

Dark Ages Redux-Green Jobs?


 

Marc Sheppard’s American Thinker blog titled “A Desperate Obama Tries to Sell Cap-and-Trade as a Jobs Bill”  makes a number of excellent points about how this is not a jobs bill.

“Now, make no mistake,” Obama assured us yesterday, “this is a jobs bill.”

Now Obama tells us that the bill “will make possible the creation of millions of new jobs.” Yet according to Indiana Republican Mike Pence’s floor speech this morning, the ever-changing bill makes provisions to aid the millions of Americans it puts out of work.  And that same Heritage study suggests that figure may reach as high as 2.5 million.

In January, the president held out the energy policies of Spain as a shining example of how successful a “government-aided” cap-and-tax plan could be.  But in reality, a “green bubble” inflated by a perpetuating yet unsustainable cycle of Spanish government subsidies for “green jobs” resulted in a net loss of two traditional jobs for every green one created.  And, not unlike Obama’s “shovel-ready” construction jobs, the majority of the Spanish “green” jobs were temporary in nature, further decimating the Spanish workforce as they phased out.  And as the Spanish government continued to pump more money into inadequate power sources, energy prices skyrocketed, driving industry to cheaper ground in other countries.  As a result, Spain’s unemployment rate now stands at a staggering 18 percent.

Yes, it appears to be a jobs bill,  but the jobs created are going to be in China, India, Mexico and Brazil and in the other countries that do not enact Cap and Trade legislation. To read the full blog, click here

George Will also weighs in on Obama’s claim that Spain shows that lots of green jobs are going to be produced by  Cap and Trade legislation.  For Will’s comments click here

Chu’s Proposal to Paint It White


The link below is an informative PDF discussing Mr Chu’s proposal to paint everything white and save the planet.  It is from Science and Public Policy.   Christopher Monckton writes special items for this group as well as a monthly summary of the science of global warming.  He repeats his charts from his monthly summaries  which illustrate IPCC forecasts versus  actual global temperature, sea level,  CO2 in the atmosphere, Ice extent in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, ocean temperature, etc.   see

ALARMIST CLIMATE MODELS ARE WRONG


The Alarmists are saying if we don’t stop combusting fossil fuels,  the planet is doomed.   There are many excellent discussions demonstrating that the Alarmists are vastly exaggerating the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere.    This short Youtube video by the author of the Climate Skeptic blog is one of the very best at showing the folly of the computer modelers’ dire forecasts. CO2 in the atmosphere

cbdakota

DARK AGES REDUX Cap and Trade Part II


For the Pennsylvanians in the audience,  the Vice Chairman and two other Commissioners believe that the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Legislations will be bad for Pa. residents.   The Commissioners  have written a letter to the Pennsylvania Congressional Delegation outlining their reason for opposing the legislation.   Read it here

DARK AGES REDUX–CAP AND TRADE


STOP CAP AND TRADE LEGISLATION

Players are needed. Players that will get on the phone, write letters, do something active to put a stop to the Administration’s plans that will wreck our economy.  It is doubtful that President Obama or his cabinet of Czars can be persuaded to put an end to Cap and Trade legislation because they need the money it will generate to help reduce the massive deficit they are creating.  Cap and Trade is simply a $624 billion tax clothed as “saving the world from CO2”.  But YOU may be able to make the Congress bring it to a halt.  Write and or/call your members of Congress and tell them what you think.  Al Gore has a campaign underway  letting Congress know that he and the radical greens want Cap and Trade. 

Again,  players are needed to offset the Gorebuls.   Cheering from the sideline wont cut it. Don’t let government pass on huge debts to your children and grandchildren to pay.

A committee led by Representative Waxman and  one led by Representative Markey   are sponsors of the Waxman/Markey Cap and Trade legislation.  It is out of these committees that this legislation will emerge unless we can stop it by letting them know how we feel about it.

The most active House committee is Waxman’s Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce. 

                                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                                                                   MEMBERSHIP

 DEMOCRATS                                                                  REPUBLICANS

Henry A. Waxman, CA, Chair   Joe Barton, TX, Ranking Member 
John D. Dingell, MI, Chair Emeritus   Ralph M. Hall, TX
Edward J. Markey, MA   Fred Upton, MI
Rick Boucher, VA   Cliff Stearns, FL
Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ   Nathan Deal, GA
Bart Gordon, TN   Ed Whitfield, KY
Bobby L. Rush, IL   John Shimkus, IL
Anna G. Eshoo, CA   John B. Shadegg, AZ
Bart Stupak, MI   Roy Blunt, MO
Eliot L. Engel, NY   Steve Buyer, IN
Gene Green, TX   George Radanovich, CA
Diana DeGette, CO   Joseph R. Pitts, PA
Lois Capps, CA   Mary Bono Mack, CA
Mike Doyle, PA   Greg Walden, OR
Jane Harman, CA   Lee Terry, NE
Jan Schakowsky, IL   Mike Rogers, MI
Charles A. Gonzalez, TX   Sue Wilkins Myrick, NC
Jay Inslee, WA   John Sullivan, OK
Tammy Baldwin, WI   Tim Murphy, PA
Mike Ross, AR   Michael C. Burgess, TX
Anthony D. Weiner, NY   Marsha Blackburn, TN
Jim Matheson, UT   Phil Gingrey, GA
G.K. Butterfield, NC   Steve Scalise, LA
Charlie Melancon, LA    
John Barrow, GA    
Baron P. Hill, IN    
Doris O. Matsui, CA    
Donna M. Christensen, VI    
Kathy Castor, FL    
John P. Sarbanes, MD    
Christopher S. Murphy, CT    
Zachary T. Space, OH    
Jerry McNerney, CA    
Betty Sutton, OH    
Bruce L. Braley, IA    
Peter Welch, VT    

 

Representative Markey’s Committee on Energy and Environment  is also involved and should be contacted as well.

