emissions

Climate Madness 13 – Climate Emergency Scam and other nonsense

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)

The following are news stories concerning global warming and the quest to stop climate change, a natural process that has been happening for about four billion years. There is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide plays a significant role in controlling global temperature. There are several lines of physical evidence showing that it doesn’t, see: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Here are the latest bits of climate madness:

The craziest: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are pushing Congress to declare a “climate emergency.” “The global warming caused by human activities, which increase emissions of greenhouse gases, has resulted in a climate emergency…requiring a national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization of the resources and labor of the United States at a massive-scale.” (Read story in the Washington Times)

But Sanders and AOC are not alone: Universities to declare ‘Climate Emergency’ – Seek ‘drastic societal shift’ to help shape ‘young minds’ [i.e. brainwashing]

As institutions and networks of higher and further education from across the world, we collectively declare a Climate Emergency in recognition of the need for a drastic societal shift to combat the growing threat of climate change. The young minds that are shaped by our institutions must be equipped with the knowledge, skills and capability to respond to the ever-growing challenges of climate change. We all need to work together to nurture a habitable planet for future generations and to play our part in building a greener and cleaner future for all. (Read more at Climate Depot).

AOC’s Green New Deal would boost gas tax $10-$13, ‘destroy economy’

by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner

The socialistic Green New Deal, pushed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and winning broad support from Democratic presidential candidates could lead to a $10 increase on a single gallon of gas, according to a new study of the so-called “carbon tax” and the liberal bid to rid vehicles that burn fossil fuels. (Read moreSee also: AOC’s Top Aide Admits Green New Deal Not About The Climate; it is more about drastically overhauling the American economy.

Prince Charles: 18 Months To Fix Climate Change Or Humans Will Go Extinct

by James Delingpole

The Prince of Wales has warned global leaders that “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.” (Read more)

Pop Star will not have children due to climate anxiety

“Pop star turned Planned Parenthood activist Miley Cyrus will not consider having a child due to global warming-related anxiety, vowing not to reproduce until she is confident her offspring can ‘live on an earth with fish in the water.’” (Fact check: fish currently exist in bodies of water all over the planet). (Source)

Climate Extremists Offering Lessons to Activists on How to Use Super Glue

An Aussie climate activist group is worried that their supporters can’t read the instructions on tubes of super glue, so they are holding training sessions to ensure activists know how to glue themselves to pavements and miscellaneous landmarks. (Read more).

A Debate Over Whether Air Conditioning Should Be Banned Has People Fired Up

The New York Times recently published an op-ed titled “Do Americans Need Air-Conditioning?” which makes the argument that our dependence on air conditioning and intolerance of the heat is a First World learned behavior. Yet, the author also acknowledges that women tend to have more of an aversion to chilly offices than men. It’s not difficult to see things from both perspectives, however the debate took on a whole new life when Atlantic writer Taylor Lorenz weighed in. “Air-conditioning is unhealthy, bad, miserable, and sexist,” she wrote, tweeting the article. “I can’t explain how many times I’ve gotten sick over the summer because of overzealous AC in offices,” adding the hashtag “#BanAC.” (Source)

Predictions are hard, especially about the future:

Coffee Bean Apocalypse Called Off As Surplus Sends Prices Tumbling

For years, the mainstream media was predicting a coffee bean apocalypse caused by climate change. Now we’re drowning in too much coffee (must be all that CO2 that plants love) while demand for anything with caffeine surges. Even in Central America, where pandering Democrats tell us climate change is decimating the area, they’re overproducing too much coffee. (Source)

See some other failed predictions:

Earth Day predictions

Predictions of an ice-free Arctic Ocean

Global temperature continues divergence from model predictions

‘Climate Emergency’: Ireland Set to Ban Private Cars While Planning Mass Third World Migration

Drivers will be forced off the roads in Ireland and the population packed into “higher density” cities under a long-awaited climate plan which will ‘revolutionize’ people’s lifestyle and behaviours, according to local media. “Nudge” policies such as huge tax hikes, as well as bans and red tape outlined in the plan, will pave the way to a “vibrant” Ireland of zero carbon emissions by 2050 according to the government, which last year committed to boost the country’s 4.7 million-strong population by a further million with mass migration. In order to avert a “climate apocalypse”, the government plans to force people “out of private cars because they are the biggest offenders for emissions”, according to transport minister Shane Ross whose proposals — which include banning fossil fuel vehicles from towns and cities nationwide — are posed to cripple ordinary motorists, local media reports. (Read more)

New York Virtue Signaling:

New York’s climate change solution: Harm regular people for no noticeable benefit

