climate

Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction Causes Global Warming, not CO2 GHG

Wryheat note: The following is an original research paper written by David Motes, a chemical engineer with 43 years professional experience. Below I provide the paper abstract with a link to the full paper as a PDF file. The full paper discusses nine problems with the Greenhouse hypothesis and then presents Motes’ alternative hypothesis. Mr. Motes may be contacted at davidmotes7@gmail.com.

Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction Causes Global Warming, not CO2 GHG
by David Motes

Abstract
Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming (AGW) has many causes. CO2 drives recent global warming by Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction (PER), not CO2 Green House Gas (GHG) theory. For example, the irrefutable correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentration for the last 800+ thousand years can only be explained by plant evapotranspiration increases / decreases and not by the prevailing CO2 GHG effects. The prevailing GHG theory cannot explain why CO2 increased or decreased or the carbon source prior to fossil fuel emissions, but PER does. Quantitative evidence for PER driving global warming over CO2 GHG follows:

  1. Using a NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency) energy balance, the scientific consensus 0.70%/year plant water use efficiency increase (evapotranspiration reduction) caused by higher CO2 generates a calculated temperature rise 12 times the actual measured temperature rise.
  2. Similarly, the measured 0.23%/year deforestation and land use change (causing same plant evapotranspiration 0.23%/year reduction) generates a calculated temperature rise 3 times the actual measured temperature rise. From scientific consensus, global development, deforestation, commercial farming, and commercial ranching have reduced plants (consequently evapotranspiration) since the 1960 industrial global expansion. Explaining the 12 and 3 factors:
    A. The actual temperature increase was less due to increasing infrared radiation emitted by the atmosphere to space from that same temperature rise.
    B. Terrestrial biomass increases in deserts and arid lands partially offset the measured evapotranspiration reductions.
  3. Only 8% photosynthesis reduction is equivalent to all 2020 fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
  4. Water vapor is 192 times stronger GHG than CO2 when you factor in both infrared absorbances and atmospheric concentrations. Consequently, CO2 GHG contributes only ~0.3% to AGW, balance driven by PER.
  5. The PER impact on global warming is demonstrated in real life at many locations such as city centers being 1-3 °C warmer than the surrounding suburbs or countryside. Secondly, the air is 3-4oC cooler above a green grass lawn vs a black asphalt parking lot. PER provides an explanation for the undeniable Global Warming that fits all the scientific data (climate history, carbon sources, carbon mass balances, energy balances, GHG parameters, humidity data, etc.) as quantified and explained in this engineering and scientific study. “Greening” the earth (increasing plant life) is less expensive and substantially more effective than just reducing annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions (contributes only 1% of existing atmospheric CO2).

Quantified problems with the proposed CO2 annual emission reduction
plans follow:

  1. Will certainly fail by focusing on the 1%/year contribution and foolishly ignoring the 99% existing atmospheric CO2.
  2. Focuses solely on reducing the 8% CO2 emissions driver, while ignoring the 92% plant life CO2 driver. Prior to attempting to resolve the current global warming problem, we should identify, quantify, and confirm the root cause(s) and magnitudes. Then, solutions become clearer and more cost effective.

Read the full paper:

CO2 & Global Temperature 19apr2021

Bjorn Lomborg on how to deal with climate change

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think-tank that researches the smartest ways to do good.

His new paper: Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies

Abstract:

Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today’s welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.

Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance, the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency and has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity, while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years.

Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.

Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP.

Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.

Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more. The IPCC’s two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 and the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world, but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today’s poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided.

Using carbon taxes, an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions and reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.75°C. This will cost $18 trillion, but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off. *

The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper. This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent.

More effective climate policies can help the world do better. The current climate discourse leads to wasteful climate policies, diverting attention and funds from more effective ways to improve the world.

