People for the West -Tucson
Newsletter, March, 2020
PO Box 86868, Tucson, AZ 85754-6868
Real environmentalism can go hand in hand with natural resource production, private property rights, and access to public lands
Climate Reality versus the Political Scam
by Jonathan DuHamel
Since climate change has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, I present here some real science in a series of articles starting with my Wryheat blog article: A Review of the State of Climate Science. This article provides a quick reference to some of my articles dealing with climate so that you can cite facts to counter the ongoing scam.
This issue of the newsletter also discusses energy issues such as what would happen if natural gas and oil production by fracking were banned. (Fracking: Hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation technique in which rock is fractured by a pressurized liquid. The process involves the high-pressure injection of ‘fracking fluid’ into a wellbore to create cracks in the deep-rock formations through which natural gas, petroleum, and brine will flow more freely.)
A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans
Dr. Mototaka Nakamura says:
The climate models are useful tools for academic studies. However, the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting. The reason: These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction. (Read full post)
“Arctic Surprise…Sensational Study In Nature”: Large Part Of 20th Century Warming Attributed To CFCs!
By P Gosselin
A few days ago, an international research group from the USA, Canada and Switzerland led by Lorenzo Polvani of Columbia University (New York) published a sensational study in Nature climate change, which attributes a large part of the warming of the 20th century to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),“Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming caused by ozone-depleting substances.”
Using 10 climate models, the researchers calculated the global and Arctic temperature development, once with CFCs in the atmosphere and once without. According to these models, from 1955 to 2005, global temperatures increase by 0.59 °C with CFCs and by 0.39 °C without CFCs. One third of the warming is therefore not caused by CO2 but by the CFCs. If the remaining warming for CO2 is converted over the five decades, an average warming of 0.08 °C per decade remains. Not exactly a lot. CFCs have a 19000-23000 times stronger forcing than CO2. (Read more)
New Study shows that impact of carbon dioxide rising to 700 ppm is about 0.5°C
As reported by Kenneth Richard, NoTricksZone, a new study (Stallinga, 2020 Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere) assesses the climate sensitivity to rising CO2 concentrations is just 0.0014°C per ppm.
Dr. Peter Stallinga has published a comprehensive analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. He finds an inconsequential role for CO2. Doubling CO2 from 350 to 700 ppm yields a warming of less than 0.5°C. Feedbacks to warming are likely negative, as adding CO2 may only serve to speed up natural return-to-equilibrium processes. As for absorption-re-emission perturbation from CO2, “there is nothing CO2 would add to the current heat balance in the atmosphere.” (Read full paper , caution lots of math)
Paper’s conclusion: “we find that the alleged greenhouse effect cannot explain the empirical data—orders of magnitude are missing. Henry’s Law—out-gassing of oceans—easily can explain all observed phenomena. Moreover, the greenhouse hypothesis cannot explain the atmosphere on Mars, nor can it explain the geological data, where no correlation between CO2 and temperature is observed. Nor can it explain why a different correlation is observed in contemporary data of the last 60 years compared to historical data (600 thousand years). We thus reject the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, both on basis of empirical grounds as well as a theoretical analysis.”
The Futility of Action to Combat Climate Change: (1) Scientific and Engineering Reality
by Ralph B. Alexander
Amidst the clamor for urgent action to supposedly combat climate change, the scientific and engineering realities of such action are usually overlooked. Let’s imagine for a moment that we humans are indeed to blame for global warming and that catastrophe is imminent without drastic measures to curb fossil fuel emissions – views not shared by climate skeptics like myself.
In this and the subsequent blog post, I’ll show how proposed mitigation measures are either impractical or futile. Even if all countries were to follow through with their voluntary contributions to the Paris Agreement, the actual mitigation of global warming by 2100 would be at most only about 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.4 degrees Fahrenheit).(Read more)
Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC
by Antero Ollila, Physical Science International Journal 22(2): 19 Jan. 2019
The main objective of this study is to analyze the GH (greenhouse) contribution effects of different sky conditions and new contribution effects that had not been considered in the earlier studies. Energy fluxes of different sky conditions are needed in the GH effect analysis. Therefore, the Earth’s annual mean energy budget has been updated. Water vapor dominates (76.4%) the total greenhouse effect whereas CO2’s contribution is minimal (7.3%), and CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.6°C upon doubling, about half the value used by the IPCC climate models. Clouds’ net effect is 1% based on the empirical observation. (full paper) (note: the paper is very technical and hard reading)
Media’s Horribly Dishonest Antarctica Propaganda
By Jim Steele
Attempting to reinforce the climate crisis narrative, a recent high temperature record in Antarctica has been misleadingly ballyhooed as an example of global warming by the world’s largest media outlets – New York Times, BBC, the Guardian, etc. Although the NY Times tries to sell their paper with the slogan “The Truth is Worth It”, their misleading articles suggest you should spend your money elsewhere. These media giants seem more intent on scaring the public and manufacturing a false climate crisis, than educating the public about the real physics that cause weather changes causing Antarctica’s temperature record! (Read more)
Related: On the fatal flaw of climate alarmism
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM (link)
NOAA and NASA can be counted on virtually every month or year end to religiously and confidently proclaim that the latest global average surface temperature (GAST) is among the warmest on record. Back in the 1970s when an assessment of a global temperature was first attempted, the scientists recognized that even land-only surface temperature data was a significant challenge given that most of the reliable data was limited to populated areas of the U.S, Europe and eastern China with just spotty often intermittent data from vast land areas elsewhere.