By Gregory Wrightstone

Last week, the New York City Council approved a resolution declaring a climate emergency that it hopes will mobilize efforts to forestall the devastation of purported global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. While entirely symbolic and not even needing presidential hopeful Mayor Bill de Blasio’s signature, the council said its action could make America’s largest city a global leader “by organizing a transition to renewable energy and climate emergency mobilization effort.” (Source)

New York to Ban Hot Dogs Because Climate Change

by Eric Worrall

New York’s famous hot dogs could soon be a thing of the past. NYC considering banning hot dogs and other processed meats over climate change. Read more

The Man-Made Natural Gas Shortage Just Hit NYC

Following moves by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy to nix a pipeline that could deliver vital gas supplies to the city and Long Island, National Grid can no longer offer new gas hookups or additional service for current customers. The govs nixed the pipelines in a pander to climate-change radicals. Yet the shortage won’t only hit well-off developers and businesses: It’ll also threaten projects meant for low- and middle-income New Yorkers. (Source)

Back to the Dark Ages: German Greens Look to Ban All Industrial Farming

The Daily Telegraph

The Green party in Germany has said it intends to ban industrial farming as part of a wide-ranging and costly package to combat climate change should they come to power. (Source)

Bad timing:

A new climate modeling study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison claims that ice fishing, hockey, skating and skiing on frozen lakes are endangered by global warming. The study states that such “iconic cold-weather past-times could become a rare winter treat” due to global warming. The report was released in Janurary during an historic cold spell that is shattering low-temperature records across the USA. See: NEARLY 90% OF US BELOW-FREEZING Chicago’s record for coldest temperature ever could fall.

Streaming online pornography produces as much CO2 as Belgium

From The NewScientist

The transmission and viewing of online videos generates 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or nearly 1 per cent of global emissions. On-demand video services such as Netflix account for a third of this, with online pornographic videos generating another third. This means the watching of pornographic videos generates as much CO2 per year as is emitted by countries such as Belgium, Bangladesh and Nigeria. That’s the conclusion of a French think tank called The Shift Project. (Source)

 

See also: Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

 

Previous Climate Madness posts:

 

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

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

Climate has been changing for about four billion years in cycles large and small. Climate will continue to change no matter what humans do or don’t do.

Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the major bogeyman of our time. As H.L. Mencken wrote: “the whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” As we will see below, neither increasing carbon dioxide emissions nor reducing such emissions will have a significant effect on global warming.

Even the UN IPCC admits that the climate change bogeyman is about money and power, not the environment. The real goal of UN climate propaganda: “We require deep transformations of our economies and societies.” – UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth” — Ottmar Edenhofer, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The real goal is one-world government.

Let’s review the “greenhouse effect” to see if carbon dioxide is really a major factor in controlling global climate.

We begin with a very simplified review of what the greenhouse effect is. Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept some of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite (warm) other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to the surface, and some of the radiation is radiated into space.

The major greenhouse gas is water vapor which absorbs almost all wavelengths of infrared radiation. Carbon dioxide absorbs four specific wavelengths of infrared radiation, three of which are also absorbed by water vapor. Other minor greenhouse gases are oxygen and ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Once a particular wavelength becomes saturated, i.e., almost completely absorbed, additional quantities of greenhouse gases have no effect.

Even the IPCC agrees that the hypothetical capacity of carbon dioxide to change temperature is given by the formula: △Tc = αln(C2/C1), where △Tc is the change in temperature in degrees Centigrade and the term ln(C2/C1) is the natural logarithm of the CO2 concentration at time two divided by the concentration at time one. The constant α (alpha) is sometimes called the sensitivity and its value is subject to debate. This relationship was proposed by Svante August Arrhenius, a physicist and chemist, around 1896. This logarithmic formula produces a graph in the form shown below. This shows that as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, it has less and less influence. This graph is the pure theoretical capacity of carbon dioxide to warm the atmosphere in absence of any confounding feedbacks. The different curves represent different values of sensitivity.

 

Carbon dioxide is currently about 400 parts per million (0.04%) of the atmosphere. Yet this nearly negligible amount is touted as the main driver of global temperature. Notice that even at the highest sensitivity on the chart, doubling carbon dioxide from 400ppm to 800ppm results in a theoretical rise in temperature of only slightly more than 1°C – nothing to worry about.

The climate system consists of two turbulent fluids (the atmosphere and the oceans) interacting with each other. As the IPCC rightly says in its Third Assessment Report: “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.” The claim that one minor variable acts as the major control knob is absurd.

