April 10th, 2015
|10:12 am - Warmth + CO2 = happy planet. More = happier|
Lubos recently penned this report:
Freeman Dyson on the gas that we call life
If you can sacrifice 23 minutes, here is a fun interview with Freeman Dyson (who is 91 now)
Video: Conversations that matter - Earth is actually growing greener (Vancouver Sun)
They introduced Dyson as a monster mind. In fact, he is so smart that he was once in the same building with Albert Einstein, they say. ;-)
In 1981-2006, a quarter of a century, the Earth was mostly getting greener (green color on the map).
Dyson argues that CO2 has many direct and staggering consequences for the life on Earth that are more important than the indirect and questionable influences via the climate. For example, the 40% rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution meant about a 20% increase in the agricultural yields per unit area (in average: results vary). I like to use the same square-root formula.
And make no mistake about it, this is a big deal. If you use a naive estimate, you could expect that there would be 20% less food, and perhaps 20% of the world population (over a billion of people) could die of hunger if CO2 quickly returned to the preindustrial levels! Fortunately, the carbon dioxide won't drop quickly, and even if it did, the value 20% could be significantly lowered by better trade, redistribution, and transition to more efficient (although sometimes less tasteful) crops etc.
Dyson also says that the influence of CO2 on the climate is questionable and apparently unimportant. So the worries about the CO2's impact on the climate seem unjustified to him. But he doesn't understand the motivation behind this "religion" so he won't say that the people believing in this stuff are evil. Well, many of them surely are, I would personally say, but yes, in principle, many more may be honest.
Freeman Dyson knows the Japanese chap who was the first man who created a climate model with CO2. It had some positive climate sensitivity – still a lower one than what is popular today, despite the years of decreasing estimates. But Dyson thinks that we can't believe those predictions even if the climate models may be a good tool to explain the past observations. We may simply happen to incorporate a sufficient number of mechanisms and terms that may yield a good model of the past data; but this may still be "on the edge" and the future evolution may very well reveal and depend upon some aspects that were neglected in the past but will be important in the future.
Listeners also learn that Dyson spoke to Nir Shaviv who is just visiting Princeton. (Dyson clearly likes Shaviv a lot.) I knew that Nir was visiting Princeton because he (Nir) sent me an e-mail, also mentioning that he had a pretty fun conversation with Nima Arkani-Hamed etc. I hope that none of these insights is secret! ;-)
Despite its very formal atmosphere (and maybe partly because of it), Princeton is surely a place for creative, intelligent, non-ideological, bullying-free scientific conversations about important topics. After all, the number of prominent climate skeptics at Princeton is also rather high. Let me mention that climate skeptic Will Happer is a physics professor at Princeton, too. From this viewpoint, I would say that relatively to Princeton, Harvard is much more communist-party-like dictatorship with tons of ideology-driven pseudointellectuals and bullies such as Naomi Oreskes.
There is also a segment in the interview that is dedicated to the sunspots. Dyson says that the solar temperature is constant – well, the output varies by about 0.1% during the solar cycle, but it would give just a tenth or few tenths of a degree on Earth via the Stefan-Boltzmann law. And the total output doesn't seem to change much in the longer run (e.g. from 1600 to 2000 AD), either. But the sunspots influence the activity which may impact the terrestrial climate indirectly, and by higher percentages.
He mentions diverse and strengthening evidence in favor of cosmoclimatology while he says that the mechanisms – probably involving clouds and cosmic rays but we are not sure – remain less clear (Svensmark might dislike this comment). The interviewer Stuart McNish says that he did some research after watching An Inconvenient Truth and he was surprised that water vapor made... 90 percent of the greenhouse effect. How can you neglect it? Well, you can't, Dyson says. Why people became obsessed with CO2? Because it's a gas we emit and add.***
Again, CO2 is so beneficial that it would be crazy to try to reduce it, Dyson tells us. Amen to that.
The interviewer tried to read the IPCC report and it seemed technically hard to me. But he was attracted by the comments about the temperature adjustments. Why are they being done, the host asks? Dyson, like your humble correspondent, answers that the adjustments are desirable because the temperature is a difficult thing and is affected by lots of local effects and details linked to the apparatuses that we want to eliminate when we're interested in some more objective or global information about the climate.
As an analogy, Dyson mentions that Keeling decided to measure CO2 in the Hawaii because it's far from the bulk of the human activity, so this contaminating influence drops away and the reliability of the measurement improves. To measure the global mean temperature, which is rather poorly defined, anyway, we have to measure at lots of places (Hawaii isn't enough for the global temperature) and deal with lots of confusing local distortions.
Dyson praises the weather forecasts and the role of computer models in the improvements – up to a week, the weather forecasts are doing well. The 10-year timescale hasn't been mastered, however (or 2 weeks from now, the interviewer quips). Benjamin Franklin was a pretty good weather forecaster because he was 1) more skillful than most others and 2) out in the open air which helps.