This article will outline how to establish a rational climate policy in the context of many other, competing global issues. Read full paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 

*Wryheat comment: I disagree with Lomborg’s stance on “carbon taxes” because where they have been imposed show that they fail to deliver advertised benefits, see:

Carbon Tax Failures – Lessons from Australia and Germany

See also:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Fortuitous Link Between CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth (video)

Is Rising Atmospheric CO2 Causing Dangerous Global Warming? (video)

Many people are concerned about the potential impacts of rising levels of atmospheric CO2. For years they have been bombarded with claims that unless its concentration is slowed or even reduced, dangerous global warming will ensue, producing all sorts of undesirable consequences with little to no positive effects. Watch this video to lean why this scenario is unlikely to occur and why CO2 is not the all-important driver of temperature that climate alarmists make it out to be.

Comments on the alleged megadrought

During the past few weeks, media have been hyping alarm about a new study  that claims that the Southwestern US is entering a megadrought and that the drought is made more severe by human-caused global warming. That claim is based on tree-ring analysis and computer modeling speculation.

Droughts have occurred due to natural cycles, but there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide emissions play a significant role is controlling global temperature or precipitation. The new paper presents no evidence that alleged “human-caused” global warming is making the drought worse, it is just speculation. In fact, many droughts are associated with cooler periods.

Let’s put things in perspective. Here are the data for the past 1,200 years. It seems that “megadroughts” have occurred naturally, without any human influence.

These data show that the 20th century was wetter than normal. However, the next graph shows that there have been droughts. But, rather that entering a megadrought, we seem to be emerging from a dryer period according to NOAA.

The graph above comes from a 4-minute video posted by Tony Heller, on his “Real Climate Science” blog. This video destroys claims that the western United States is currently experiencing a nearly unprecedented megadrought. Video: https://youtu.be/W9xCWDZmUT4

 

Related:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

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

A Review of the state of Climate Science

Drought in the West

The Scientific Case for Vacating the EPA’s Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding

This 24-page report by Patrick J. Michaels and Kevin D. Darayatna of the Competitive Enterprise Institute shows why the EPA’s “endangerment finding” was based on bad science and should be repealed.

Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 “Endangerment Finding” from carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases grants the agency a legal mandate that can have profound and far-reaching effects. The Finding is based largely on a Technical Support Document that relies heavily upon other mandated reports, the so-called National Assessments of global climate change impacts on the United States.

The extant Assessments at the time of the Endangerment Finding suffered from serious flaws. We document that using the climate models for the first Assessment, from 2000, provided less quantitative guidance than tables of random numbers—and that the chief scientist for that work knew of this problem.

All prospective climate impacts in the Endangerment Finding are generated by computer models that, with one exception, made systematic and dramatic errors over the climatically critical tropics. Best scientific practice would be to emphasize the working model, which has less warming in it than all of the others.

Instead, the EPA relied upon a community of wrong models.

New research compares what has been observed to what is forecast, and finds that warming in this century will be modest—near the lowest extreme of the prospective range given by the United Nations.

The previous administration justified its policy choices by calculating the Social Cost of Carbon [dioxide]. We interfaced their model with climate forecasts consistent with the observed history and enhanced the “fertilization” effect of increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2. We find that making the warming and the vegetation response more consistent with real-world observations yields a negative cost under almost all modeled circumstances.

This constellation of unreliable models, poor scientific practice, and exaggerated estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon argue consistently and cogently for the EPA to reopen and then vacate its endangerment finding from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The full document is available on the Competitive Enterprise Institute website at https://cei.org/content/scientific-case-vacating-epas-carbon-dioxide-endangerment-finding

See also: Dump EPA endangerment finding

Climate at a Glance from the Heartland Institute

The Heartland Institute has a new website called Climate at a Glance (https://climateataglance.com/) take a look.