In the graph, the numbers shown in parentheses are the estimated temperature increase from quadrupling carbon dioxide concentration. Many climate models use much higher values for the sensitivity. That’s why most climate models run much hotter than measured temperatures. Recent research suggests that sensitivity could be as low as -0.03°C, i.e., cooling. (Source)

The term “greenhouse effect” with respect to the atmosphere is an unfortunate analogy because it is misleading. The interior of a real greenhouse (or your automobile parked with windows closed and left in the sun) heats up because there is a physical barrier to convective heat loss. There is no such physical barrier in the atmosphere. The greenhouse hypothesis deals only with heat transfer by radiation and completely ignores convective heat transfer. Convective heat transfer (weather) puts many holes in the “blanket” of carbon dioxide. The “greenhouse” is effectively broken.

I have often heard it claimed that without the “greenhouse effect” Earth would be an iceball. Well, it ain’t necessarily so. There is an alternate hypothesis of what warms the atmosphere and this alternative is supported by physical evidence.

Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell proposed in his 1871 book “Theory of Heat” that the temperature of a planet depends only on gravity, mass of the atmosphere, and heat capacity of the atmosphere. This happens regardless of atmosphere composition. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it. Physical evidence supports this hypothesis. See more of this story here: What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

The “greenhouse” hypothesis of global warming is not supported by physical evidence, see:

A simple question for climate alarmists – where is the evidence.

On the other hand, there are several lines of physical evidence showing that carbon dioxide emissions do not intensify the “greenhouse effect” see: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The global push for renewable energy generation of electricity is based on the false premise that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to forestall dangerous warming. How much warming is dangerous? The IPCC says 2°C is dangerous. They are ignoring the Cretaceous Period when global temperature was at least10°C warmer and the Paleocene-Eocene when temperatures were up to 19°C warmer. (link) The IPCC’s arbitrary 2ºC (3.6ºF) “tipping point” has no basis in science. In fact, during the last 10,000 years, the temperature has cycled several times through warm and cool periods of 2ºC or more.

See also:

Analysis of US and State-by-State Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Potential “Savings” in Future Global Temperature and Global Sea Level Rise(link)

This paper shows that if Arizona stops all carbon dioxide emissions it could possibly prevent a rise in temperature of 0.0029°C by 2100. If the entire U.S. stopped all carbon dioxide emissions it could prevent a temperature rise of 0.172°C by 2100.

More Evidence Water Vapor Is Dominant Influence on Temperatures (link)

This article by meteorologist Joe Bastardi explains how water vapor moderates temperature.

Much of the climate scaremongering is based on climate models. Climate models are complex mathematical constructs, not physical evidence. But the atmosphere is even more complex, so modelers must ignore many variables such as Sun-Earth relationships and clouds, in favor of a few basic parameters. The fundamental assumption of climate models is that changes in CO2 concentration drives temperature change, but evidence from geology and astronomy show that the relationship is just the opposite. Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentration because temperature controls CO2 solubility in the oceans.

CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas 

Article by Dr. Tim Ball: The most important assumption behind the AGW theory 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? (Water vapor comprises 95% of greenhouse gas.)

Ozone, Asthma, and EPA Junk Science

On June 22, 2017, the Arizona Daily Star ran a story with the alarmist headline: “Tucson-area air quality the worst in five years.” The “worst in five years” thing is that on just five days during the past three months ground-level ozone measurements exceeded the EPA standard of 70ppb by a few parts per billion. “Ozone levels at Saguaro National Park-East that topped the 70 parts per billion federal standard: June 15 — 77 ppb, June 14 — 73 ppb, May 12 — 71 ppb, April 21 — 73 ppb, April 20 — 74 ppb.” The EPA claims that ozone causes asthma and other respiratory ailments, hence the strict standards. But, the EPA’s own data debunks the claim.

For many years, the EPA has been conducting experiments on the effects of ozone exposure. They placed volunteers in a closed room and subjected them to 300ppb and 400ppb ozone for two hours while they performed mild exercise. The 6,000 volunteers included children, the elderly, and even asthmatics. The EPA reports that “not a single adverse event.. [was] observed.” (Source)

There is also independent data showing that EPA ozone standards are bunk. For instance, there was “No association between air quality (PM2.5, ozone) and hospital admissions for asthma in University of California-Davis Health System during 2010-2012 (19,000+ cases). (Source)

According to the Institute for Energy Research, “average ozone concentrations nationwide dropped by 33 percent from 1980 to 2014. Since the incorporation of the 2008 standards, average ozone levels have declined by more than 9 percent, nationally.”