Almost none of us (perhaps with the exception of Dyson) will be around in 100 years from now so we can't know what will happen, the interviewer says. Dyson corrects him that we can be pretty sure of lots of things about the year 2115. He didn't mean the motion of the celestial bodies, however. Among the near certainties, Dyson said that we will keep on burning fossil fuels and the CO2 will keep on increasing. The world will be greener.
What will Dyson say to the people who want to share Dyson's optimism but who are cowards without balls and don't want to oppose the fashionable climate doomsday cult?
Dyson's answer is simple: Become Chinese or Indian. Those Asian nations aren't pessimistic at all – partly because they have seen lots of improvements recently. So the doom and gloom is largely confined to the academic environments, and pretty much only in the Western societies. The media have joined but the general public has lots more common sense. Dyson recommends "Cool It", a book by Bjorn Lomborg.
When the interviewer mentioned that both Lomborg and Willie Soon were vilified, Dyson says that one must enjoy being in the minority. By the way, do I or did I (when it comes to things like climate change among the scholarly folks)? Well, I would say that I could live with that by growing some special kind of pride. But when evaluated in total, I don't enjoy this status. I suffer when I see that most people are deluded about something. And they are deluded about so many things.
Dyson smiles and points out that fortunately, he doesn't have to be afraid of losing his job. ;-)
Is the climate orthodoxy incontrovertible? A top Canadian AGW activist is quoted as recommending to imprison all the climate skeptics. Dyson says that literally, the existence of man-made climate change is a fact. The other questions – which must be asked and must be asked separately – are how strong the effect is, and whether it's good or bad. When things are summed up, the change is small and good,
(That's what science says. In the real world of politics, the situation is different. For example, Barack Obama announced that he will fight against CO2 because he believes that this fight will cure his daughter's asthma. This individual isn't a rank-and-file shaman somewhere in Kenya; he is the president of the leading nation of the industrialized world. You can't make this thing up.)
Freeman Dyson remains optimistic about the world. It may be partly due to his growing up in the 1930s when the world was so much worse. We never expected to survive, he says. Crisis, Hitler, Second World War, threat of biological weapons, other bombs. Your optimism may depend on where you start.
*** Other reasons. Because it could be commoditised in the way sulphur was and used to generate profit, it could be used as a fear factor and fear of it could be used as an excuse to impose a global tax and otherwise not imposable gang green energy "solutions" like fuel from food, energy from wind farms and solar panels.
June 16th, 2014
|09:20 am - Corn ethanol is good - it produces more CO2 than petrol|
All life is dependent on CO2. It is close to starvation levels for biomass.
Study: Scaling Back Renewable Fuel Standard Will Decrease Greenhouse Gas Emissions
by Marlo Lewis
In November of last year, EPA proposed to scale back the overall Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 2014 blending target from 18.15 billion to 15.21 billion gallons, and to trim the mandate’s corn-ethanol component from 14.4 billion to 13.0 billion gallons. Forcing EPA’s hand was a set of market constraints commonly called the “E10 blend wall.” EPA intervened so that refiners would not be obligated to purchase and blend more ethanol than could actually be sold in gasoline.
The biofuel industry fiercely opposes the proposed cutbacks. EPA is expected to announce the final 2014 RFS production quota in June.
To help EPA stick to its guns, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) yesterday released Ethanol’s Broken Promise: Using Less Corn Ethanol Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The study estimates that EPA’s proposed 1.39 billion gallon cutback in the corn-ethanol blending target would “lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 3 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) — as much as taking 580,000 cars off the road for a year.”
EPA can’t dispute this conclusion because the numbers come from the agency’s own data. EPA estimates that, on a life-cycle basis, corn ethanol’s carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) emissions were 33% higher than gasoline’s in 2012.
Since a chief purpose of the RFS is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the policy is counterproductive if corn-ethanol emits more CO2e than the gasoline it displaces.
EPA, however, predicts that by 2022, biofuel production will reduce net CO2e emissions by 17%.
Not so fast, says EWG! EPA assumes that by 2022, carbon-neutral biomass will power ethanol plants. It’s more likely that most plants will run electricity from natural gas. More importantly, land-use conversions associated with ethanol production release carbon locked in soils. And, EWG contends, EPA’s analysis “essentially ignored all land use change emissions before 2022.”
EWG estimates that during 2008-2012 alone, RFS-induced land conversions released 85-to-236 million metric tons of CO2e emissions per year.
A previous EWG study found that 23 million acres of U.S. grassland, shrub land and wetland had been converted to crop production between 2008 and 2011. “Eight million acres were converted to grow corn and another 5.6 million to plant soybeans, because the ethanol mandate pushed up soybean prices as well.” EWG research also shows that roughly 306,000 acres of wetlands were converted to corn production between 2008 and 2012. Plevin at al. (2010) estimate the following emission rates from land use changes:
Multiplying acreage conversions by emission rates gives the following results:
- Emissions from wetlands conversions between 2008 and 2012 totaled 25-to-74 million tons of CO2e per year.
