Climate change

Science and Politics News Roundup 2022 September

A monthly review of climate, energy, environmental, and political policy issues

State of the Union

September 17 was Constitution Day, a time that commemorates the formation and signing of the U.S. Constitution by thirty-nine brave men on September 17, 1787. We should all reread the Constitution from time to time to remind ourselves of our rights, and the duties and limitations of our government. Our politicians, especially, should read and obey.

In the popular vernacular, people refer to “our democracy.” That is wrong. America is a Constitutional Republic which protects individual rights against a possible tyranny of the majority.

The U.S. currently is experiencing high inflation due to unwise and unconstitutional government spending. Read my article: Stop unconstitutional federal spending (link).

The Declaration of Independence lists a number of grievances which the Crown of England was imposing on Americans. Here’s one example:

“He has erected a Multitude of New Offices, and set hither Swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Well, it seems that our own federal government has swarms of officers, agencies, departments etc.

Apparently nobody knows exactly how many offices and agencies exist within the federal government. The Federal Register (in 2015) indicates there are over 430 departments, agencies, and sub-agencies in the federal government” Louisiana State University’s Federal Agency Directory lists over 1,300 distinct organizations across all three branches of federal government.

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (link)

See: Downsizing the Federal Government from the Cato Institute (link) This site is a gateway to reforming federal agencies.

See also: Heritage’s Budget Blueprint Shows Better Path Forward (link) ☼

Meanwhile:

On May 31, 2022, Biden announced the creation of an Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) to tackle climate-related issues “to protect the health of disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations on the frontlines of pollution.” The office will be part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and is within the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity.

Biden’s Department of the Interior has announced replacements for more than 600 names the Board on Geographic Names deems “racist and derogatory.” (Shades of George Orwell’s novel “1984″?)

Biden started handing out grants to rid us of racist highways (link).

The Internal Revenue Service Is Not the Only Armed Agency to Worry About

by Linnea Lueken, The Heartland Institute

Recent concerns over the 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees, including additions to its ranks of armed agents, have reignited debate over how necessary it is to have armed agents in certain departments of the federal bureaucracy.

Indeed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Postal Service, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and countless other federal agencies also have police divisions. Another unnecessarily militarized agency is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (Read more) ☼

Scammers Stole an Insane Amount of Pandemic Unemployment Money

by Katie Pavlich, Townhall

According to a new Department of Labor Inspector General report, scammers were able to steal nearly $46 billion in pandemic cash through state unemployment insurance [UI] programs. The office also found pandemic relief programs were vulnerable for abuse given how much money the federal government was quickly pushing out the door without proper accountability and tracking programs or mechanisms in place. (Read more) ☼

“Capitalism has been called a system of greed – yet it is the system that raised the standard of living of its poorest citizens to heights no collectivist system has ever begun to equal, and no tribal gang can conceive of.” — Ayn Rand

Political Editorials:

We Have Been Thinking about This All Wrong

By Kevin Lewis

Biden didn’t shut down oil and gas production in America (then plead to buy it from other countries) because of the climate or because he was seeking “green energy” (obviously, because we are still using oil and gas, just paying much more for it, and becoming beholden to other countries). It was done because it was one simple but very powerful way to weaken America (under the pretext of helping the climate or moving toward green energy). Not only has Joe Biden failed to fulfill his oath of office (to defend the U.S. from all enemies, foreign and domestic), but he (and the obviously intricate network of controlling governmental operatives) has intentionally and specifically disparaged and discarded it. (Read full article) ☼

Collapse of energy, food, transportation systems prompt calls for government nationalization of industries – Echoes 1930s push for Great Reset style reforms

by Mark Morano

The modus operandi of the “Great Reset” (AKA Build Back Better) is to intentionally collapse the current system with policies designed to create a crisis, havoc, and shortages. … Once the inevitable societal chaos ensues, a huge coordinated push to promote nationalization or government takeover of the impacted industries ensues. It is always claimed that the “free market” failed, and now only government can come in and clean up the mess. The advocates of nationalization usually bill it as a “temporary” nationalization of the industries, much like “15 days to slow the spread” or “2 weeks to flatten the curve” were billed as temporary measures. … (Read more) ☼

The Biden Administration Is Taking From the Poor and Giving to the Rich

by Veronique de Rugy, Reason Magazine

If you had any doubts that those in power have dropped the pretense of fighting for the working class, you can dispense with them after President Joe Biden administration’s latest concessions to the laptop class. From student loan forgiveness to subsidies for people who drive pricey electric cars and profitable semiconductor company CEOs, this administration is working hard to shower its friends with handouts paid for by hardworking lower-wage Americans. (Read more) ☼

Beware of Bureaucrats Bearing Gifts

By George C. Leef, Cato Institute

Thomas Jefferson wrote that, in order to prevent government from becoming tyrannical, it was necessary to “tie it down with the chains of the Constitution.” But over the centuries, those who want an expansive government have loosened the Framers’ chains in many ways. In his new book Purchasing Submission, Columbia University law professor Philip Hamburger explores one of those ways: the federal government’s using money and power to augment its control over Americans. He makes a persuasive case that those tactics have enabled it to undermine federalism and freedom. (Read more) ☼

A message from the National Mining Association:

Now More than Ever: Mineral Security Means National Security. The U.S. will need ever increasing amounts of minerals produced domestically. How do we achieve a strategic advantage? By reforming permitting for the production of domestic minerals mining.

Mineral demand has never been higher and is poised to grow exponentially to meet the needs for new technologies, infrastructure, manufacturing, and energy generation. Despite the immediate need for massive amounts of these materials and the fact that we have them in abundance here at home, it still takes more than ten years to permit a mine here in the U.S., forcing us to look abroad – most often to geopolitical rivals – for the mineral resources that are essential to our supply chains.

Let’s look for opportunities for permitting reform instead of artificially limiting our national domestic mineral supply chain.

Continuing to streamline the permitting process through commonsense steps like increasing coordination and reducing duplication between federal and state agencies, setting and adhering to reliable schedules and timelines for permit review, and transparently tracking progress to provide accountability, will all make a difference. Where we can encourage – without eroding the competitiveness of – U.S. manufacturers to use U.S.-produced materials, we should do so. ☼

ENERGY ISSUES

Fossil Fuels are the Greenest Energy Sources

by Indur M. Goklany

Contrary to the claims of proponents of the “Green New Deal” and “Net Zero”, fossil fuels are the greenest fuels.