Heartland has also launched another new website: Climate Realism

http://climaterealism.com/ 

Nearly every day, the establishment media promotes new climate propaganda themes designed to scare people into believing a climate crisis is at hand. When the Climate Scare goes unrebutted, people are likely to believe by default that the propaganda is true. Yet most of the media’s climate propaganda is misleading or outright false. ClimateRealism.com will address and debunk the media’s most prominent climate-related tall tales.

Repeal the EPA endangerment finding

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has send a 139-page petition to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging them to end their 2009 “endangerment finding”  for greenhouse gases due to lack of evidence.

The press release notes:

Over ten years have elapsed since the EPA Administrator made this judgment in its so-called CO2 Endangerment Finding. During that time a considerable amount of scientific research has been conducted on the potential impacts of rising greenhouses gases on humanity and the natural world. The additional knowledge obtained from such research and observations reveal quite clearly that rising greenhouse gases do not represent what EPA identified in 2009 to be a current or future threat to public welfare.

According to the Center’s Chairman, Dr. Craig Idso, who is the lead author of the petition, “multiple observations made over the past decade confirm the projected risks and adverse consequences of rising greenhouse gases are failing to materialize. The truth is, in stark contrast to the Endangerment Finding, CO2 emissions and fossil fuel use during the Modern Era have actually enhanced life and improved humanity’s standard of living. And they will likely continue to do so as more fossil fuels are utilized.”

The 139-page petition by the Center highlights multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies in support of this thesis. In particular, the petition shows (1) there is nothing unusual or unnatural about Earth’s current warmth or rate of warming, (2) historic and modern records of atmospheric CO2 and temperature violate established principles of causation, (3) model-based temperature projections since 1979 artificially inflate warming (compered to observations) by a factor of three, invalidating the models and all their ancillary claims associated with greenhouse gas-induced warming, and that (4) key adverse effects of greenhouse gas-induced warming,
including extreme weather events, temperature-induced mortality and sea level rise, are not occurring despite EPA predictions they should be worsening.

The petition also presents compelling evidence that CO2 emissions and fossil energy use provide critical benefits that act to enhance health and welfare for humanity and the natural world. According to Dr. Idso, “Without adequate supplies of low-cost centralized energy derived from fossil fuels, few, if any, of the major technological and innovative advancements of the past two centuries that have enhanced and prolonged human life could have occurred. Additionally, without the increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use over the past two centuries, Earth’s terrestrial biosphere would be nowhere near as vigorous or productive as it is today. Rather, it would be devoid of the growth-enhancing, water-saving and stress-alleviating benefits it has reaped in managed and unmanaged ecosystems from rising levels of atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution began.”

Download the entire petition here:

Click to access EPAPetitionCO2ScienceMarch2020.pdf

Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas

The following is a condensed version of an article by Dr. Tim Ball which first appeared in Technocracy News. Read the full paper here.

The CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them. ⁃ TN Editor

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation.  Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it.

In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming skeptics.

The most important assumption behind the AGW theory (Human caused global warming) is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?

The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda. They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius. The problem is he didn’t say what they claim.  Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote,

Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.

The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

The IPCC through the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were able to predetermine their results. 

a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.

This allowed them to only examine human-causes, thus eliminating almost all other variables of climate and climate change. You cannot identify the human portion if you don’t know or understand natural, that is without human, climate or climate change. IPCC acknowledged this in 2007 as people started to ask questions about the narrowness of their work. They offered the one that many people thought they were using and should have been using. Deceptively, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), so it was aimed at the politicians. It said,

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase. Of course, because the computer was programmed for that to happen. These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change. This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.

An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major greenhouse gases by name and percentage of the total. They are water vapour (H20) 95%, carbon dioxide (CO2) 4%, and methane (CH4) 0.036%. The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95%) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour. The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4% of the total CO2  To put that in perspective, approximately a 2% variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2. This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.

In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-years. It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation. I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.

Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase.

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.

Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article.

“our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”

Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day.

Thomas Huxley said,

“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact.” 