IER also reports: “According to an August 2015 report by NERA Economic Consulting, which analyzed the impacts of a 65 ppb standard (EPA ultimately went with a slightly higher 70 ppb standard), the total compliance costs could total $1.13 trillion from 2017 to 2040. The rule could also lead to annualized GDP declines of $140 billion as well as $840 in consumption losses for households.” (Source)

The EPA’s rules were endorsed by a panel of scientists required by law to review them, called the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Both the Clean Air Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act required that CASAC panels be independent and unbiased. So was the panel independent and/or unbiased? A report shows that members of the board received a total of $192 million worth of EPA grants. (Source)

Some background:

“Ground-level ozone is formed through a chemical reaction when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) interact with sunlight. Emissions from power plants, industrial facilities, automobiles, gasoline vapors and solvents are all sources of NOx and VOCs. Natural sources, such as plant life and fires, also contribute to the formation of ozone; today, given how much ozone levels in the United States have already been reduced, a significant portion of a given area’s ozone concentration is made up of natural background ozone and ozone that has traveled from other states and, increasingly, from overseas.” (Source, study by National Association of Manufacturers)

A measurement problem:

“While the EPA has long known that ozone measurements are significantly biased upward by mercury vapor, the agency has required States to use ultraviolet ozone monitors subject to mercury interference. These ozone monitors blow air between an ultraviolet (UV) lamp and a UV detector. Ozone strongly absorbs UV, so reductions in UV arriving at the detector are proportional to the ozone in the air. But mercury vapor and other contaminants in air also absorb UV, thus, artificially inflating the amount of ‘ozone’ that is measured. The bias can range from a few parts per billion to many more.” (Source)

Mercury occurs in soil in and around Tucson. It is possible that readings recorded by local instruments may be “biased upward” by the mercury contained in blowing dust. A study in Avra Valley, west of Tucson, found soil mercury values up to 750ppb. (Arizona Geological Survey, Open-File Report 81-5, 1981).

The AZ Star article expresses much concern over the County exceeding EPA standards. These standards are the current law, so they may have economic consequences for non-attainment. There is, however, no proof that exceeding these standards have any effect on health.

See also: EPA experiments on humans debunk their ozone and particulate matter health claims

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam

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. 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.

To read the grisly details of this scam, I recommend three articles:

Marlo Lewis, Hearing Shines Light on Social Cost of Carbon Sophistry

Ronald Bailey, The Social Cost of Carbon: Garbage In, Garbage Out

Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, Obama’s ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Is at Odds with Science

To read about the benefits of carbon dioxide, see:

Craig Idso: The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production

Lewis succinctly reports the basics of SCC:

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is the present discounted value of cumulative damages allegedly inflicted on society by an incremental metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over a period of decades to centuries.

Discernible in neither meteorological nor economic data, carbon’s social cost exists in the virtual world of “integrated assessment models” (IAMs) — computer programs that combine speculative climatology with speculative economics. By fiddling with non-validated climate parameters, made-up damage functions, and below-market discount rates, SCC analysts can get almost any result they desire.

What they typically desire is to make fossil fuels look unaffordable no matter how cheap, and renewables look like a bargain at any price. However curious as an academic exercise, when used to make or influence public policy, SCC analysis is computer-aided sophistry.”

Lewis also notes: “Agencies have an incentive to periodically increase SCC estimates to make their regulations look more beneficial.”

The computer models fail to fully consider the positive side of rising carbon dioxide and a warming climate. Idso notes that the results of a wide-ranging study found that the aerial fertilization effect of carbon dioxide on crop production was substantial. “The results indicate that the annual total monetary value of this benefit grew from $18.5 billion in 1961 to over $140 billion by 2011, amounting to a total sum of $3.2 trillion over the 50-year period 1961-2011. Projecting the monetary value of this positive externality forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production between now and 2050.”

The Idso study also found that “With respect to human health, several studies have shown that the net effect of an increase in temperature is a reduction in sickness and death rate. A warmer climate, therefore, is less expensive in terms of health care costs than a colder one.”

The House Committee on Natural Resources recently held a hearing on the process and development of the Obama Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon. Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) commented:

“The Obama Administration has given itself – and future administrations – a mammoth blank check to stop any project based on a radical fantasy. The Social Cost of Carbon is exactly that – a social restructuring of the way Americans live their lives. This unprecedented authority, disguised as an innocuous guideline for regulatory analysis, is a dangerous ideological weapon for the Administration. The numbers can be so easily manipulated that it simply allows any Administration to pick winners and losers, but the American people and the American way of life will be the ultimate losers.”

In testimony before Congress, Dr. Judith Curry (Georgia Tech School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences) said that Obama’s proposed reduction of U.S. emissions of 28% “will prevent 0.03 C in warming by 2100.”

Billions of dollars of economic disruption for barely discernable climate result.

Dr. Curry goes on to say (source):

“…these estimates assume that climate model projections are correct; if the climate models are over sensitive to CO2, then amount of warming prevented will be even smaller.