First, uniquely among energy sources, fossil fuel use emits CO2, which is the ultimate source of the elemental building block, carbon, found in all carbon-based life, i.e., virtually all life on Earth.

Satellite studies also show that the earth has been greening continually in recent decades. Second, fossil fuel dependent technologies have increased agricultural yields directly or indirectly by at least 167%. This increase in agricultural productivity is due to the use of fossil-fuel-dependent technologies, specifically, nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides and carbon dioxide fertilization resulting from fossil fuel emissions. This has enabled human beings to meet their demands for food using less cropland, which then spares land for the rest of nature. Thus, in the absence of fossil fuels, at least 167% more land would have to be cultivated to maintain global food production at current levels. (Read more) ☼

How To Fix America’s Electricity Emergency

by Alex Epstein

America’s grid is in decline and about to get far worse due to policies that 1) reward unreliable electricity, 2) prematurely shut down coal plants, 3) criminalize nuclear, and 4) force EV use.

The root cause of our grid’s reliability problems is simple: America is shutting down too many reliable power plants—plants that can be controlled to produce electricity when needed in the exact quantity needed. And it is attempting to replace them with unreliable solar and wind. (Read more) A reliable grid is a foundation of our quality of life. Our lives depend on ultra-reliable electricity for the refrigerators that preserve our food, the water treatment plants that keep our water drinkable, the air conditioning that keeps us cool, the factories that produce our goods, etc. ☼

The ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ Is A 4-Step Recipe For Wrecking US Energy

by Alex Epstein

Want to know whether a candidate is truly supportive of American energy? Here’s one simple test: Did they oppose the “Inflation Reduction Act”? If not, then they supported one of the most destructive energy policies in American history. (Read more) ☼

Update On Europe’s Self-Inflicted Energy Crisis

by Francis Menton

Europeans are experiencing energy shortages and skyrocketing price increases. (Read more) See also: Cost Of The Green Energy Transition: Who You Gonna Believe, Some Research Assistants From Oxford Or Your Lyin’ Eyes? (link)☼

Biden Energy Policies: Incoherent, Incompetent, Intolerable

by Paul Driessen

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. EPA is truly a landmark ruling. It decisively rejected the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to use vague, “previously little-used” language in the Clean Air Act to shutter America’s remaining coal-fired power plants and force the nation to switch to pseudo-renewable energy, in the name of ending the “manmade climate crisis.”

But the decision goes much further. The Court made it clear that federal agencies may not impose “major federal actions,” decide “major questions” or implement “transformative expansions” of their regulatory authority without specific statutory authority clearly conferred by Congress.

In other words, federal agencies do not have the power or right to take unilateral actions that effectively transform or undermine major sections of America’s energy, economic or agricultural systems, its industries or its living standards, unless Congress has given them explicit authority to do so.

Such enormously “transformational powers” belong to the American people, acting through legislators they elect to represent them – not to bureaucrats who are not elected and cannot easily be removed from office or otherwise disciplined and held accountable. (Read more) ☼

Global Decarbonization: Negative Agricultural Impacts

By Craig D. Idso

Taxing carbon dioxide emissions raises prices of many products including food. The agricultural sector of the economy relies on low-cost energy to produce food and other products necessary to sustaining life on the planet. As the costs to produce agricultural products increase, those costs are passed on to the consumer, thereby reducing disposable household income, which reduction also disproportionately burdens the poor. (Read more) ☼

Texas Grid Reliability: Gone With the Wind (and solar)

By Bill Peacock — September 14, 2022

“The solution to keeping the lights on in Texas is to stop politicians and regulators from micro-managing the Texas energy market. Texas politicians could do this by ending renewable energy subsidies in the state and making renewable companies pay for the costs they impose on the rest of us from their federal subsidies.” (Read more) ☼

U.S. oil and gas industry: 10 actions to reduce high energy prices that won’t cost taxpayers $740 billion

by Bethany Blankley, Heartland Institute

Rather than impose higher taxes and more restrictions on domestic production of oil and natural gas, as Senate Democrats voted to do by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, those in the industry proposed 10 actions policy makers can take right now to reduce costs. The industry says its solutions won’t cost taxpayers $740 billion, as the Inflation Reduction Act does, or increase the national debt or inflation, as 230 economists have warned the act will do. (Read more) ☼

Electric Cars Are Not “Zero-Emission Vehicles”

by James D. Agresti

The notion that electric vehicles are “zero-emission” is rooted in a deceptive narrative that ignores all pollutants which don’t come out of a tailpipe. Assessing the environmental impacts of energy technologies requires measuring all forms of pollution they emit over their entire lives, not a narrow slice of them. To do this, researchers perform “life cycle assessments” or LCAs (e.g., raw material extraction, material transportation, ultimate product disposal, etc.). Simply stated, switching to electric cars transfers pollution from urbanites in wealthy nations to poor countries that mine and manufacture their components and to communities with power plants and disposal sites. (Read more) ☼

Will an EV-Filled World Pass The Sulfuric Acid Test? An unexpected resource crunch over H2SO4 troubles experts

by RAHUL RAO

Look at the periodic table, and think of the elements needed for a prosperous planet powered by renewable energy. Sulfur likely won’t be the first to come to mind.

It probably doesn’t help the yellow element’s noxious reputation to learn that most of the world’s sulfur comes as a byproduct of refining fossil fuels. In a net-zero future, a future where petroleum and natural gas production enter terminal decline and never return to their past carbon-spewing heights, sulfur production will fall away, too.

Therein lies the problem. Sulfur—easily turned into sulfuric acid—is a necessary tool for creating fertilizer and extracting heavy metals from their ores before they can go into batteries, wind turbines, and electric vehicle components. Even as sulfur production is set to fall, sulfuric acid demand is set to rise. (Read more) ☼

China’s Coal-Fired Power Boom Is Soaring To New Levels

Wall Street Journal editorial board

An unspoken truth of the climate-change crusade is this: Anything the U.S. does to reduce emissions won’t matter much to global temperatures. U.S. cuts will be swamped by the increases in India, Africa, and especially China. Look no further than China’s boom in new coal-fired electricity. (Read more) ☼

Biden admin sides against Native Americans in crackdown on oil leasing near Indigenous site

by Thomas Catenacci

The Biden administration is expected to soon finalize a rule banning oil and gas leasing near a Native American historical site despite heavy opposition from local Indigenous leaders, who say the administration’s rule would prevent them from collecting royalties on their land. (Read more) ☼