The most recent ugly fact was that after 1998 CO2 levels continued to increase but global temperatures stopped increasing. Other ugly facts included the return of cold, snowy winters creating a PR problem by 2004.

The people controlling the AGW deception were aware of what was happening. Emails from 2004 leaked from the University of East Anglia revealed the concern.

The assumption that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature was incorrectly claimed in the original science by Arrhenius. He mistakenly attributed the warming caused by water vapour (H2O) to CO2. All the evidence since confirms the error. This means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There is a greenhouse effect, and it is due to the water vapour. The entire claim that CO2 and especially human CO2 is absolutely wrong, yet these so-called scientists convinced the world to waste trillions on reducing CO2.

See also:

Testing the hypothesis that variations in atmospheric water vapour are
the main cause of fluctuations in global temperature (link)
Because water has been considered as providing positive feedback to warming primarily from CO2 its possible forcing effect has been overlooked. But as shown here by several different means, the more potent effect of applying water previously in the ocean or deep in the ground to dry surfaces with air in strong water deficit can be sufficient to affect global temperature. Clearly, the water vapour content of the troposphere is the major cause of the natural greenhouse effect, contributing up to two-thirds of the 33°C warming. Spatial and temporal variations in soil moisture and relative humidity of the atmosphere are the main factors controlling the regional outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), in contrast to the more even effects from well-mixed greenhouse gases such as CO2. This is well illustrated in the 4-6 year El Nino cycles, resulting in a global mean temperature variation approaching 1 oC compared with La Nina years. Longer term, the proposed Milankovitch glaciations of paleoclimates result in declines of atmospheric temperature around 10°C, consistent with the major reduction in tropospheric water vapour approaching 50%. Weather conditions and climate as illustrated in the greenhouse effect are clearly demonstrated in the distribution of water, particularly on land. The apparently linear relationship between the water content of the atmosphere is direct verification of the greenhouse warming effect of this greenhouse gas. By contrast, other than by correlation, there is no such direct verification possible for the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Ivan R. Kennedyand Migdat Hodzic
Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences ISSN 2303-4521
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2019, pp.870-880

 

The toxic rhetoric of climate change by Judith Curry

Note: Dr. Judith Curry is President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) and was previously Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

The following is her response to an email she received from a worried UK youth. (From her blog: climate etc., Article Source)

Dr. Curry writes:

We have been hearing increasingly shrill rhetoric from Extinction Rebellion and other activists about the ‘existential threat’ of the ‘climate crisis’, ‘runaway climate chaos’, etc. In a recent op-ed, Greta Thunberg stated: “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” From the Extinction Rebellion: “It is understood that we are facing an unprecedented global emergency. We are in a life or death situation of our own making.”

It is more difficult tune out similar statements from responsible individuals representing the United Nations. In his opening remarks for the UN Climate Change Conference this week in Madrid (COP25), UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said that “the point of no-return is no longer over the horizon.” Hoesung Lee, the Chair for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said “if we stay on our current path, [we] threaten our existence on this planet.”

So . . . exactly what should we be worried about? Consider the following statistics:

Over the past century, there has been a 99% decline in the death toll from natural disasters, during the same period that the global population quadrupled.

While global economic losses from weather and climate disasters have been increasing, this is caused by increasing population and property in vulnerable locations. Global weather losses as a percent of global GDP have declined about 30% since 1990.

While the IPCC has estimated that sea level could rise by 0.6 meters by 2100, recall that the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago.

Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.

The proportion of world population living in extreme poverty declined from 36% in 1990 to 10% in 2015.

While many people may be unaware of this good news, they do react to each weather or climate disaster in the news. Activist scientists and the media quickly seize upon each extreme weather event as having the fingerprints of manmade climate change — ignoring the analyses of more sober scientists showing periods of even more extreme weather in the first half of the 20th century, when fossil fuel emissions were much smaller.