- The additional 8 million acres of grasslands and shrub lands converted to corn from 2008 to 2011 added another 60-to-162 million tons of CO2e per year.
In all, land conversions to corn production released 85-to-236 million tons of CO2e per year.
What about the long-term impact of corn ethanol on CO2e emissions? EWG cites an analysis by the Clean Air Task Force. Assuming no cutback in RFS blending targets, cumulative CO2e emissions from corn ethanol during 2010-2044 exceed those from an energy-equivalent amount of gasoline by 28%:
Source - globalwarming.org/2014/05/30/study-scaling-back-renewable-fuel-standard-will-decrease-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
March 27th, 2014
|11:01 am - AGW by CO2 is a hypothesis mostly disproven but kept alive for the zio agenda|
Cooler Heads blog has kindly provided an explanation of the falsity in claiming AGW (by CO2) is a theory.
Do Skeptics ‘Reposition’ Warming as ‘Theory’ or Do Alarmists ‘Reposition’ Fear as ‘Fact’? Revisiting an Urban Legend
How many times have you heard climate activists claim skeptics are just latter-day “tobacco scientists?” Google “tobacco scientists” and “global warming,” and you’ll get about 1,110,000 results. With so much (ahem) smoke, surely there must be some fire, right?
Al Gore helped popularize this endlessly repeated allegation. In An Inconvenient Truth (p. 263), he contends that just as tobacco companies cynically funded corrupt scientists to cast doubt on the Surgeon General’s report linking cigarette smoking to cancer, so fossil fuel companies fund “skeptics” to create the appearance of scientific controversy where none exists.
Here’s the pertinent passage:
The misconception that there is serious disagreement among scientists about global warming is actually an illusion that has been deliberately fostered by a relatively small but extremely well-funded cadre of special interests, including Exxon Mobil and a few other oil, coal, and utilities companies. These companies want to prevent any new policies that would interfere with their current business plans that rely on the massive unrestrained dumping of global warming pollution into the Earth’s atmosphere every hour of every day.
One of the internal memos prepared by this group to guide the employees they hired to run their disinformation campaign was discovered by the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Ross Gelbspan. Here was the group’s stated objective: to “reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact.”
This technique has been used before. The tobacco industry, 40 years ago, reacted to the historic Surgeon General’s report linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other lung diseases by organizing a similar disinformation campaign.
One of their memos, prepared in the 1960s, was recently uncovered during one of the lawsuits against the tobacco companies in behalf of the millions of people who have been killed by their product. It is interesting to read it 40 years later in the context of the global warming campaign:
“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing controversy.” Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company memo, 1960s
There’s just one problem with this tale of corruption and intrigue — much of it is false and all of it is misleading. Let’s examine the flaws in this urban legend, going from minor to major.
First, Gore’s alleged source, Ross Gelbspan, is not a Pulitzer Prize winner. Gelbspan’s 1997 book, The Heat Is On, supposedly exposes how fossil fuel companies and conservative politicians collude to ”confuse the public about global warming.” The jacket of the book describes Gelbspan as a “Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist.” But former JunkScience.Com blogger Steve Milloy searched the list of Pulitzer journalists, and found that Gelbspan was not among them. Gelbspan later claimed only to have conceived, directed, and edited a series of articles that won a Pulitzer in 1984.
Second, Gelbspan was not the source of Gore’s story. Gore discussed the leaked documents in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance (p. 360), which was published five years before Gelbspan’s book. So how did Gore find out about it? Blogger Russell Cook notes that the documents were first “reported in a 1991 New York Times article which claimed they came from an unnamed source at the Sierra Club.”
Why did Gore credit Gelbspan with breaking the story? Who knows! Maybe because information sourced to “Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter” sounds credible even if the reporter neither won a Pulitzer nor broke the story.
Third, Gore gives the false impression that ExxonMobil and other oil companies were part of the “group” behind the “disinformation campaign” supposedly revealed in the memo that Gelbspan supposedly “discovered.”
The memo was one of several documents drafted by an ad hoc group calling itself Information Council for the Environment. ICE was a project of Southern Company (an electric utility) and Western Fuels Association (a non-profit supply cooperative of consumer-owned electric utilities). No oil companies were involved.
Fourth, the documents are not an adopted plan to ”reposition” global warming but a proposal to “test market” the effectiveness of such messaging.
The actual objectives of the project were to:
1) Demonstrate that a consumer-based media awareness program can positively change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming.
2) Begin to develop a message and strategy for shaping public opinion on a national scale.
3) Lay the solid groundwork for a unified national electric industry voice on global warming.
The plan was never developed, much less implemented. As the 1991 New York Times article reported, different members of the electric utility industry took different positions on climate change:
The utility industry is divided on the question of global warming. Two California utilities, Southern California Edison, the nation’s second-largest utility after the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and the Los Angeles Water and Power Department, the largest municipal company, volunteered in May to cut their carbon-dioxide emissions by 20 percent in the next 20 years. Most of the savings, they said, would come from efficiency improvements in lighting, motors and cooling that would pay for themselves.