Idiotic energy policies are now taking their toll with sky-high energy costs and insufficient supply forcing industries to cut back or close. See these reports:

“The Weaponization of Science: Politics, Vilification, and the Climate Debate” – Dr. Willie Soon (link to videos)

Why The Green Fantasies Of Our Ruling Class Are Finally Unravelling (link)

Elites Deny Reality As Europe’s Industrial Might Collapses (link)

Climate-Crazy Scotland Rejects Plans To Drill More To Help Ease Energy Crunch (link)

UK Energy Crisis Delays Coal Plant Closures, Fast-Tracks New Nuclear (link)

10 Facts Electric Vehicle Advocates Don’t Want You To Know (link) ☼

 

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Eating less Meat won’t save the Planet. Here’s Why

by Dr. Frank Mitloehner

See Video, 23 minutes ☼

Simple method destroys dangerous ‘forever chemicals,’ making water safe

from Science Daily

Using common reagents in heated water, chemists can ‘behead’ and break down PFAS, leaving only harmless compounds. (Read more) ☼

 

CLIMATE ISSUES

NOTE: see end of this section for background information about climate science. 

There is no climate emergency – a statement from CLINTEL

h/t Ron Clutz

►There is no climate emergency

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

►Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

►Warming is far slower than predicted.

The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

►Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

►CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide. Global warming has not increased natural disasters There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Net Benefit: Rising CO2 Improves Essential Crop Yields– Critical to Feeding The World

By Kenneth Richard

The elevated CO2 fertilization effect is driving global greening trends, pushing back deserts, enhancing photosynthesis by 30 to 50%, improving water use efficiency, and boosting crop yields by about 3% every year since 1961. (Read more) ☼

►Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.

Our advice to the European leaders is that Science should strive for a significantly better understanding of the Climate System, while Politics should focus on minimizing potential climate damage by priortizing adaptation strategies based on proven and affordable technologies.

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. (Read full report) ☼

See also: Climate Emergency Not Supported by Data, Say Four Leading Italian Scientists (link) ☼

50 Reasons to Re-Think Climate Policy

by Barry Brill,

Climate Policy is in crisis. This month, the G20 Climate Conference in Bali collapsed in confusion – preceded by the flops of both COP26 in Glasgow and COP25 in Madrid. Three decades of climate talks (52 weeks of Conferencing) have failed dismally – and the global objective of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions is no nearer being attained than it was at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY: Warming has paused; Change has been trivial; Climate models are unreliable; Islands are expanding etc. (Read more) ☼

Climate Alarmist Claim Fact Checks

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Below are a series of fact checks of the 13 most common climate claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report. (Read more) ☼

Despite Media Claims, Atlantic Hurricane Season Sets Records for Inactivity

By Anthony Watts

Back in May, many media outlets ran with this headline courtesy of a press release from NOAA:

NOAA predicts above-normal 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season. However:

Now, with August ending, and with no named storms in the Atlantic, according to records, this is the first August since 1997 to not feature any named tropical storms or hurricanes and only the 18th time on record going back to 1851. Data shows that globally, hurricane counts have remained unchanged since 1980. The year 2021 featured the fewest in that record. Also, we now have the lowest year-to-date Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index in the North Atlantic Ocean basin since 1941. (Read more) (Note: Hurricane season runs June through November every year, with August through October being the peak months for tropical cyclone events. The first hurricane of this season was in early September.) ☼

Greenland Ice Melt Scare

On the same day that CNBC ballyhooed a story in the journal Nature which claimed that 3.3 percent of Greenland’s ice sheet will melt, which would theoretically cause sea levels to rise about 10 inches between now and 2100; Greenland received a snowfall of 7 billion tons in one day. See two stories here and here. See also: Why “Zombie Ice” and other claims of Greenland ice melt raising sea levels are just modeled hokum. (link)

See also: Don’t Believe The Alarmist Hype About Antarctica’s Melting Glaciers (link) ☼

Polar Bear No Closer to Extinction Than It Was 18 Years Ago as Arctic Sea Ice Resists ‘Tipping Point’

by Dr. Susan Crockford

All predictions of disaster aside, in fact the polar bear is no closer to extinction than it was in 2005 as Arctic sea ice again steadfastly resists slipping past a catastrophic ‘tipping point’ — or the ‘death spiral’, as some chicken-littles continue to call it. In fact, the summer sea ice trend has been pretty much flat since 2007, with ice covering about 42% less area than it had done in 1979, yet polar bears in many regions are doing better now than they were in 2005, especially in Davis Strait, the Barents and Chukchi Seas and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. (Read more) ☼

See also: The Great Arctic Sea Ice Scam (link). Read about all the failed predictions. ☼

How Can The Globe Be Warming When Most Of The Southern Hemisphere Isn’t?

By Kenneth Richard

New research continues to document non-warming and even “robust cooling” trends for entire regions of the Southern Hemisphere in recent decades. Land surface temperature data compilations from the Southern Hemisphere (South America, Southwestern Andes, Tasmania, New Zealand, Australia) indicate that any warming during the 20th century occurred before 1980, with no obvious net warming since. (Read more) ☼

Lake Mead Low Water Levels, Part 2: Colorado River Inflow Variations and Trend

by Dr. Roy Spencer

Key Points:

►Contrary to claims that drought is causing Lake Mead water levels to fall, the Colorado River natural flows into Lake Mead show no long-term trend since 1930.

►Decadal time scale variations in river flow do occur, though, related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

►Since about 2000, use of Lake Mead water has exceeded river inflow, causing water levels to drop. The negative phase of the PDO since that time has exacerbated the problem.

(Read more) (Read part one Lake Mead Low Water Levels: Overuse, Not Climate Change) ☼

Systemic Error in Global Temperature Measurement

by Moritz Büsing

Some time ago I stumbled upon a curiosity in temperature measurement publications of the last 30 years: When you turn the temperature anomaly curves into absolute temperature curves then the past has been getting colder.

I found a systematic error in one of the most important analysis processes: homogenization.