So . . . why are we so worried about climate change? The concern over climate change is not so much about the warming that has occurred over the past century. Rather, the concern is about what might happen in the 21st century as a result of increasing fossil fuel emissions. Emphasis on ‘might.’

Alarming press releases are issued about each new climate model projection that predicts future catastrophes from famine, mass migrations, catastrophic fires, etc. However these alarming scenarios of the 21st century climate change require that, like the White Queen in Alice and Wonderland, we believe ‘six impossible things before breakfast’.

The most alarming scenarios of 21st century climate change are associated with the RCP8.5 greenhouse gas concentration scenario. Often erroneously described as a ‘business as usual’ scenario, RCP8.5 assumes unrealistic trends long-term trends for population and a slowing of technological innovation. Even more unlikely is the assumption that the world will largely be powered by coal.

In spite of the implausibility of this scenario, RCP8.5 is the favored scenario for publications based on climate model simulations. In short, RCP8.5 is a very useful recipe for cooking up scenarios alarming impacts from manmade climate change. Which are of course highlighted and then exaggerated by press releases and media reports.

Apart from the issue of how much greenhouse gases might increase, there is a great deal of uncertainty about much the planet will warm in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide – referred to as ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS). The IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013) provided a range between 1 and 6°C, with a ‘likely’ range between 1.5 and 4.5ºC.

In the years since the 5th Assessment Report, the uncertainty has grown. The latest climate model results – prepared for the forthcoming IPCC 6th Assessment Report – shows that a majority of the climate models are producing values of ECS exceeding 5°C. The addition of poorly understood additional processes into the models has increased confusion and uncertainty. At the same time, refined efforts to determine values of the equilibrium climate sensitivity from the historical data record obtain values of ECS about 1.6°C, with a range from 1.05 to 2.7°C.

With this massive range of uncertainty in the values of equilibrium climate sensitivity, the lowest value among the climate models is 2.3°C, with few models having values below 3°C. Hence the lower end of the range of ECS is not covered by the climate models, resulting in temperature projections for the 21st century that are biased high, with a smaller range relative to the range of uncertainty in ECS.

With regards to sea level rise, recent U.S. national assessment reports have included a worst-case sea level rise scenario for the 21st century of 2.5 m. Extreme estimates of sea level rise rely on RCP8.5 and climate model simulations that are on average running too hot relative to the uncertainty range of ECS. The most extreme scenarios of 21st century sea level rise are based on speculative and poorly understood physical processes that are hypothesized to accelerate the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. However, recent research indicates that these processes are very unlikely to influence sea level rise in the 21st century. To date, in most of the locations that are most vulnerable to sea level rise, local sinking from geological processes and land use has dominated over sea level rise from global warming.

To further complicate climate model projections for the 21st century, the climate models focus only on man-made climate change – they make no attempt to predict natural climate variations from the sun’s output, volcanic eruptions and long-term variations in ocean circulation patterns. We have no idea how natural climate variability will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over man-made warming.

We still don’t have a realistic assessment of how a warmer climate will impact us and whether it is ‘dangerous.’ We don’t have a good understanding of how warming will influence future extreme weather events. Land use and exploitation by humans is a far bigger issue than climate change for species extinction and ecosystem health.

We have been told that the science of climate change is ‘settled’. However, in climate science there has been a tension between the drive towards a scientific ‘consensus’ to support policy making, versus exploratory research that pushes forward the knowledge frontier. Climate science is characterized by a rapidly evolving knowledge base and disagreement among experts. Predictions of 21st century climate change are characterized by deep uncertainty.

As noted in a recent paper co-authored by Dr. Tim Palmer of Oxford University, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/11/26/1906691116.full.pdf, there is “deep dissatisfaction with the ability of our models to inform society about the pace of warming, how this warming plays out regionally, and what it implies for the likelihood of surprises.” “Unfortunately, [climate scientists] circling the wagons leads to false impressions about the source of our confidence and about our ability to meet the scientific challenges posed by a world that we know is warming globally.”