The Arizona Public Service Company, which serves Flagstaff, declined an invitation to participate in ICE. Mark De Michele, president and chief executive, did not reply to repeated phone calls seeking comment. But he told The Arizona Daily Sun in May, “The subject matter is far too complex and could be far more severe than the ads make of it for the subject to be dealt with in a slick ad campaign.”
The Edison Electric Institute, a utility trade group based in Washington that also helped organize the ICE campaign, takes the position that because of the possibility that climate change is a real threat, steps should be taken to cut carbon-dioxide output if those steps are justifiable for other reasons — for example, saving money through higher efficiency or reducing the output of sulfur dioxide from power plants. That chemical causes acid rain.
Some of the advertising messages test-marketed in Flagstaff, Ariz., Bowling Green, Ky., and Fargo, N.D., were goofy. From the Times article:
In Bowling Green, an ad showed a cartoon horse in earmuffs and scarf and said, “If the Earth is getting warmer, why is Kentucky getting colder?” Another, with a cartoon man bundled up and holding a snow shovel, appeared in Minnesota and substituted “Minneapolis” for “Kentucky.”
Did any skeptical scientists endorse those messages? No. As the Times reported, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, and Sherwood Idso, the ICE science advisory panel, ”said in telephone interviews that the salient element in two of the ads, that some areas might be getting cooler, did not contradict the theory of global warming.” The article also reported that Balling and Michaels “have both asked to have their names removed from future mailings.”
Indeed, as Gelbspan acknowledged in his book, “Michaels has insisted that he dissociated himself from the ICE campaign when he learned of what he called its ‘blatant dishonesty.’” When Balling and Michaels pulled out, the ICE project collapsed. So much for the grand fossil-fueled conspiracy.
Fifth, there is no shame in repositioning as theory that which is not fact.* The “repositioning” memo is dated May 15, 1991 — four and a half years before the IPCC famously concluded, in November 1995, that the ”balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” Note too that the IPCC’s iconic formulation is not an assertion of what is demonstrably true, only an assessment of what the “balance of evidence” “suggests.”
From 1979 to 1991, two of the three main data sources — satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons) — showed no warming or even a slight cooling trend in the bulk atmosphere (troposphere). It was the land record that was the odd man out. Given that radiosondes were calibrated to measure global temperature and the satellites were specifically designed for that purpose, while the surface network was designed to measure agricultural weather, which should objective scientists trust least?
In 1998, the Remote System Sensing (RSS) team led by Frank Wentz discovered an orbital decay-induced spurious cooling in the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) satellite record. The UAH scientists corrected their record, the balloon record was also revised, so all three records showed a warming trend. Only at that point did global (as distinct from urban or local) warming become a “fact” — a trend confirmed by multiple independent observations. But then, irony of ironies, global warming plateaued in the RSS record, and “the pause” has persisted for 17 and a half years.
Even today, calling anthropogenic global warming a ”fact” – meaning conclusively demonstrated – would still be an exaggeration.
A study published last year by Benjamin Santer and colleagues in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, alluding to the IPCC’s iconic attribution statement, proudly proclaimed “clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.” Since 1979, the middle atmosphere has warmed (albeit less than predicted) while the stratosphere has cooled. This observed pattern matches the model-predicted vertical structure (“fingerprint”) of anthropogenic climate change.
Why is that evidence of anthropogenic warming? If the Sun were responsible for global warming, the stratosphere should also get warmer. But if warming is due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the troposphere, then the stratosphere should cool because more upwelling heat is trapped in the layer beneath it.
Santer et al., however, chose their words carefully — perhaps artfully. A “discernible human influence” can include the cooling effects of manufactured substances, chiefly hydroflourocarbons, that destroy ozone in the troposphere. Ozone is itself a greenhouse (heat absorbing) gas. So some significant part of stratospheric cooling could be due to ozone depletion rather than to greenhouse gas emissions trapping more heat in the troposphere. A study cited by the Santer team, led by one of its co-authors, acknowledges that possibility:
In the mid and upper stratosphere the simulated natural and combined anthropogenic responses are detectable and consistent with observations, but the influences of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances could not be separately detected in our analysis.
Sixth, when read in context, “reposition as theory, rather than fact” refers not to anthropogenic warming per se but to the prediction “that higher levels of carbon dioxide will bring a catastrophic global warming.” For example, an ICE document quotes then University of Virginia climatologist Patrick Michaels: “I am one of many scientists who believe the vision of catastrophic global warming is distorted.”
The key climate science question for policymakers and citizens is not whether anthropogenic global warming is real but whether, in Al Gore’s words, climate change is “a planetary emergency — a crisis that threatens the survival of civilization and the habitability of the Earth.” The climate alarm narrative was not a “fact” in 1991 and certainly is not today.