Homogenization consists of removing stepwise breaks and trends in the data series that result from non-climate related sources. For example, relocating a weather station from the top of a mountain to the valley can cause a permanent offset in temperature measurements. Also using a new type of thermometer or a new type of housing of the thermometer can permanently change the measured temperatures. These changes lead to stepwise breaks in the data series. Other changes, such as urbanization, lead to non-climate related trend changes in the data series that are also permanent. These permanent errors are corrected by increasing or decreasing all the past data at a stepwise break such that the temperature curve becomes continuous. (Read more) ☼

Thoughts About Clouds And Water (Vapor)

By Dr. Lars Schernikau

Climate models are NOT capable of modeling clouds. Their resolution is too low and clouds are too complex. (Read more) ☼

Another source of carbon dioxide

Satellite based thermal scanning of the Earth’s Oceans by NASA have shown that there may be as many as 3 million volcanoes down under the Ocean. These volcanoes can warm the ocean and drive dissolved carbon dioxide into the air. (Source)

Rethinking the Greenhouse Effect

by William Kininmonth

A former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre is arguing that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has adopted an overly simplistic approach to global warming and has ended up exaggerating the human contribution to recent climate change. (Read full report) ☼

California’s Ill-Conceived EV ‘Leadership’

by Douglas Andrews, Patriot Post

The state just announced its plans for an all-electric vehicle future, but its electrical grid can’t even handle the present. (Read more) ☼

Diesel Powered Trucks Are Now Racist, According to California (link)

CLIMATE SCIENCE BACKGROUND:

Geologic evidence shows that Earth’s climate has been in a constant state of flux for more than 4 billion years. Nothing we do can stop that. Much of current climate and energy policy is based upon the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, which make up just 0.1% of total greenhouse gases, are responsible for “dangerous” global warming/climate change. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions have no significant effect on global temperature/climate. In fact, when there is an apparent correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been shown to follow, not lead, changes in Earth’s temperature. All efforts to reduce emissions are futile with regard to climate change, but such efforts will impose massive economic harm to Western Nations. The “climate crisis” is a scam. U.N officials have admitted that their climate policy is about money and power and destroying capitalism, not about climate. By the way, like all planetary bodies, the earth loses heat through infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases interfere with (block) some of this heat loss. Greenhouse gases don’t warm the Earth, they slow the cooling.

 

For more on climate science, see my Wryheat Climate articles:

Climate Change in Perspective

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why Co2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The High Cost of Electricity from Wind and Solar Generation

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

New study shows that carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked

Why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel will have no effect on climate ☼

 

“Before you make a case a general rule, test it two or three times and observe whether all experiments produce identical results.” – Leonardo da Vinci.

“The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party divisions and make them one people.” —Thomas Jefferson (1801)

“Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” —Benjamin Franklin (1722)

END

Science and Politics News Roundup 2022 July

A monthly review of climate, energy, and environmental policy issues

Keep this in mind:

“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last. A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” —Alexander Hamilton (1794)

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” —Joseph Story (1833)

“Americans rightly concerned with the drift of our public officials away from the constitutional principles that were designed to keep us a free people should not be looking to change the Constitution, but rather to enforce our Constitution. Why do we have so many members of Congress — and of our state legislatures — who are either ignorant of, or disdainful of, our Constitution?”- Steve Byas (2022) in The New American Magazine

CLIMATE ISSUES

Some Background:

Geologic evidence shows that Earth’s climate has been in a constant state of flux for more than 4 billion years. Nothing we do can stop that. Much of current climate and energy policy is based upon the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, which make up just 0.1% of total greenhouse gases, are responsible for “dangerous” global warming/climate change. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions have no significant effect on global temperature/climate. All efforts to reduce emissions are futile with regard to climate change, but such efforts will impose massive economic harm to Western Nations. (See links to Wryheat articles at the bottom of this post for details on climate.)

The “climate crisis” is a scam. U.N officials have admitted that their climate policy is about money and power and destroying capitalism, not about climate.

03-Antropogenic contribution to greenhouse effect

(more…)

Comments on the new IPCC climate report, April, 2022

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that unless we reduce or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and keep global temperature rise to less than 1.5°C, the planet will become uninhabitable. They ignore the fact that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels constitute just over 0.1% of total greenhouse gases (See article here). They also ignore the fact that for much of the past 600 million years global temperature has been 12°C warmer than now and life has flourished (see figure below). The IPCC is as political organization, not a scientific one. All their climate models run hotter than real observations and all their doomsday predictions have not come to pass.

Here are some comments on the IPCC report:

Heartland Institute Climate Experts React to Latest UN IPCC Report

APRIL 7, 2022

By H. Sterling Burnett, James Taylor, Linnea Lueken, Tim Benson, Anthony Watts

The IPCC has been scandalously wrong regarding virtually all of their past predictions. There is no reason to believe this version will be any more accurate.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) this week. IPCC chairman Hoesung Lee claimed “we are at a crossroads” but need to start reducing overall global emissions of carbon dioxide after 2025 to “secure a livable future.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said unless we dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, humanity faces a future of “unprecedented heatwaves, terrifying storms, widespread water shortages and the extinction of a million species of plants and animals.”

Climate science and policy experts at The Heartland Institute strongly disagree with this assessment. The Heartland Institute is the world’s most-prominent think tank promoting the work of scientists and other experts who do not think human activity is causing a climate crisis.

The IPCC report is tantamount to ‘old whine (pun intended), in new bottles.’ There is nothing truly new in this report. It makes the same unsubstantiated claims of doom, and the same unsubstantiated claims that we can act now, to, in a very short time period, end the use of fossil fuels to save the earth, and profit in the process. The projections of climate models have repeatedly proven inaccurate, and the resources simply do not exist to – in the time frame the IPCC says saving the planet demands – remake the entire global economy sans fossil fuels. In the process of trying, we would destroy the environment by mining, erecting wind turbines and solar arrays, to save it. (Read more)

See also: The New IPCC Climate Report – More of the Same Hot Air, with Extra Alarmism Added; Facts Missing And: The dread 1.5 degree target is dead.

The Many Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 — An Introduction

By Craig D. Idso — April 6, 2022

Dr. Craig Idso, Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and a new principal at MasterResource, invites readers to join him in a new series of articles discussing the many ways in which rising atmospheric carbon dioxide benefits humanity and nature.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide: you can’t see, hear, smell or taste it. But it’s there—all around us—and it’s crucial for life. Composed of one carbon and two oxygen atoms, this simple molecule serves as the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues, which in turn provide the materials out of which animals construct theirs. Knowledge of the key life-giving and life-sustaining role played by carbon dioxide, or CO2, is so well established, in fact, that humans—and all the rest of the biosphere—are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based lifeforms. We simply could not and would not exist without it.