Temperatures over oceans, which covered 71% of the globe, were measured along shipping routes mainly in the Northern Hemisphere erratically and with varying measurement methods. Despite these shortcomings and the fact that absolutely no credible grid level temperature data existed over the period from 1880 to 2000 in the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans (covering 80.9% of the Southern Hemisphere), global average surface temperature data estimation and publication by NOAA and NASA began in the early 1990s.
To illustrate the problem, on January 16, 2020, the WSJ published a lead article by Robert Lee Hotz stating: “NASA, NOAA ranked 2019 as the second-hottest year in tracking data to 1880. The world experienced near-record global temperatures in 2019, federal climate scientists said. —.” This claim was made despite the fact that absolutely no credible temperature data exists over this period for more than 40% of the planet. (Read more)
Climate Change: Grand Solar Minimum May Bring Global Cool-down
by James Murphy
As globalists and their media advocates continue to propagandize apocalyptically about climate change and so-called anthropogenic global warming, some scientists are warning that another type of climate change is on its way. Earth may be in for conditions similar to the Little Ice Age, as it seems that the Sun is entering a prolonged solar minimum according to a prominent scientist.
Dr. Valentina Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in Newcastle, England, who also has a doctorate in astrophysics, is warning of a coming Grand Solar Minimum (GSM), similar to the Maunder Minimum that occurred from the mid-16th century until the early 17th century and coincided with a time on Earth known as the Little Ice Age. “The Sun is approaching a hibernation period,” said Professor Zharkova. “Less sunspots will be formed on the solar surface and thus less energy and radiation will be emitted toward the planets and Earth.” “But this is only the start of GSM,” Zharkova stressed. “there is more to come in the next 33 years.” (Read more)
Economic Impact of Energy Consumption Change Caused by Global Warming
by Peter A. Lang and Kenneth B. Gregory
Abstract: This paper tests the validity of the FUND (Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution) model’s energy impact functions, and the hypothesis that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would negatively impact the global economy. Empirical data of energy expenditure and average temperatures of the US states and census divisions are compared with projections using the energy impact functions with non-temperature drivers held constant at their 2010 values. The empirical data indicates that energy expenditure decreases as temperatures increase, suggesting that global warming, by itself, may reduce US energy expenditure and thereby have a positive impact on US economic growth. These findings are then compared with FUND energy impact projections for the world at 3 °C of global warming from 2000. The comparisons suggest that warming, by itself, may reduce global energy consumption. If these findings are correct, and if FUND projections for the non-energy impact sectors are valid, 3 °C of global warming from 2000 would increase global economic growth. In this case, the hypothesis is false and policies to reduce global warming are detrimental to the global economy. We recommend the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Our analysis and conclusions warrant further investigation. (Read full paper)
Will Humanity Ever Reach 2XCO2? Possibly Not
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Energy Information Agency (EIA) projects a growth in energy-based CO2 emissions of +0.6%/yr through 2050. But translating future emissions into atmospheric CO2 concentration requires a global carbon budget model.
I have always assumed that we are on track for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (“2XCO2”), if not 3XCO2 or 4XCO2. After all, humanity’s CO2 emissions continue to increase, and even if they stop increasing, won’t atmospheric CO2 continue to rise? It turns out, the answer is probably “no”. The rate at which nature removes CO2 from the atmosphere, and what controls that rate, makes all the difference.
I previously presented a simple time-dependent CO2 budget model of global atmospheric CO2 concentration that uses (1) yearly anthropogenic CO2 emissions, along with (2) the central assumption (supported by the Mauna Loa CO2 data) that nature removes CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate in direct proportion to how high atmospheric CO2 is above some natural level the system is trying to ‘relax’ to.
Spencer’s model reaches an equilibrium CO2 concentration of 541 ppm in the mid-2200s. (Read full post)
Over 440 Scientific Papers Published In 2019 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
By Kenneth Richard
In 2019, more than 440 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources. (Read more) ☼
SOME CLIMATE CRAZINESS
Rising CO2 levels may hinder cognitive function and could decrease decision-making efficiency by 50 percent in 2100, study says
By James Pero, Dailymail.com
Rational thought may eventually become a victim climate change according to a new study.
[It appears that many politicians are already suffering the effects, see articles below.]