“The economic argument is rather dicey; economic impact models are far more uncertain even than climate models. The social cost of carbon estimates made by the White House require assumptions out to the year 2300 for drastic CO2 reductions to be cost effective.

“The public health arguments are even weaker. CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with asthma. Extreme weather events are not increasing with increased CO2; extreme weather events are dominated by natural climate variability. Particularly in the U.S., extreme weather was substantially worse in the 1930’s and 1950’s.”

SCC is another example of what H L Mencken warned us about: “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” And “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

See also:

Renewable energy causes electricity cost to skyrocket

EPA’s Clean Power Plan would disproportionally hurt the poor

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

New GMO rice eliminates methane emissions and increases nutrition

Researchers sponsored by the Department of Energy found that introducing a single gene from barley into common rice produced a plant that can better feed its grains, stems and leaves while starving off methane-producing microbes in the soil. The new rice is called “SUSIBA2″ rice.

GMO rice

About half the world’s population depends on rice as a staple food. However, the rice paddies used to grow rice are responsible for about 17 percent of global methane emissions, about 100 million tons per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas stronger than carbon dioxide but its concentration in the atmosphere is much lower – about 0.0002% versus 0.04% for CO2.

The GMO modified rice produces more grains and more starch for a richer food supply. There will be no methane emissions from the rice paddies during the growth period.

According to a press release, the results represent the culmination of more than a decade of work in three countries.

The plant process is described as follows:

During photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is absorbed and converts to sugars to feed or be stored in various parts of the plant. Researchers have long sought to better understand and control this process to coax out desired characteristics of the plant. Funneling more carbon to the seeds in rice results in a plumper, starchier grain. Similarly, carbon and resulting sugars channeled to stems and leaves increases their mass and creates more plant biomass, a bioenergy feedstock.

In early work in Sweden, researchers investigated how distribution of sugars in plants could be controlled by a special protein called a transcription factor, which binds to certain genes and turns them on or off.

By controlling where the transcription factor is produced, we can then dictate where in a plant the carbon – and resulting sugars – accumulate.

To narrow down the mass of gene contenders, the team started with grains of barley that were high in starch, then identified genes within that were highly active. The activity of each gene then was analyzed in an attempt to find the specific transcription factor responsible for regulating the conversion of sugar to starch in the above-ground portions of the plant, primarily the grains.

See the press release from EurekaAlert! here and the abstract of the paper in Nature here.

It will be interesting to see how GMO-phobes and climate alarmists react to this news.

See also:

Genetically Modified Foods, nothing to fear

EPA’s Clean Power Plan would disproportionally hurt the poor

According to a study commissioned by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” would have “serious economic, employment, and energy market impacts at the national level and for all states, and that the impacts on low income groups, Blacks, and Hispanics would be especially severe.”

The report is entitled “Potential Impact of Proposed EPA Regulations On Low Income Groups and Minorities.” You can read the full report here (127 pages).

The report abstract reads as follows:

“EPA is proposing new regulations, including guidelines to reduce CO2 emissions from existing fossil-fueled power plants. These regulations would have serious economic, employment, and energy impacts at the national level and for all states, and the impacts on low-income groups, Blacks, and Hispanics would be especially severe. The EPA rules would: 1) Significantly reduce U.S. GDP every year over the next two decades – over $2.3 trillion; 2) Destroy millions of jobs; 3) More than double the cost of power and natural gas to over $1 trillion; 4) Require the average family to pay over $1,225 more for power and gas in 2030 than in 2012.”

“The EPA regulations will increase Hispanic poverty by more than 26% and Black poverty by more than 23%. The energy burdens for Blacks and Hispanics will increase and large numbers of both groups will be forced into energy poverty and Black and Hispanic household incomes will decline by increasing amounts each year. There would be increasing job losses: By 2035, cumulative job losses for Blacks will total about 7 million and for Hispanics will total 12 million. Most job losses would occur in the states in which Blacks and Hispanics are most heavily concentrated.”

The report provides analysis of impact nationally and by state.

In concluding remarks (page 103) the report warns:

“The EPA regulations will significantly increase the energy burdens for Blacks and Hispanics and increase the numbers of Blacks and Hispanics suffering from “energy poverty.” The regulations will greatly increase energy prices and set off repercussions throughout the economy, but nowhere do high prices bring consequences as swiftly and harshly as in low-income and minority households. For the tens of millions of low income households, the higher energy prices will intensify the difficulty of meeting the costs of basic human needs, while increasing energy burdens that are already excessive. At the same time, the EPA regulations will threaten low-income access to vital energy and utility services, thereby endangering health and safety while creating additional barriers to meaningful low-income participation in the economy. While home energy costs average about four percent per year in middle class households, they can reach a staggering 70 percent of monthly income for low-income families.”