Ironically, far too many demonize and falsely label this important atmospheric trace gas a pollutant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of being shunned like the plague, the ongoing rise in CO2 should be welcomed with open arms. (Read more)

Study: More Evidence Of Climate Model Heat Biases

Professor Nicola Scaffeta of the University of Naples Department of Earth Sciences has just published a detailed, peer-reviewed assessment of the latest generation of global climate models. He begins by noting that there are about 40 major climate models and their climate sensitivity levels vary by a factor of three, from 1.8 to 5.7 degrees C per doubling of carbon dioxide.

Which right away tells you there is a lot of guesswork going on. He groups the models into low-, medium-, and high-sensitivity categories and asks a simple question: how well did the models do at reproducing the warming from 1980 to 2021? Among the high-sensitivity models, they got the pattern wrong for over 80 percent of the Earth’s surface. The medium-sensitivity models did better, but they were still wrong for over 68 percent of the Earth’s surface. Finally, the low-sensitivity models did the best, but they were wrong on 60 percent of the Earth’s surface. (Read more)

Reality Cannot Penetrate Into The Fantasy World Of Climate Campaigners

by Francis Menton

It was only a few weeks ago when the UN’s International Energy Agency issued its Report on “CO2 Emissions in 2021.” I covered the IEA’s Report in my previous post a few days ago. The Report gives detail as to the obvious fact that world CO2 emissions, after a downward blip in 2020 due to the Covid pandemic, have resumed their rapid increase, mostly attributable to massive deployment of coal-fired electricity generation resources in large-population developing countries like China and India. In any rational world, this Report would have to have dashed any remaining dreams of climate campaigners that overall world CO2 emissions would see anything but large ongoing increases for the foreseeable future. The climate-obsessed jurisdictions in the U.S. and Europe already represent only a shrinking minority of world energy consumption, headed for insignificance as the large-population countries of the developing world join the fossil fuel age. (Read more)

CCIP fig 2

Compared to the past, Earths temperatures are low now because we are in an ice age, but fortunately in an interglacial period.

The following shows the output of climate models compared to reality.

Christy models vs observations

See these blog articles for more information:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why Co2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

As I wrote in 2015:

The “social cost of carbon”(SCC) is a computer-generated artifice that puts a dollar figure on the alleged environmental and economic damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. This number is supposed to allow bureaucrats to offset the alleged damage through regulation and taxes, i.e., it will increase the cost of electricity and gasoline. The computer models fail to take into account the benefits of carbon dioxide, such as making our crops more robust and more water efficient. Also, there is absolutely no physical evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions have any significant role in controlling global climate. (Read more on Wryheat)

Recent articles on SCC:

Why ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Is Most Useless Number You’ve Never Heard Of

by Kevin Dayaratna

Dubbed by some as “the most important number you’ve never heard of,” the social cost of carbon is defined as the economic damages associated with a ton of carbon dioxide emissions across a particular time horizon. That metric, relied upon heavily by the Obama administration, has been used as the basis for regulatory policy in the energy sector of the economy. Three sets of statistical models are used to estimate the social cost of carbon. Social cost of carbon estimates are based on very questionable assumptions regarding the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions, naive projections reaching 300 years into the future, and ignorance of discount rate recommendations by the Office of Management and Budget regarding cost-benefit analysis. Our results tell the same story: Assumptions made by modelers can drastically change the purported estimates and thus beef up the damages as much as they want. (Read more)

Social Cost of Carbon May Be Social Benefit of Carbon, Economist Finds

by James Taylor (commenting on Dauaratna’s paper)

The Biden administration made headlines by imposing a “social cost of carbon” – to be factored into federal cost-benefit analysis – that is more than six times higher than the social cost of carbon determined by the Trump administration. However, economist and data scientist Kevin Dayaratna published an article documenting that the alleged social “cost” of carbon may actually be a social “benefit” of carbon. In an article for the Daily Signal, Dayaratna observes that any accurate assessment of the social cost of carbon must include social benefits as well as merely social harms. Importantly, Dayaratna observes that any sound cost/benefit assessment must take into account “positive agricultural feedback effects associated with carbon dioxide emissions.”

“In fact, we found that under very reasonable assumptions, those benefits can outweigh the costs, suggesting that the social cost of carbon can indeed be negative,” Dayaratna writes. “The policy implication of a negative social cost of carbon is that the government should not be taxing carbon dioxide emissions, but should be subsidizing it instead.” (Source)

See also: The Social Cost of Carbon Fantasy and

Biden’s Arbitrary Social Cost of Carbon: What You Need to Know

12 State Attorneys General Sue Biden Admin Over Its Climate Policies The lawsuit said Biden’s executive order enables regulatory agencies to place restrictions on nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives in order to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

For a tutorial on climate read:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

Hurricane strength and frequency just part of natural variation

The several recent hurricanes making landfall in the southeastern U.S. have spawned claims that they are the result of global warming. However, real data show that these hurricanes are consistent with natural variation. The following graphs were constructed by meteorologist Dr. Ryan N. Maue, who has recently been appointed as chief scientist at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. See his website: http://climatlas.com/tropical/

Hurricane Frequency

On the graph below, the upper line shows all hurricanes with wind speeds of greater than 64 knots. The bottom line show major hurricanes with wind speeds of greater than 96 knots. As you can see, overall, there has been no increase in frequency.

Hurricane Strength

Hurricane strength is measured as “accumulated cyclone energy” ACE. In the graph below, the upper line is global, the bottom line is for the northern hemisphere.

 

Dr. Maue notes:

“Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.”

Hurricane landfalls:

The graph below shows the number of land-falling hurricanes since 1970. The dark bars are category 1&2 hurricanes; the grey bars are hurricanes of category 3 and above.

 

See also:

Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming

A Review of the state of Climate Science    See why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will have no effect on global temperature.

 

 

What Global Surface Temperature is Ideal for Human Habitation?

The fake fear of climate change is the current boogeyman of our age. Some say we must eliminate some or all of our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or the Earth will become uninhabitable. They say we must limit global temperature to a maximum of 2°C. In articles referenced below I show why that is nonsense.