Mounting evidence indicates that the climate is substantially less sensitive (reactive) to greenhouse gas emissions than “consensus” science had assumed. The oft-asserted link between warming and extreme weather continues to elude researchers. More importantly, the climate trilogy of terror – ocean circulation collapse, rapid ice sheet disintegration, and runaway climate change (the methane “bomb”) – has far less scientific plausibility today than it did in 1991.**
Gore and other climate campaigners have been trying for decades to reposition fear as fact. Their j’accuse directed at skeptics is Orwellian.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
* In colloquial English, a “theory” is any supposition or hypothesis, which may or may not jibe with “facts” or observations. In strict scientific parlance, however, a “theory” is the highest form of cognition. As one commentator explains:
A theory is really one of the pinnacles of science – what nearly everyone strives to make out of their hypotheses. A hypothesis is elevated to a theory when it has withstood all attempts to falsify it. Experiment after experiment has shown it sufficient to explain all observations that it encompasses. In other words, a “theory” has never been shown to be false, despite – usually – hundreds if not thousands of separate attempts to break it. It explains the observations with one or more mechanisms and, because it provides that mechanism, it is considered to be above the level of a Law.
** For references to the peer-reviewed literature, see pp. 23-26 of the free-market organizations’ comment letter on the social cost of carbon.
January 26th, 2014
|04:31 pm - Pounding bilderberg's prototype world gov't facade, the EU|
Euroskeptics may overtake EU Parliament ...but differences between them start to emerge...
Yesterday, Russia Today released a story – perhaps a slightly exaggerated story – painting Nigel Farage's UKIP, The United Kingdom Independence Party, as the strongest party in the U.K. according to recent polls.
This claim suggests that there are nonzero chances to win the May 2014 elections to the European Parliament and perhaps some later national polls, too. That's quite a success for this relatively new, Euroskeptical and climate skeptical party. They may overshadow the Conservatives, the Labor Party, and the Liberals, too. Meanwhile, lots of other fun discussions surround the UKIP. Nigel Farage claims that all the weird UKIP politicians (who say that trains have to be repainted, ladies can't play board and card games, and – most interestingly – floods were caused by gay marriages) have been imported from the Conservative Party. ;-)
The Counterstream [Protiproud], the contrarevolutionary daily of Mr Petr Hájek, a Christian and a former Czech President Klaus aide whom I will discuss in a moment, published a very interesting analysis of a "possible shock that may shatter Brussels" in Spring 2014.
The "Brussels insiders" are called the Bilderberg group, after the Bilderberg annual meetings where the elite of Euro-naive, politically correct European politicians and celebrities gather. According to the Counterstream, they may be waiting for a shock in May as their "Christian Democratic" and socialist parties lose big.
( Read more...Collapse )
|01:32 am - Kill democracy (if you can find such) and use communism to cure phantom AGW|
UNFCC boss: democracy is "very detrimental" for war on AGWChinese communism is the best decision-making system
Bloomberg published a remarkable story yesterday:
Top Global Emitter China Best on Climate Change, Figueres Says (main link, click)
The chairwoman of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Ms Christiana Figueres of Costa Rica has concluded that "the political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is very detrimental to the fight against global warming" while "China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S.".
( Read more...Collapse )
January 25th, 2014
|11:40 pm - Truth outs (via Cooler Heads)|
At Last: A Report on the Social Benefits of Carbon
( Read more...Collapse )
Although invented by academics curious about the economic implications of climate models, social cost of carbon analysis quickly became a form of computer-aided sophistry. Its political function is to hoodwink the gullible into believing that fossil fuels are unaffordable no matter how cheap and that so-called renewable energy technologies (chiefly wind and solar power) are a bargain at any price.
The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate of the damage supposedly inflicted on society by the emission of a ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) in a given year. SCC estimates derive from a host of assumptions about highly speculative issues including: climate sensitivity (how much warming results from a given increase in CO2 concentrations); the impacts of warming on weather patterns, ice-sheet dynamics, and eco-system services; the economic impacts of the latter on agriculture and other climate-sensitive industries; and how human adaptive capabilities will evolve (how technology will develop) as the world warms. In addition, because the SCC is a guesstimate of cumulative damage over time, modelers can get big, scary-sounding numbers just by selecting low discount rates to calculate the present value of future projected damages.
November 21st, 2013
|07:50 pm - CCNet 20/11/13: Poor Countries Walk Out Of UN Climate Summit|
Poor Countries Walk Out Of UN Climate Summit
The Price Of Climate Hysteria
West Faces Liability Claims For Extreme Weather Disasters
Representatives of most of the world's poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015. The orchestrated move by the G77 and China bloc of 132 countries came during talks about "loss and damage" – how countries should respond to climate impacts that are difficult or impossible to adapt to, such as typhoon Haiyan. --John Vidal, The Guardian, 20 November 2013
( Click here to read more or click the title to go to the pageCollapse )
November 20th, 2013
|10:37 am - Ethanol. Corn Ethanol. Social Cost of Carbon.|
EPA Scales Back Ethanol Mandate for First Time!