The government’s campaign to reduce carbon dioxide emissions has no basis in science or economics; it is essentially a method for obtaining power and making citizens more dependent on government. As Dr. Indur Goklany writes, “…it is a strange moral calculus that endorses policies that would reduce existing gains in human well-being, increase the cost of humanity’s basic necessities, increase poverty, and reduce the terrestrial biosphere’s future productivity and ability to support biomass, all in order to solve future problems that may not even exist or, if they do, are probably more easily solved by future generations who should be richer both economically and technologically. Moreover, because food, fibre, fuel and energy – basic necessities – consume a disproportionately large share of the income of the poorest, they would also pay the highest price for these policies.” Goklany is the author of a paper “The Pontifical Academies’ Broken Moral Compass.” Read full paper here.

See also:

EPA versus Arizona on regional haze issue

EPA war on coal threatens Tucson water supply

EPA fuel standards costly and ineffective

EPA targets wrong cause of haze in Grand Canyon

Electricity supply endangered by EPA regulations

Impact of new EPA ozone rule

EPA experiments on humans debunk their ozone and particulate matter health claims

EPA conducted illegal and potentially lethal experiments on children

The EPA is destroying America

Replace EPA

EPA emission standards for trucks: heavy cost, no benefit

At a cost of only $30 billion, new EPA regulations may save us from 0.0026°C of global warming by the year 2100.

According to an EPA report (971 pages) [link]: “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), on behalf of the Department of Transportation, are each proposing changes to our comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program that would further reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and increase fuel efficiency for on-road heavy-duty vehicles,…”

The National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that “The Environmental Protection Agency’s second round of heavy-duty truck efficiency standards could cost more than $30 billion.” – costs that will be passed on to consumers.

“Auto manufacturers and the freight and long-haul transportation industry already understand the importance of fuel efficiency. Nearly 3 million heavy-duty Class 8 trucks carry approximately 70 percent of America’s freight, consuming more than 50 billion gallons in fuel and spending more than $140 billion in diesel costs. The industry operates on razor-thin margins and plans its driving routes down to the tenth of a mile to save on fuel costs.” – Nicolas Loris, The Daily Signal

The Obama administration says these new regulations are necessary to meet Obama’s carbon dioxide reduction goals.

The EPA claims “The proposed standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1 billion metric tons…”

So, what benefit will we get for $30 billion? EPA’s own figures show no benefit to the environment and no effect on global climate.

According to the EPA report linked above, the new regulations will accomplish the following (page 6-45): “As a result of the proposal’s emissions reductions from the proposed

alternative relative to the baseline case, by 2100 the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is

projected to be reduced by approximately 1.1 to 1.2 parts per million by volume (ppmv), the

global mean temperature is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.0026 to 0.0065°C, and

global mean sea level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.023 to 0.057 cm.” Wow!

Among the first things the next President should do is to issue an executive order forbidding federal agencies from regulating carbon dioxide emissions and rescind all regulations that do so.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled against the EPA on certain power plant emissions (see here). It remains to be seen whether the principles cited in that case will be extended to motor vehicles.

See more articles on EPA stupidity:

EPA versus Arizona on regional haze issue

EPA war on coal threatens Tucson water supply

EPA fuel standards costly and ineffective

EPA targets wrong cause of haze in Grand Canyon

Impact of new EPA ozone rule

EPA experiments on humans debunk their ozone and particulate matter health claims

EPA conducted illegal and potentially lethal experiments on children

The EPA is destroying America

EPA Clean Power Plan is Junk Science

Replace EPA

But the EPA did get one right: EPA says fracking does not harm drinking water supply

END

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The U.S. government’s National Climate Assessment report and the UN IPCC both claim that human carbon dioxide emissions are “intensifying” the greenhouse effect and causing global warming. Let’s review claims relative to observed data.

We begin with a very simplified review of what the greenhouse effect is. Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept some of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to the surface (this is called down-welling infrared radiation), and some of the radiation is radiated into space (this is called out-going long-wave radiation).

The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing due in part to emissions from burning fossil fuels. This increased amount of CO2 should “intensify” the greenhouse effect and cause global warming according to the National Climate Assessment and the IPCC. So, what phenomena should we observe from an “intensified” greenhouse effect?

With an “intensified” greenhouse effect, we should see a decrease in out-going long-wave infrared radiation into space. We should see warming of the atmosphere (the troposphere), a “hot spot” especially over the tropics. We should see more down-welling infrared radiation that further warms the surface. That’s the essence of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. But, real-world measurements show we are seeing none of those effects.

According to satellite data compiled by NOAA, out-going long-wave radiation into space has not been decreasing but, in fact, slightly increasing (source).