So, what is an ideal temperature? A new study led by Washington State University and published in the Journal of Astrobiology proposes an answer. This study examines exoplanets in the universe. The study is titled: In Search for a Planet Better than Earth: Top Contenders for a Superhabitable World. (Link to full study)

Paper Abstract:

The fact that Earth is teeming with life makes it appear odd to ask whether there could be other planets in our galaxy that may be even more suitable for life. Neglecting this possible class of “superhabitable” planets, however, could be considered anthropocentric and geocentric biases. Most important from the perspective of an observer searching for extrasolar life is that such a search might be executed most effectively with a focus on superhabitable planets instead of Earth-like planets. We argue that there could be regions of astrophysical parameter space of star-planet systems that could allow for planets to be even better for life than our Earth. We aim to identify those parameters and their optimal ranges, some of which are astrophysically motivated, whereas others are based on the varying habitability of the natural history of our planet. Some of these conditions are far from being observationally testable on planets outside the solar system. Still, we can distill a short list of 24 top contenders among the >4000 exoplanets known today that could be candidates for a superhabitable planet. In fact, we argue that, with regard to the search for extrasolar life, potentially superhabitable planets may deserve higher priority for follow-up observations than most Earth-like planets.

Bottom line: The best habitable planets will have a mean surface temperature about 5°C higher than on Earth.

My previous articles on the subject show why reducing CO2 emissions will be a multi-trillion dollar, futile exercise that will send us back to the dark ages :

Who Is Afraid Of Two Degrees Of Warming?

During the past 10,000 years (the Holocene), Earth experienced several cycles of warming and cooling which exceeded the mythical two degree limit. Civilizations thrived during the warm periods and had a harder time during cold periods.

Estimates Of Global Warming Reduction By Reducing CO2 Emissions

The latest talking point of progressive politicians, pundits, and activists is that America cannot afford not to spend trillions of dollars to “solve the climate crisis” because global warming is an existential threat. Even a complete elimination of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would avert only 0.083°C to 0.173°C by year 2100. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.

A doubling of current atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce global warming of just over one degree Celsius. Since carbon dioxide is plant food, such a doubling would make the planet greener and food farming more productive.

See also:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

Just another climate extinction prediction scare from the UofA

Arizona Daily Star story Feb 19, 2020:

Print edition title: UA researchers: Warming could kill 3 million species in 50 years.

Online edition title: Arizona researchers predict extinction explosion in bleak new study

Star reporter Henry Brean writes: Human-caused climate change could drive close to a third of all plant and animal species worldwide to extinction in the next 50 years, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Arizona. Without a concerted effort to curb global warming, roughly 3 million species could be lost by 2070, warned UA professor John Wiens, who co-authored the study published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “What happens is up to us,” Wiens said. “If we do nothing, there’s going to be a massive loss of species. If we take action … we can cut that in half.”

See also: UofA press release

The paper:

Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival

by Cristian Román-Palacios and John J. Wiens

The paper was published February 10, 2020 in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.) The PNAS paper is paywalled but you can read the full paper from Prof. Wiens’ website.

Abstract

“Climate change may be a major threat to biodiversity in the next 100 years. Although there has been important work on mechanisms of decline in some species, it generally remains unclear which changes in climate actually cause extinctions, and how many species will likely be lost. Here, we identify the specific changes in climate that are associated with the widespread local extinctions that have already occurred. We then use this information to predict the extent of future biodiversity loss and to identify which processes may forestall extinction. We used data from surveys of 538 plant and animal species over time, 44% of which have already had local extinctions at one or more sites. We found that locations with local extinctions had larger and faster changes in hottest yearly temperatures than those without. Surprisingly, sites with local extinctions had significantly smaller changes in mean annual temperatures, despite the widespread use of mean annual temperatures as proxies for overall climate change. Based on their past rates of dispersal, we estimate that 57–70% of these 538 species will not disperse quickly enough to avoid extinction. However, we show that niche shifts appear to be far more important for avoiding extinction than dispersal, although most studies focus only on dispersal. Specifically, considering both dispersal and niche shifts, we project that only 16–30% of these 538 species may go extinct by 2070. Overall, our results help identify the specific climatic changes that cause extinction and the processes that may help species to survive.”

My take:

The paper claims that increases in yearly maximum temperatures is the most critical factor in extinctions, yet according to the paper, maximum temperature increased only 0.4°C at sites with previous extinctions versus 0.14°C at sites without extinction. It is hard to believe that such a small temperature rise would make a difference since over the past 10,000 years Earth experienced several warm-cool cycles of more than 2°C.

The species extinction prediction numbers are based upon temperature projections from climate models and extrapolated to guess possible future temperatures.

But:

“The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” — James Hansen, “Climate forcings in the Industrial era”, PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 22, 12753-12758, October 27, 1998.

And:

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter, Third Assessment Report, IPCC.

The researchers speculate that past local extinctions in the areas studied may be related to climate change, but they present no physical evidence to support the speculation. There may have been other factors contributing to extinction.

Both Star reporter Henry Brean and researcher Wiens cite “human-caused” climate change by which I assume they mean carbon dioxide emissions. However, there is no physical evidence that shows carbon dioxide plays a significant role in controlling global temperature.

The researchers recommend: “…our results also suggest that successful implementation of the Paris Agreement targets (i.e., warming <1.5 °C by 2100) …could help reduce extinctions considerably, possibly to 16% or less by 2070. My, how politically correct.

Related articles:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

New study shows that carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

New Study shows that impact of carbon dioxide rising to 700 ppm is about 0.5°C

University of Arizona produces another global warming food scare

(A recent paper from the University of Arizona claims “Grasses across the globe may be unable to keep pace with a changing climate, threatening some of the world’s most critical food sources, according to new research by University of Arizona ecologists.”)

Impact of Paris climate accord and why Trump was right to dump it

Book Review – “Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People” by Dr. Roy Spencer

“Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People” written by Dr. Roy Spencer is available on Kindle.

Dr. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Formerly he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

The following review was written by Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) It is slightly edited. (Source)

Spencer wrote an exceptional book on the issues between knowledge and speculation as applied to climate science. Well written and easy to understand, the book discusses basic components of the major issues. It presents evidence from both sides, emphasizing that the greenhouse effect is well established, but the positive feedbacks are not. The fear of CO2 as promoted by the IPCC and others is attributed to the feedbacks. The book briefly discusses the benefits and costs of increasing CO2, with the costs lacking physical evidence, such as increasing sea level rise and ocean acidification.

Spencer asks five big questions:

1) “Is warming and associated climate change mostly human caused?

2) Is the human-caused portion of warming and associated climate change large enough to be damaging?

3) Do the climate models we use for proposed energy policies accurately predict climate change?

4) Would the proposed policy changes substantially reduce climate change and resulting damage?

5) Would the policy changes do more good than harm to humanity?

Spencer: “The answers to all five questions need to be ‘yes’ in order to make substantial changes to our energy policies beyond what free market forces dictate. Yet, it is not obvious to me that the answer to any of the five is ‘yes.’”