For the first time in the history of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, the Environmental Protection Agency today proposedto scale back the government’s overall biofuel blending target for the forthcoming year. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to cut the 2014 blending target from 18.15 billion gallons to 15.21 billion gallons.( Click here to read more or click the title to go to the pageCollapse )
Market realities forced the agency’s hand. Like all central planning schemes, there comes a point where even the commissar has to admit that it’s just not working.
Cooler Heads http://www.globalwarming.org/
November 19th, 2013
|02:07 am - CCNet 18/11/13 - 10 New Coal-Fired Power Stations|
Germany To Open 10 New Coal-Fired Power Stations
British Prime Minister Stokes Climate Row Steag GmbH started Germany’s first new power plant fueled by hard coal in eight years, allowing the generator and energy trader to take advantage of near record-low coal prices that have widened profit margins. The plant is the first new hard-coal-fired generator in Europe’s biggest power market since 2005. It marks the start of Germany’s biggest new-build program for hard coal stations since its liberalization in 1998. Ten new hard-coal power stations, or 7,985 megawatts, are scheduled to start producing electricity in the next two years, according to information from German grid regulator Bundesnetzagentur and operators. --Julia Mengewein, Bloomberg, 15 November 2013
.( Click here to read more or click the title to go to the pageCollapse )
On the Fukushima issue, have any of the authorities considered walling off a part of the sea around the site so that the leaked radioactive water can be detained?
November 17th, 2013
|12:38 pm - CCNet 15/11/13 Japan Stuns UN Climate Summit|
Japan Stuns UN Climate Summit By Ditching CO2 Target
Rich Nations Block Push To Count Past CO2 Emissions At UN Climate SummitJapan set a new target for greenhouse gas emissions that critics say will set back United Nations talks for a treaty limiting fossil fuel emissions. The new target effectively reverses course from the goal set four years ago by allowing a 3.1 per cent increase in emissions from 1990 levels rather than seeking a 25 per cent cut. --Bloomberg, 15 November 2013
( Click here to read more or click the title to go to the pageCollapse )
Perhaps the next "climate control for crackpots and the gullible" meeting should be held in Tokyo and the topic, something real and achievable - limiting radiation emissions. The continuation of the CO2 con appears to be for justifying the IPCC's existence and expenses paid 5 star holidays for beyond their sack by date politicians and civil servants. CO2 emissions keep increasing, temperatures don't. If there was ever any connection it no longer exists. Everything, taxes, boondoggles like windmills, solar panels, carbon capture, ethanol from food crops, CO2 regulation junkets, chem trails is a con imposed by complicit, irresponsible and criminal politicians advised by NGO members that should at the very least be banned from any public position. Many should be in jail.
The activist and jobsworth scientists and IPCC members that have provided bent science and biased opinion expressed through PC models and ARs in support of the CO2 con should be banned from getting public funds.
November 15th, 2013
|12:58 pm - High-cost, low-density, intermittent energy - wind and solar|
Re-Revised King James Bible for the Green InvestorMarlo Lewis
( Click here to read more or click the title to go to the pageCollapse )Psalm 1705
1 The DOE is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to profit from green ventures: he leadeth me beside the still turbines.
3 He restoreth my capital: he leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his name’s sake.
4 Yea, though I invest in the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy grants and loan guarantees they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a subsidy before me in the presence of my competitors: thou anointest my fund with ethanol; my budget runneth over.
6 Surely tax breaks and privilege shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of big government forever.globalwarming.org/2013/11/14/re-revised-king-james-bible-for-green-investors
November 14th, 2013
|02:09 pm - CCNet 14/11/13: Obama Administration Fears Climate Compensation Claims|
Obama Administration Fears Climate Compensation Claims
US Administration Reneges On $100 Billion Climate Funding Pledge
US officials fear that international climate change talks will become focused on payouts for damage caused by extreme weather events exacerbated by global warming, such as the category 5 Typhoon Haiyanthat hit the Philippines last week killing thousands of people and causing what is expected to be billions of pounds of damage. An official US briefing document obtained by the Guardian reveals that the country is worried the UN negotiations, currently under way in Warsaw, will "focus increasingly on blame and liability" and poor nations will be "seeking redress for climate damages from sea level rise, droughts, powerful storms and other adverse impacts". --Stephen Leahy, The Guardian, 13 November 2013
( Read more...Collapse )
November 13th, 2013
|02:30 pm - CCNet 13/11/13 Lessons from Typhoon Haiyan|
Lessons from Typhoon Haiyan
Why Global Warming Should Not Be Blamed For The Disaster In The Philippines
According to news reports, Typhoon Haiyan, which struck the Philippines a few days ago, is now overshadowing the UN climate summit in Warsaw. Some delegates and climate campaigners have been quick to suggest that global warming was to blame for this disaster. Nothing could be further from the truth. --Benny Peiser, The Spectator, 12 November 2013
( Read more...Collapse )
November 12th, 2013
|08:30 am - CCNet 11/11/13: AU rejects socialism masquerading as environmentalism|
Australia Says 'No' To $100 Billion Climate Fund
Funding Drought Threatens UN Climate AgreementThe federal cabinet has ruled that Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this week's global summit on climate change, in a significant toughening of its stance as it plans to move within days to repeal the carbon tax. This rules out Australia playing any role in a wealth transfer from rich countries to developing nations to pay them to decrease their carbon emissions. The decision hardens the nation's approach to the UN's negotiations amid a renewed push from less-developed countries this week for $100 billion a year in finance to deal with climate change. --Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 11 November 2013
Australia's cabinet ministers have decided to reject any measures of "socialism masquerading as environmentalism" after meeting last week to consider a submission on the position the government would take to the Warsaw conference. --Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 11 November 2013
( Read more...Collapse )
November 10th, 2013
|11:14 am - Profit from boondoggles for the wealthy and foreigners no matter what the cost to the poor|
New Green tax threat in energy bills 'deal' Tim Ross
Ed Davey, the Environment Secretary, says there will be no cap on wind farms, as he insists that Green levies must stay and might have to be paid through taxes
New taxes to pay for environmental schemes are being considered as part of a deal to cut household energy bills, it can be disclosed.