Research presented by scientists at the annual American Geophysical Union and submitted to the journal GeoHealth suggests that increased CO2 may soon diminish humans’ capacity to think clearly. Human cognitive performance declines with an increase in CO2, the researchers wrote in the paper. (Read more)
But: Navy submarine service says:
“We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.” – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer
Yale Says Fracking Causes Sexually-Transmitted Diseases
By Josh Bloom
Researchers from the Yale School of Public Health published one of the dumbest papers we’ve ever seen. They claim that some areas in which fracking takes place (Texas only) have more sexually transmitted diseases. Embarrassingly funny and, yes, “fracking” stupid. (Read more)
Oh noes! Global warming to make shrimp louder
BY Anthony Watts
From “the ocean called and they’re running out of quiet shrimp” department comes this pointless excuse for using grant money. Science spoiler alert: cold blooded animals get more active when they are warmer. Call the Nobel committee!
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, San Diego: One of the ocean’s loudest creatures is smaller than you’d expect–and will get even louder and more troublesome to humans and sea life as the ocean warms, according to new research presented here at the Ocean Sciences Meeting 2020.
Snapping shrimp create a pervasive background crackling noise in the marine environment. Scientists suspect the sound helps the shrimp communicate, defend territories and hunt for food. When enough shrimp snap at once, the noise can dominate the soundscape of coastal oceans, sometimes confusing sonar instruments. (Read more)
What if Hydraulic Fracking was Banned?
The recent growth in U.S. oil and natural gas production has been a boon to both our economy and the environment. From new jobs and higher tax revenues to lower energy costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, there is no question the shale energy renaissance has greatly improved America’s energy outlook.
Recently, however, some candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled this boom – hydraulic fracturing (HF), or fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if hydraulic fracturing was banned? In this report, the Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question. Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.
Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.
Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump for gasoline as oil prices spike to $130 per barrel. The report also details the impacts that a ban would have on seven states, including five that are major energy producers – Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. (Read full report)
Harvard study finds wind turbines warm the U.S.
The Harvard scientists observed that the interaction of wind turbines and the atmosphere slow down the wind as wind energy is extracted by turbines. This has a warming effect on temperatures. Moreover, they found that many of the best locations for wind turbines are already utilized. This means future wind power installations will utilize lower-quality locations requiring many more turbines and much more land development to produce as the same amount of wind power. As a result, the study determined that current government and industry estimates of wind power production per turbine are significantly inflated. (Read more)
The Green bridge to nowhere
By Peter Murphy, CFACT
Mankind’s attempt to control the climate is going to be very, very costly – to you. Even worse, there is no guarantee of any benefit, environmental, planetary, or otherwise.
Every version of the Green New Deal proposed by various politicians will cost trillions of taxpayer dollars in the near term, which the politicians themselves acknowledge. What will such massive costs buy for America? Not much. More likely, it will benefit nothing and no one – not the consumer, not the worker, and likely not the planet. That makes this investment not just a bad bet; it is reckless. (Read more)
Brief Details How The ‘Green New Deal’ Would Be An Environmental Disaster
By Tim Benson
Massive Plan Would Cause Serious Environmental And Ecological Harm.
A new Heartland Institute Policy Brief warns that the implementation of the “Green New Deal” (GND), introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and championed by other leading members of the Democratic Party, would cause serious environmental and ecological harm. This is primarily due to the massive land use of “renewable” energy sources such as wind and solar power and the amount of rare earth minerals that would need to be mined to manufacture these energy sources. (Read more) This post also provides links to several other papers on subjects such as:
The Green New Deal: A Grave Threat to the American Economy, Environment, and Freedom
The 100 Percent Renewable Energy Myth
See also: Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked This post shows a map of the enormous land requirements of wind and solar installations required to replace fossil fuel generated electricity. ☼
“To boil down the essential difference between conservative and liberal governing philosophy into the simplest terms, it would be this: Conservatives believe in equal opportunity.
Liberals believe in equal outcome.” – Steve Feinstein (Link to article)
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” —Thomas Jefferson (1823)
Ronald Reagan’s admonition: “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
“In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend.” —Alexander Hamilton (1788)
* * *
1) Support private property rights.
2) Support multiple use management of federal lands for agriculture, livestock grazing, mining, oil and gas production, recreation, timber harvesting and water development activities.
3) Support a balance of environmental responsibility and economic benefit for all Americans by urging that environmental policy be based on good science and sound economic principles.
Newsletters can be viewed online on Jonathan’s Wryheat Blog:
See my essay on climate change:
The Constitution is the real contract with America.
* * *
People for the West – Tucson, Inc.
PO Box 86868
Tucson, AZ 85754-6868
Jonathan DuHamel, President & Editor
Dr. John Forrester, Vice President
Lonni Lees, Associate Editor
People for the West – Tucson, Inc. is an Arizona tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation. Newsletter subscriptions are free.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.