Among the many issues he raises are the accuracy of natural energy flows, which are not well known. Without compiling knowledge from measurements, not calculations used in unvalidated models, we cannot establish that the warming from a doubling of CO2 will be different than a modest 1.2 º C, far less than claimed by the IPCC.

To achieve a doubling of CO2 from the current level of slightly over 400 parts per million (ppm) would require burning more fossil fuels than are known to exist in the world. Furthermore, it is doubtful that even this would be sufficient to prevent an inevitable future ice age, a true killer climate.

Spencer points out that just because a research paper assumes the cause of warming is CO2, it is not necessarily true, then states:

“Why don’t more papers tackle the thorny issue of determining how much warming is natural versus anthropogenic? For at least three reasons:

1) We cannot separate human from natural causes of warming (there are no human fingerprints).

2) We have only a poor understanding of natural causes of climate change.

3) We cannot compute how strong human-caused warming is from first physical principles (the climate sensitivity problem, discussed later).

Chapter 13; Why is Warming not Progressing as Predicted? addresses the big problem of IPCC’s reliance on climate models in its policies.

“Climate models [in use today] probably over-predict warming because they[the models] produce too much positive feedback, which is necessary for high climate sensitivity. The small amount of direct warming from a doubling of CO2 (a little over 1 deg C) is magnified by about a factor of three in climate models due to warming-induced changes in clouds and water vapor, while the [actual] observations suggest there is little magnification at all.

“The positive feedback processes contained in climate models are very uncertain, yet are responsible for most (about 2/3) of the warming the models produce.

While the models are indeed mostly made up of fundamental physical principles that are pretty well established, it is these few poorly known feedback processes that determine how serious the global warming problem will be. Out of hundreds of thousands of lines of computer code making up the models, it could be that only a few lines of code representing very uncertain assumptions about the climate system are mainly responsible for producing too much [predicted] warming.

“This is why I call the climate research community’s defense of the current climate models as ‘bait and switch’. The well-understood basic physical principles the models are built on produce only about 1 deg. C of warming in response to 2Xco2, [a doubling of CO2] while the additional 2 deg. C of warming they produce from positive feedbacks is very speculative. They sell you on the well understood physics supporting the 1 deg. C of direct warming, but then switch to the full 3 degrees of warming the models produce as similarly reliable.

“How clouds might change with warming (cloud feedback) is particularly uncertain, a fact that is admitted by modelers. The climate models cannot include the actual physics of cloud formation and dissipation because computers are not nearly fast enough to be run with the fine detail contained in clouds. In fact, we don’t even understand some of the microphysical details of what happens in clouds, preventing us from modelling them even if computers were fast enough.”

According to Spencer the models have clouds forming at a humidity as low as 85% but in reality, they require a relative humidity of 100%. This is but one of many issues with the efforts to model the climate. To depend on the results of such modeling in establishing energy policy is absurd.

There are a number of good books on the weaknesses of climate science proclaimed by the IPCC and its followers. This is one of the finest.

As an aside, using Spencer’s numbers and IPCC’s logic one could say that the IPCC’s science is one-third science and two-thirds science fiction.

See also: The Toxic Rhetoric of Climate Change by Judith Curry

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/climate-in-perspective/ a 30-page essay on all aspects of global warming

Who is afraid of two degrees of warming?

In the past several weeks we have seen many demonstrations by brainwashed young people and others who think the world will end if global temperatures exceed two degrees Celsius (now it’s down to 1.5 degrees). The trouble with that claim is that we’ve been there and done that and nothing bad happened. During the past 10,000 years (the Holocene), Earth experienced several cycles of warming and cooling which exceeded the mythical two degree limit. Civilizations thrived during the warm periods and had a harder time during cold periods. There is, in fact, no scientific basis to the two degree limit. The number was plucked out of thin air, see: The fake two degree political limit on global warming.

Kenneth Richard, writing on the NoTrickszZone blog, reviews several recent studies which show the dread two-degree limit has been exceeded many times during the warm and cool cycles of the Holocene.

Physical evidence from recent research shows that:

Sweden was at least 3°C warmer than it is today about 6000 to 9000 years ago, when CO2 concentrations lingered around 265 ppm. At 410 ppm CO2, 21st century Sweden is colder now than almost any time in the last 9000 years.

During the Medieval Warm Period, wine vineyards flourished in Scandinavia and Russia at the same latitude (55°N) where polar bears roam today.

Earlier in the Holocene, when CO2 levels hovered around 260 ppm, vast forests extended all the way up to the coasts of the Arctic Ocean (Russia), suggesting temperatures were up to 7°C warmer than today.

The southern limits of Arctic sea ice (north of Greenland) extended 1000 kilometers further north of where sea ice extends to today (2007), as Arctic Ocean temperatures were 2-4°C warmer about 8500 to 6000 years ago.

Throughout the Northern Hemisphere (Austria, Canada, Iceland, Russia), summer air temperatures were about 3° to 5°C warmer than today between 10,000 and 8000 years ago, when CO2 values held steady at 260 ppm.

Permafrost that exists today in northern Sweden wasn’t present just a few hundred years ago, as the region was too warm to support permafrost until recent centuries.

Tree trunk remains located 600 to 700 meters atop the limits of today’s barren mountain treelines (northern Sweden) date to the Early Holocene, suggesting temperatures were 3-4°C warmer than today from about 9000 to 6000 years ago.

***

One claim of the climate alarmists is that sea level rise is accelerating and will wipe out coastal cities. Since Earth is currently warming from one of the cold periods, sea level is rising slowly at the rate of 1-to 3.4 millimeters a year (about the thickness of one or two pennies). The rate of sea level rise is cyclical, controlled mainly by solar cycles. If you start counting at one of the low points in the cycle, then, yes, the rate appears to be increasing. See my article: The Sea Level Scam.

Carbon dioxide emissions and the “Greenhouse effect” are claimed as the chief villain in alarmist’s narratives. But, even if the entire world stopped emitting carbon dioxide, it would make a difference in global temperature of less than one degree Celsius by the year 2100. That’s because the Greenhouse hypothesis ignores convective heat transfer (weather) which shreds the greenhouse “blanket.”

See: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Carbon dioxide emissions is the fake boogeyman. The UN admits that its real goal is to transform the global economy away from capitalism.

See: Top UN official admits climate change is about transforming world economy

Back in 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, explicitly affirmed the economic objective: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection…One must say clearly that we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…”

In my opinion, most of the climate demonstrators have been sipping the “climate Kool-ade” and have become the “useful idiots” in the quest to transform the world economy.