The taxpayer would foot the bill for two of the “green” schemes, all of which are currently paid for through a levy on gas and electricity bills.
( Read more...Collapse )
Why not sack Ed Davey and build gas fired power stations on fracking sites? Using the gas exclusively for the power station would mean far slower extraction allowing the well time to replenish as gas is extracted and so giving it a longer life. When the well is finally exhausted the power station can be supplied from other sources.
November 8th, 2013
|06:04 pm - CCNet 07/11/13 Thumbs down for global CO2 tax|
Hopes Fade For Legally Binding Climate Deal
China Asks Rich Nations To Commit To $100 Billion Annual Climate FundWorld governments are likely to recoil from plans for an ambitious 2015 climate change deal at talks next week, concern over economic growth at least partially eclipsing scientists’ warnings of rising temperatures and water levels. Many governments, especially in Europe, are concerned that climate policies, such as generous support schemes for solar energy, push up consumer energy bills. Emerging economies such as China and India, heavily reliant on cheap, high-polluting coal to end poverty, are reluctant to take the lead despite rising emissions and pollution that are choking cities. --Alister Doyle and Nina Chestney, Reuters, 7 November 2013
( Read more...Collapse )
November 7th, 2013
|01:16 pm - Cooler Heads notes for windmill advocates|
Gone with the Wind: Is an Energy Technology Sustainable If It Cannot Sustain Itself?
(Note to readers: CEI research associate Anthony Ward is the author of this post.)
If this past year is any indication, wind energy may become little more than a dream remembered. That is, unless the government continues to step in to support the industry. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), only seventy mw of wind power was added to the nation’s power supply; the slowest increase since recordkeeping began in 2005. The cause of the decrease in the rate of expansion is attributed to uncertainty building up at the end of last year over whether there would be an extension of the Federal Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) in 2013.
Tom Kiernan, the CEO of AWEA, describes last year’s uncertainty as engendering a boom-bust cycle, delaying the planning of new projects for 2013. What Kiernan says, however, is misleading. It is not the uncertainty over the wind PTC that created this problem. The problem comes from the wind energy boom generated by the cash grant program of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or section 1603.( Read more...Collapse )
|08:32 am - CCNet 06/11/13 John Howard Lecture|
John Howard: Global Warming Battle ‘Has Become A Religion’
Former Prime Minister Of Australia Delivers Annual GWPF Lecture
An overriding feature of the climate debate is the constant attempt to intimidate policy makers, in some cases successfully, with the mantras of “follow the science” and “the science is truly settled”. The purpose is to create the impression that there is really no room for argument; this is not really a public policy issue; it is one on which the experts have spoken, and we would all be quite daft to do other than follow the prescriptions, it is asserted, which flow automatically from the scientific findings.
Scientists are experts in science. Judges are experts in interpreting the law and doctors are skilled at keeping us healthy-provided we take their advice. But parliaments – composed of elected politicians are the experts at public policy making, and neither expressly or impliedly should they ever surrender that role to others.