We have not only oversimplified the problem of climate change, but we have also oversimplified its ‘solution’. Even if you accept the climate model projections and that warming is dangerous, there is disagreement among experts regarding whether a rapid acceleration away from fossil fuels is the appropriate policy response. In any event, rapidly reducing emissions from fossil fuels to ameliorate the adverse impacts of extreme weather events in the near term increasingly looks like magical thinking.

Climate change – both man-made and natural – is a chronic problem that will require continued management over the coming centuries.

We have been told that climate change is an ‘existential crisis.’ However, based upon our current assessment of the science, the climate threat is not an existential one, even in its most alarming hypothetical incarnations. However, the perception of man-made climate change as a near-term apocalypse and has narrowed the policy options that we’re willing to consider. The perceived ‘urgency’ of drastically reducing fossil fuel emissions is forcing us to make near term decisions that may be suboptimal for the longer term. Further, the monomaniacal focus on elimination of fossil fuel emissions distracts our attention from the primary causes of many of our problems that we might have more success in addressing in the near term.

Common sense strategies to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, improve environmental quality, develop better energy technologies and increase access to grid electricity, improve agricultural and land use practices, and better manage water resources can pave the way for a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – supporting climate change mitigation while improving human well being. These strategies avoid the political gridlock surrounding the current policies and avoid costly policies that will have minimal near-term impacts on the climate. And finally, these strategies don’t require agreement about the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

We don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will evolve, and we will undoubtedly be surprised. Given this uncertainty, precise emissions targets and deadlines are scientifically meaningless. We can avoid much of the political gridlock by implementing common sense, no-regrets strategies that improve energy technologies, lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient to extreme weather events.

The extreme rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion and other activists is making political agreement on climate change policies more difficult. Exaggerating the dangers beyond credibility makes it difficult to take climate change seriously. On the other hand, the extremely alarmist rhetoric has frightened the bejesus out of children and young adults.

JC message to children and young adults: Don’t believe the hype that you are hearing from Extinction Rebellion and the like. Rather than going on strike or just worrying, take the time to learn something about the science of climate change. The IPCC reports are a good place to start; for a critical perspective on the IPCC, Climate Etc. is a good resource.

Climate change — man-made and/or natural — along with extreme weather events, provide reasons for concern. However, the rhetoric and politics of climate change have become absolutely toxic and nonsensical.

In the mean time, live your best life. Trying where you can to lessen your impact on the planet is a worthwhile thing to do. Societal prosperity is the best insurance policy that we have for reducing our vulnerability to the vagaries of weather and climate.

JC message to Extinction Rebellion and other doomsters: Not only do you know nothing about climate change, you also appear to know nothing of history. You are your own worst enemy — you are triggering a global backlash against doing anything sensible about protecting our environment or reducing our vulnerability to extreme weather. You are making young people miserable, who haven’t yet experienced enough of life to place this nonsense in context.

Climate Madness 14 – Prof Mickey Mouse declares climate emergency

The following stories appeared recently in the “main-stream” media. Most hype a “climate emergency” that will either kill us all or may require drastic changes in the way we live.

My Favorite:

More than 11,000 scientist declare a “climate emergency”

BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press, found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel. All they had to do was click on a website petition to add their names. The list of names was available. It was checked by researcher Casey Plunkett (and others, link, see also here and here ). Plunkett found that only 240 individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. “Conversely, this list contains plenty of ‘experts’ who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN, and linguistics.”

Among the signatories were these names:

“Mouse, Micky” from the “Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind, Nambia.”

Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts

Araminta Aardvark from the fictional University of Neasden. ☼

Hungry elephants fight climate change one mouthful at a time

By Eva Frederick

As African forest elephants graze, they munch trees and plants with stems smaller than 30 centimeters in diameter—a little wider than a basketball—often damaging or killing them. Researchers used a model to predict what a forest might look like after years of elephants eating down these smaller plants. The bottom line: Slow-growing, shade-tolerant trees thrive with less competition for water and sunlight. The resulting forest has fewer, taller trees with denser wood, and the overall mass of vegetation above the ground is higher, meaning more carbon is stored, the team reports in Nature Geoscience. So… if elephants cool the planet… This means that the megafauna extinction ended the Ice Age! (Source)

No, Hurricanes Are Not Bigger, Stronger and More Dangerous

by Roger Pielke

Earlier this week a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by a team of authors led by Aslak Grinsted, a scientist who studies ice sheets at the University of Copenhagen, claimed that “the frequency of the very most damaging hurricanes has increased at a rate of 330% per century.”

If true, the paper would overturn decades of research and observations that have indicated over the past century or more, there are no upwards trends in U.S. hurricane landfalls and no upwards trends in the strongest storms at landfall. These conclusions have been reinforced by the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. National Climate Assessment, and most recently of the World Meteorological Organization.

In fact, however, the new PNAS paper is fatally flawed. The first big problem is that the paper purports to say something about climatological trends in hurricanes, but it uses no actual climate data on hurricanes. That’s right, it instead uses data on economic losses from hurricanes to arrive at conclusions about climate trends. (Read more)

Climategate: Nearly ten years later

Climate alarmists are still promoting junk science, fossil fuel bans and wealth redistribution

Dr. Kelvin Kemm

This month marks the tenth anniversary of “Climategate” – the release of thousands of emails to and from climate scientists who had been (and still are) collaborating and colluding to create a manmade climate crisis that exists in their minds and computer models, but not in the real world. The scandal should have ended climate catastrophism. Instead, it was studiously buried by politicians, scientists, activists and crony capitalists, who will rake in trillions of dollars from the exaggerations and fakery, while exempting themselves from the damage they are inflicting on everyday families. (Read more)

What Blackouts? Californian Climate Fanatics Demand All Electric Homes

No more fire in the kitchen: Cities are banning natural gas in homes to save the planet

by Elizabeth Weise

Fix global warming or cook dinner on a gas stove? That’s the choice for people in 13 cities and one county in California that have enacted new zoning codes encouraging or requiring all-electric new construction. The codes, most of them passed since June, are meant to keep builders from running natural gas lines to new homes and apartments, with an eye toward creating fewer legacy gas hookups as the nation shifts to carbon-neutral energy sources. For proponents, it’s a change that must be made to fight climate change. For natural gas companies, it’s a threat to their existence. And for some cooks who love to prepare food with flame, it’s an unthinkable loss. (Source)

Latest Climate Culprits: Asthmatics

By Jim Treacher

By now you should know that you hate the planet if you eat beef, instead of mashed-up bugs or heavily salted soy protein or algae or whatever. And of course, you hate the planet if your car uses gasoline instead of electricity, which is generated by, apparently, magic. But did you know that now you hate the planet if you have asthma but you insist on breathing anyway?

Take a deep breath, if you’re able, and read this from Jeffrey Kluger at Time: According to a new study published in BMJ Open, the familiar lightweight, pocket-sized aerosolized inhalers that make breathing easier for so many of the 235 million people worldwide who suffer from asthma may be choking the planet on a powerful greenhouse gas they release in the process…methane. (Read more)

Yankees Hire Climate Activist To Excite Fans About Global Warming

by Penny Starr

Allen Hershkowitz hopes to make climate change a regular feature on the sports pages of American media whether fans like it or not. And the new environmental science adviser for the New York Yankees hopes to convince people to embrace global warming just like the team they love. (Read more) Doesn’t traveling to attend a game raise your carbon footprint?