Additional reading:

Real-world Evidence that CO2 Emissions and Fossil Energy Enhance the Human Environment

 

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

This post consolidates the main points of many of my articles on wind and solar generation of electricity. The [ir]rationale behind the renewable energy campaign is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions which are alleged to be the main cause of global warming despite the lack of any supporting physical evidence. We will see that replacing electricity generation from fossil fuels with wind or solar will have no significant effect on global warming; that it significantly raises the cost of electricity; that it destroys wildlife and wildlife habitat; that wind generation has deleterious effects on human health; and that because wind and solar generation is intermittent and unpredictable, fossil fuel generation or nuclear generation will still be necessary. At the end of this post are links to some of my articles on the subject.

1. Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by switching to wind and solar will have almost no effect on global warming.

Carbon dioxide (which makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere) is continually being emitted into the atmosphere and absorbed by the oceans, plants, formation of limestone, etc. According to the U.S. Department of Energy annual emission reports, humans are responsible for about 3% of total CO2 emissions; the rest is from natural sources. Carbon dioxide constitutes about 3% to 4% of total greenhouse gases by volume (water vapor is the main greenhouse gas); therefore anthropogenic CO2 represents just over one-tenth of one percent (0.12%) of total greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere each year. The U.S. is responsible for about 18% of global emissions, so elimination of U.S. emissions will make a difference of about 0.02% of total emissions.

The American Enterprise Institute estimates that eliminating all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel generation of electricity would cut the global increase in temperature by 0.083 to 0.173 degrees Celsius, by 2100.

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg (president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of the book: The Skeptical Environmentalist) estimates that U.S. climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100. (Source)

2. Cost of transition to 100% renewables

An analysis from Scottish consulting firm Wood Mackenzie estimates the cost of transitioning the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, as recommended by the “Green New Deal” and other overzealous climate change plans, would cost at least $4.5 trillion over that time period. The American Action Forum estimates the costs of moving the entire country to 100 percent renewable sources would be $5.7 trillion, or $42,000 per household. The several states that have imposed Renewable Energy Mandates (requiring a certain percent of electricity be produced from wind and solar) have already raised electricity prices by 11percent, which has cost us $125.2 billion. (Source)

Experience from Europe shows that the more installed solar and wind capacity per capita a country has, the higher the price people pay for electricity. In the graph below the vertical scale is Euro cents per kilowatt-hour, the horizontal scale is the installed capacity of renewables (solar and wind) per capita. (For reference, the U.S. average residential cost is 12 cents/kwh which is about 9.6 euro cents/kwh, lower than all European countries on the graph.) (Source)

3. Enormous land footprint of wind and solar destroys wildlife habitat

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, for the contiguous U.S.:

If all electricity were to be supplied by solar generation it would require 11,674 solar farms with a total footprint of 525,312 square miles.

If all electricity were to be supplied by wind generation, it would require 6,954 wind farms with a total footprint of 1,808,166 square miles.

If all electricity was supplied by nuclear generation, it would require 3,553 nuclear stations with a total footprint of 4,619 square miles. (Source)

 

4. Destruction of wildlife:

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and American Bird Conservancy say wind turbines kill 440,000 bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, cranes, egrets, geese and other birds every year in the United States, along with countless insect-eating bats.

“New studies reveal that these appalling estimates are frightfully low and based on misleading or even fraudulent data. The horrific reality is that in the United States alone, ‘eco-friendly’ wind turbines kill an estimated 13 million to 39 million birds and bats every year.” (Source)

Many birds are also killed by concentrating solar installations: see Avian mortality from solar farms.

5. Human health problems from wind turbines:

Wind turbines produce low-frequency sound, called infra-sound, which may cause many health problems. Infra-sound affects the vestibular system, causing symptoms resembling seasickness, accompanied by headache, dizziness, and “deep nervous fatigue.” It can affect ocular reflexes, causing nystagmus; spinal reflexes, causing tremors; and autonomic reflexes, causing shortness of breath. Infra-sound can lead to well known consequences such as tumor development, cardiac infarcts and/or the need for cardiac bypass surgery.

6. Wind and solar generation makes the electric grid unstable.

Wind and solar generation are unpredictably intermittent. Adding an unpredictable supply to the mix makes grid management very complex and increases the danger that the grid will become unstable and fail. The problem is multiplied as wind and solar generation become a larger percentage of the total power sources.

7. Renewable energy is not as green as advertised

PV solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels. (Source)

8. Wind farms decrease weather radar ability to track storms – puts people in danger

A new report from the National Weather Service says that wind farms have some unfortunate negative impacts on the ability of Doppler radar to track storms.

“Wind farms affect … radars in several ways; first, the turbines can block a significant percentage of the radar beam and decrease the radar signal power down range of the wind farm, particularly if the wind farm is within a few miles of the radar. Second, the wind farm can reflect energy back to the radar system and this appears as clutter or false reflectivity data. This reflectivity can create false precipitation estimates and disrupt precipitation algorithms used by the radar and other software programs. Finally, wind farms can significantly influence velocity and spectrum width data, which can cause bad data sampling of rotating storms and false storm motions, along with impacting algorithms used by the radar to process this data. Since the wind turbines have motion and produce reflectivity, schemes designed to filter out the clutter do not work properly.”

 

Former EPA scientist and economist Alan Carlin opines, “Climate alarmism is probably the most insidious, largest, and most dangerous scam ever perpetrated on the American public and most of the developed world. Unless brought down by reality, it is now reaching such dimensions that it could even end the position of the current developed countries as the primary engine for economic and technological progress. Instead, the dictates of climate alarmism may eventually consume as much as half of the resources available and yield nothing but climate virtue signaling.” (Source)

References on  Wryheat:

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked

The high cost of electricity from wind and solar generation

Avian mortality from solar farms

Big Wind gets “get out of jail free card” from Obama Administration

Wind turbines versus wildlife

Wind turbines killed 600000 bats last year

Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

How infrasound from wind turbines can cause cancer

Why alternative energy is not a viable alternative for electrical generation

Winds farms decrease weather radar ability to track storms

Solar energy cannot economically compete in electricity generation

Vote NO on Arizona proposition 127 the renewable energy mandate

Why you should vote NO on Arizona proposition 127

Winds farms decrease weather radar ability to track storms

 

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

How much global warming is dangerous?

What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?