Outgoing radiation vs temp NOAA

Balloon-borne radiosondes and two separate satellite systems measure the temperature of the troposphere. None of these systems detect the model-predicted warming spot in the troposphere. [Source: Douglass, D.H. et al. 2007, A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, International Journal of Climatology DOI:10.1002/joc.1651].

Douglas temp model vs observations

Finally, an independent study, published in the Journal of Climate, based on 800,000 observations, find there has been a significant decrease in down-welling, long-wave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased about 7% over this period and according to AGW theory, down-welling long-wave infra-red radiation should have increased over this period with buildup of carbon dioxide.

There is one more failed AGW prediction: CO2 is supposed to start warming which evaporates water, a stronger greenhouse gas that will enhance warming.  That should increase global humidity, but measurements show that global humidity is not increasing.

Global-humidity

Empirical data show that the AGW hypothesis fails on four major predictions. This indicates that our carbon dioxide emissions have little to no effect on global temperature nor the intensity of the “greenhouse effect” possibly because the AGW hypothesis ignores convective heat transfer (weather) and other natural cycles that control the complex climate system.

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynmann

Feynmann’s admonition is demonstrated by comparing global atmospheric temperatures predicted by models (based on their false assumptions) with real world observations.

Temp models vs observation christy

UPDATE: A 2017 report that examined the EPA endangerment finding concludes that temperatures in 14 data sets can be explained by natural variations and that CO2 plays no significant part. Read the 73-page report here. Here is the abstract:

The objective of this research was to determine whether or not a straightforward application of the “proper mathematical methods” would support EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant. These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed. The temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the structural analysis results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models EPA claims can be relied upon for policy analysis purposes, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate—14 separate and distinct times in fact–that once just the Natural Factor impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all. Moreover, over the time period analyzed, these natural factors have involved historically quite normal solar, volcanic and ENSO activity. At this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures.

UPDATE 2: see The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

UPDATE 3:

C.A.Varotsos, and M.N.Efstathiou, 2019, Has global warming already arrived?, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 182, January 2019, Pages 31-38 (link)

Summary By Kenneth Richard

In a step-by-step dissection of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, or “greenhouse hypothesis of global warming”, two prominent Greek atmospheric physicists – Dr. Carlos Varotsos and Dr. Maria Efstathiou – expose the withering contradictions between (a) what is hypothesized to occur atmospherically according to AGW models and (b) what was actually observed from satellite measurements during 1978 to 2018.

According to AGW models, there was supposed to be “a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres” in response to the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases over the last 40 years.

According to temperature change observations in the satellite era (December, 1978, to present), this pattern did not occur.

According to AGW models, there was supposed to be an evident intrinsic relationship between lower stratospheric temperatures and tropospheric temperatures in accordance with the explosive increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during 1978-2018.

Satellite observations do not indicate that such a stratospheric-tropospheric relationship existed during this period.

The fundamental discrepancies between AGW models and real-world observations led these climate scientists to conclude that (a) “climate models are not able to simulate real climate”, and (b) the view that increases in greenhouse gases from human activities are what caused the global warming over the last 40 years cannot be reliably supported by observed evidence.

Only about 3% of CO2 in atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels

 

 

[See update below]

A new post on The Hockey Schtick reviews a new paper “that finds only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.”

The contention made by HockeySchtick seems to be supported by old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources.  The numbers are from IPCC data.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029.
URL for table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

Global CO2 emissions EIA IPCC

If one wanted to make fun of the alleged consensus of “climate scientists”, one could say that 97% of carbon dioxide molecules agree that global warming results from natural causes.

[UPDATE: Since I first made this post, Hockey Schtick has taken down their post due to pressure from the referenced paper’s authors. However, the chart shown above is still valid and supports the claim that only 3% of atmospheric CO2 comes from human sources. HockeySchtick will repost once it gets some answers from the author. Meanwhile, my post was submitted to and published by Anthony Watts’ WUWT blog and has received many comments. I apparently made the same mistake as on the Hockey Schtick: I took what the original paper’s author wrote, to be was she meant. There appears to be some misunderstanding between atmospheric concentration of CO2 and flux of sources and sinks for CO2. The WUWT article is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/epa-document-supports-3-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/]

 

 

 

 

Obama’s Climate Action Plan is Clueless and Dangerous

The Obama administration has been marked by many scandals and questionable policies demonstrating its incompetence in leadership, its sleaziness, and its disregard for the Constitution.  If  Benghazi, the IRS, AP/Fox and NSA scandals were not enough, Obama’s Climate Action Plan, may be his stupidest policy (even considering Obamacare).  Remember Bill Clinton’s admonition: “It’s the economy, stupid?”