--John Howard: One Religion Is Enough - 2013 Annual GWPF Lecture London 5 November 2013
( Read more...Collapse )
November 6th, 2013
|11:31 am - Cooler Heads cure for high temperature hallucinations|
Updated Antidote to Climate Hysteria
This post links to a Power Point presentation I’ll be giving tomorrow to CEI’s fall 2013 interns. It is similar to a presentation I gave to our summer interns in August but includes a few more slides and references.( Read more...Collapse )
November 5th, 2013
|11:43 am - CCNet 01/11/13 Re Global Cooling|
UK Government: ‘No Global Cooling Over The Next Several Centuries’
Dispute Over Relevance Of Falling Solar ActivityTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the likelihood and timing of any future phase of global cooling, and (2) the potential impact on the United Kingdom and global economies of any future extensive glaciation; and what precautionary plans they have to limit any damage they predict to the United Kingdom economy and its people from any such extensive glaciation. --Lord Donoughue, House of Lords, 23 October 2013
The UK government has made substantial investment in research that concerns the likelihood and timing of future changes in global and regional climate… The slow changes in the Earth’s orbit are not, however, expected to cause any net global cooling over the next several centuries, which will be dominated by a warming global climate due to greenhouse gas emissions. --The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma), House of Lords, 23 October 2013
Solar activity is falling more rapidly than at any time in the past 10,000 years, increasing the risk of a repeat of the Maunder Minimum which coincided with the “little ice age” of the 1600s, according to research by a leading British climate scientist. BBC reports on work by Mike Lockwood of Reading University have sparked furious debate about the implications of weaker solar activity for the climate. David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation said solar activity was an ongoing area of research, with the weak effect seen by Professor Lockwood in the data between low solar activity and severe cold winters in Europe questioned by other researchers, who had failed to find such a connection. --Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 1 November 2013
( Read more...Collapse )
November 4th, 2013
|11:46 am - CCNet 30/10/13 'Little Ice Age'?|
Growing Risk Of A Maunder Minimum 'Little Ice Age'?
Solar Activity Drops To 100-Year Low, Puzzling Scientists
A leading British climate scientist claims the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there is now a real risk of a ‘Little Ice Age’. The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum. Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%. --Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 28 October 2013
The sun is ‘quietening’ really rapidly. We think it is actually quietening more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. So this is a major change. We think lower solar activity does seem to tie up with more cold winters in central Europe and the UK. –- Professor Michael Lockwood, BBC TV 28 October 2013
( Read more...Collapse )
November 3rd, 2013
|11:38 am - CCNet 28/10/13 Has David Cameron Become ‘More Lawsonian’?|
Financial Times: Britain’s Energy Market Needs Perestroika
Where the politics of climate change are concerned, the Cameroons have been on a long journey which is about to reach, if not its terminus, then a very significant station. Greenery was at the heart of early Cameronism, a means of connecting modernity to the Tory party’s ancestral love of the countryside. Cameron said he wanted to lead “the greenest government ever”. Yet, as I recount in my book on the Coalition, In It Together, Osborne was never persuaded even of the science – the orthodoxy reaffirmed in September by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – preferring the sceptical analysis of his mentor and predecessor at the Treasury, Nigel Lawson. --Matthew D’Ancona, The Sunday Telegraph, 27 October 2013
When Ian MacGregor and I interviewed David Cameron a month ago, on the eve of the Tories’ conference, he specifically denied that he had become “more Lawsonian” and compared the price paid by the taxpayer and consumer for green policies to an insurance premium. Last Wednesday, however, the PM’s announcement suggested that in the three-way debate on greenery between Cameron, Osborne and Clegg, the Chancellor is prevailing. --Matthew D’Ancona, The Sunday Telegraph, 27 October 2013
( Read more...Collapse )
November 2nd, 2013
|02:29 pm - CCNet 23/10/13 Cameron Calls For Roll-Back Of Green Energy Taxes |
Under-Fire Cameron Calls For Roll-Back Of Green Energy Taxes
Ineos CEO: ‘Britain's Heavy Energy Users Will Relocate Or Disappear’ “We need to roll back some of the green regulations and charges,” Mr Cameron said during Prime Minister’s Questions. --The Daily Telegraph, 23 October 2013
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron appeared to signal a major shift in energy policy today as he told MPs that the Goverment should “roll back” costly environmental regulations and charges brought in by the last Labour government. In a move likely to put him at odds with the Liberal Democrats, Mr Cameron said that green regulations introduced by Mr Miliband as Energy Secretary, which add to household energy bills, would have to be ditched. “We need to roll back some of the green regulations and charges that push up our bills. We all know who put them in place,” he said. --Philippe Naughton, The Times, 23 October 2013
( Read more...Collapse )
|12:51 am - CCNet 22/10/13 New Record Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent|
NASA Announces New Record Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent
IPCC's Climate Models Predicted Melting
Quite astonishingly, Antarctic sea ice has set another record for maximum extent, beating the previous record of 19.513 million sq km, set on 21st September this year. What makes the new record so astonishing is that it was set in October, on the 1st. Climatologically, the maximum extent is reached on 22nd September, so it is most unusual for the ice still to be growing 10 days later. Global sea ice area is also above normal, as it has been for much of the year. --Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 19 October 2013
( Read more...Collapse )
October 18th, 2013
|06:07 pm - CCNet 18/10/13 Panic Over!|
Why Global Warming Is Good For The World
Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. -Matt Ridley, The Spectator, 19 October 2013
( Read more...Collapse )