Committee on Energy and Environment  link

To contact your Representative go to link    

Let’s review what is happening.  Based on faulty science, the environmental radicals say that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing the Earth to heat up.  They say that if left unchecked, this atmospheric CO2 will result in a global catastrophe of heat, cold, water, drought, disease,etc..

The folks in DC are probably not sure all of this will happen, but they see using this as a way to tax and regulate and so they really don’t care about the validity of the science.  Their plan is to reduce the use of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) because when the fossil fuel is combusted to release its energy, CO2 is produced.  By setting a limit (capping) on how much CO2 can be emitted to the atmosphere and then over time reducing it, they plan to essentially eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

The bill would set the amount that each CO2 emitter can emit.  The Feds would sell permits to the emitter.  The following year the amount that could be emitted would be lowered.  And new permits would be sold to the emitter.  The Trade part of the bill would allow an emitter that did not need all of its permitted CO2 allowance to sell the excess portion to an emitter that needed more permitted CO2.  The price of this permit would be agreed to by buyer and seller.  For further understanding of Cap and Trade, view this presentation.    view 

The Feds could potentially bring in a lot of money to the Treasury this way.  Obama hopes to raise $624billion over 10 years.  Obama says that $500 billion would be used to make a permanent tax credit that provides individuals up to $400 and working families $800.  See   

However, Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office says that the corporations that buy the $624 billion worth of CO2 permits will pass this cost on to the consumers. He estimates that Cap and Trade would cost each American household an average $1600 per year and it could go as high as $2200 per household.  So the tax credit the Fed plan to give, would be much smaller than the increased costs of Cap and Trade to those same families.   So far Obama’s record of living up to his promises of tax cuts would not seem to inspire confidence on getting any relief from the the proposed tax credits.  see

Moreover, The Wall Street Journal says “But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the US that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels—particularly coal, which generate most power in the Midwest, Southern, and Plains States.  It is no coincidence that the liberals most invested in Cap and Trade—Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey—come from California or the Northeast.” Twenty-five states get more than half of their electricity from conventional coal fired generation. See  

Representative Joe L Barton, (R TX), the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in an editorial made a number of important points about the Cap and Trade bill.  He cites other studies that say the increased cost of energy for a typical family will be at least $3100 per year and that over 20 years results in 7 million lost jobs and $7 trillion in reduced economic output.  Barton says “if the Democrats manage to pass a cap-and-trade fiasco, millions of lost American jobs will likely pop up overseas.  I think we can expect to start buying more Mexican cement, Chinese fertilizer and Indian Steel”. He believes you would have to go back to 1875 to find a time comparable to what the US will look like when the Cap and Trade bill meets its stated goals of 80% reduction of CO2 by  2050.  

A  Zogby International poll says that only 30% of the US people support Cap and Trade and 57% oppose it. Other polls show very low interest in this or any new legislation that might weaken the recovery. see

Waxman has had much difficulty with his reluctant Democratic Committee members that see this legislation having a negative effect in their home districts.  The New York Times reports that Waxman is agreeing to no cost emissions permits in trade for votes.  This is BAIT AND SWITCH!  Some industries will be given a free ride for a while, but will eventually have to begin buying these permits.  Mike Doyle (D PA) is saying that approval for an agreement that would give away a large share of the permits for free during the opening 10 to 15 years of the cap-and-trade program is near.  Waxman is said to be comfortable with this give away.  see       It does not seem that Obama is in favor of the give away.   He is banking on this indirect tax to help offset his budget deficit woes.   see

When the European nations signed the Kyoto Treaty, they set up a Cap and Trade system as a means of meeting their CO2 reduction commitments.  It did not work. Their overall emissions have not gone down, but in fact have grown and at a rate faster than non-signer  US’s CO2 emissions.  The reason that Europe failed will be the reason that Cap and Trade will fail in the US.  The law driven reductions of fossil fuels are presumed to be replaced by alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar, ethanol, other biofuels, etc.  that will keep the business’s output  the same or even increase.   But these sources are not ready for prime time.  And they wont be for many years to come, if ever.  Perhaps nuclear will be able, in time, to make up the gap in the electrical generation sector.   If the Europeans had reduced fossil fuels use, they would have, by default, reduced their business output.  They chose to ignore the idea of reducing the use of fossil fuels.   

Additionally, the world’s largest emitter of CO2 is China.  China along with India and Brazil have stated they have no intention of imposing CO2 restrictions on their people.  With their huge populations, they plan to increase their use of fossil fuels to build their manufacturing base and to bring their countries to American and European standards of living.  Cap and Trade will assist these nations and harm ours.   See

The facts are that we don’t need this legislation because there is no compelling evidence at this time that increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will result in disastrous consequences.  There will be disastrous consequences for our economy both short and long term if this legislation is passed into law.  For one of the many documents that show how far off the man-made global warmers are from the real world  see

Please speak up about this issue. Waxman’s goal is to get Committee approval by Memorial Day.  The Republicans and many Democrats on the  Committee are opposed to this legislation.  But they need your support to hold the line.

 

The need for making better use of our own resources is surely obvious to you. So this blog will discuss the need for expanding our sources of energy–oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear is subsequent postings.