Obama’s war on coal and carbon dioxide will have the effect of making everything more expensive and endanger our electricity supply.  The Heritage Foundation estimates that Obama’s anti-coal policies will cause a family of four to lose more than $1,000 in annual income. The Science and Public Policy Institute estimates that Obama’s proposed reduction in carbon dioxide emissions might, theoretically, reduce the global temperature by 0.17 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.  Much more pain than gain.  Obama’s plan will harm America.  Is he doing it through sheer naive zealotry or by calculated intention?

Obama’s plan aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 3 billion metric tons by 2030.   Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University says,  “It’s amazing how little this all actually does.” “In many ways, this makes things worse.”  How? One scheme to reduce emissions is by carbon capture (and storage) at electrical generating plants.  The trouble is that such systems use about 40% of the energy produced so that they may actual result in more emissions.  So called “clean coal” systems would almost double the cost of electricity produced from natural gas and coal, making it almost as expensive as wind-generated electricity.  The feasibility of this scheme is questionable since the technology is largely unproven.

The usually liberal Washington Post opines:

“If you accept the science of global warming, then you accept the fact that the president’s unilateral action on climate change will have absolutely no effect in terms of adjusting the global thermostat to a temperature Obama finds desirable. The rest of the developing world, anchored by India and China, are building carbon-burning factories, power plants and even whole new cities that will overwhelm any new rules the president may impose on Americans and our struggling economy.”

Meteorologist Anthony Watts, proprietor of the “Watts Up With That?” blog has an analysis of the plan in which he makes these points:

→More hand-outs for an already bloated climate science culture, $2.7 billion in FY 2014.

→More regulations on existing power plants, as if they don’t have enough already. This will translate into higher electricity prices everywhere.

→The trucking industry is going to get hit again. This will translate into higher cost for goods.

→Fast-tracking green energy – more pie in the sky since just about every green initiative and handout in Obama’s first term has ended in failure.

→No comprehensive nuclear power plan, no mention of a Thorium reactor initiative, much like China is doing.

→Giveaways: approximately $7.5 billion for climate assistance to developing countries.

As British blogger Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford) opines, “The general theme seems to be some more fixing of markets to favor his supporters in the renewables industry and some more regulations to tie up the fossil fuel bogeyman.”

In some respects, Obama’s plan seems largely to appease environmental activists whose support he has been losing. For instance, The Huffington Post reports: “President Barack Obama will ask the State Department not to approve the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline unless it can first determine that it will not lead to a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Anthony Watts responds: “Well, the State Department has already found that Keystone XL will have no impact on the climate because Canada will still develop its oil sands. In fact, if Keystone XL isn’t built, global greenhouse gas emissions are likely to increase because more oil sands crude would be refined in countries like China where current emissions standards allow three times more sulfur dioxide than in the United States. Canada accounts for only 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions and emissions from oil sands are a small fraction of that.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute opines that Obama’s plan is “undemocratic, bordering on authoritarian, disingenuous on Keystone” and that it “is being done without public or congressional support and is being pursued in this way because he knows the peoples’ elected representatives would never approve these plans.”  Furthermore, “Obama’s all-pain, no-gain agenda will cost jobs, drive up prices and have little effect on global emissions.”

Dr. Tim Ball, retired climatology professor from the University of Winnipeg, says that Obama’s climate speech was “riddled with lies.”  “President Barack Obama’s naïve and error-riddled speech at Georgetown University…clearly demonstrated that he is serious about trying to stop global climate change.” “Obama also seems oblivious to real-world economic evidence that the policy path on which he is setting the U.S. has already been tried and has failed in other countries.”

The Washington Times claims: “Mr. Obama is about to hammer the American energy industry, and he’s doing it for money.”

The Keystone XL pipeline would carry oil not only from Canada, but also from the booming oil fields of North Dakota.  Currently, the North Dakota production is carried by rail, specifically Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern railroad.  Mr. Buffet also owns Union Tank Car, one of the biggest makers of oil tank railcars.

“Running Mr. Buffett’s name through the Federal Election Commission data bank reveals page after page of contributions to Mr. Obama and every conceivable Democratic Party-affiliated organization, amounting to uncounted millions.”

The common theme in the Obama administration scandals is abuse of power or incompetence. Mr. Obama, in his climate address, claims he is doing it “for the children.”  Yeah right!

Obama calls carbon dioxide a pollutant, even though it is necessary for all life on the planet. For some real science on the beneficial effects of carbon dioxide see an editorial from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change here.

(This article was originally published in the Arizona Daily Independent)

See also:

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

Regulating behind closed doors, the cozy relationship between the Feds and environmental groups

Another Obama scandal may be brewing at the EPA