Climate Activists: Cancel Thanksgiving To Save The Planet

By Alexa Moutevelis

The annual liberal dissertations on how to talk to conservative family members at Thanksgiving were obnoxious but this new lefty idea is a real turkey. HuffPost recommends forgoing Thanksgiving altogether to save the planet from global warming. Because traveling to gather with family and friends to offer thanks is selfish. (Read more)

Gov. Cuomo Claims Tornados Didn’t Exist Before Climate Change

In an interview on MSNBC, gov. Cuomo said:

“Anyone who questions extreme weather and climate change is just delusional at this point. We have seen in the state of New York what everyone has seen, we have seen these weather patterns we never had before. We didn’t have hurricanes, we didn’t have super storms, we didn’t have tornadoes.” (Source)

Never Have US Health Professionals Been So Foolish

Last month, 74 US medical and public health groups released a “U.S. Call to Action,” declaring climate change a “true public health emergency” that can be solved by “urgent action.” The statement calls for a transition away from hydrocarbon energy and a move to a low-carbon economy. But actual weather and health trends don’t support either the alarm or the demanded actions.

The statement proclaims that “extreme heat, powerful storms and floods, year-round wildfires, droughts, and other climate-related events” are caused by “fossil fuel combustion,” which is said to be the “primary driver of climate-change.” They go on to say that we can solve these problems by transitioning away from hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas, and toward renewable energy and energy efficiency. Read more to see how Steve Goreham takes them apart.

British MP Demands an End to Affordable Food, to Combat Obesity and Climate Change

by Eric Worrall

According to British MP Michael Gove, cheap food damages the environment and encourages poor people to overeat. The true cost of cheap, unhealthy food is a spiralling public health crisis and environmental destruction, according to a high-level commission. It said the UK’s food and farming system must be radically transformed and become sustainable within 10 years.

The commission’s report, which was welcomed by the environment secretary, Michael Gove, concluded that farmers must be enabled to shift from intensive farming to more organic and wildlife friendly production, raising livestock on grass and growing more nuts and edible seeds. It also said a National Nature Service should be created to give opportunities for young people to work in the countryside and, for example, tackle the climate crisis by planting trees or restoring peatlands. (Source)

 

“Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project… the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.” – Dr. Judith Curry, City Journal, Winter 2019.

“Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” —Thomas Jefferson (1822)

Previous Climate Madness articles:

Climate Madness 1

Climate Madness 2

Climate Madness 3

Climate Madness 4  

Climate Madness 5

Climate Madness 6

Climate Madness 7

Climate Madness 8

Climate Madness 9

Climate Madness 10

Climate Craziness, Politics, and Hypocrisy

Climate madness 12 – California is the craziest

Climate Madness 13 – Climate Emergency Scam and other nonsense

Electric Vehicles Need Fossil Fuels

It seems that all Democrat candidates for president want to get rid of fossil-fuel-powered automobiles and have us all drive electric vehicles. But guess where the electricity to charge those vehicles comes from – mostly from burning natural gas or coal.

The other main problem with pure electric vehicles is their limited range. That problem has been solved, sort of.

In Australia and New Zealand, they are deploying small, diesel-powered generators. See photo below.

Another solution is to tow a generator behind your EV. Unknown to me, this option has been available for some time and for several car models. See Cars with Cords for photos of several models. Of course, this option turns your pure EV into a hybrid.

See also: Low-Emission Range Extender for Electric Vehicles, a 10-page analysis of the pros and cons of towing a generator. The article begins:

“Typical auto trips are within the driving range of efficient electric vehicles (EVs), but typical vehicle use also includes occasional trips that exceed EV range. EV users may face the necessity of maintaining a second car, or renting a car, for such trips. An alternative is the use of a range extending trailer (RXT), a trailer-mounted generator that, when towed behind an EV, effectively converts the EV to series-hybrid mode for long trips.”

Back in 1896, Thomas Edison told Henry Ford to forget about electric vehicles and stick to his gasoline engines. (source) Is this advice still relevant?

My article from 2010 gives a history of electric vehicles:

The Chevy Volt, Just the Latest Expensive Toy