global warming

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

Natural variation trumps CO2

Many climate scientists claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are the principal driver of global warming. I have asked several University of Arizona professors, who make such a claim, to provide supporting physical evidence. So far, none have been able to justify the claim with physical evidence.

In this article, we will examine the Earth’s temperature and the carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere at several time scales to see if there is any relationship. I stipulate that the greenhouse effect does exist. I maintain, however, that the ability of CO2 emissions to cause global warming is tiny and overwhelmed by natural forces. The main effect of our “greenhouse” is to slow cooling.

There is an axiom in science which says: “correlation does not prove causation.” Correlation, however, is very suggestive of a relationship. Conversely, lack of correlation proves that there is no cause-and-effect relationship.

Phanerozoic time – the past 500 million years:

 

Estimates of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 content based on geological and isotope evidence show little correlation between the two. Earth experienced a major ice age in the Ordovician Period when atmospheric CO2 was 4,000ppm, 10 times higher than now. Temperatures during the Cretaceous Period were rising and steamy, but atmospheric CO2 was declining.

Notice also, that for most of the time, Earth’s temperature was much warmer than now and life flourished. There were some major extinction periods, all associated with ice ages.

Sources:

Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z, 2001, GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204

Scotese, C.R., http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Our current ice age – the past 420,000 years:

During the latter part of our current ice age, glacial-interglacial cycles occurred with a periodicity of about 100,000 years which correlates with the changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun as it changes from nearly circular to elliptical with an eccentricity of about 9%. Here we see an apparent correlation between temperature and CO2. The data are from ice cores collected at the Vostok station in Antarctica. The scientists working on the Vostok core noticed that temperature changes PRECEDED changes in CO2 concentration by about 800 years. Again, we see that CO2 doesn’t have much influence on temperature, but temperature has great influence on CO2concentration because temperature controls CO2 solubility in the ocean.

Sources:

Petit, J.R., et al., 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

Mudelsee, M, 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka, Quaternary Science Reviews 20:583-589.

Siegenthaler, U. Et al., 2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science 310: 1313-1317.

The Holocene – the past 10,000 years:

The Holocene represents the current interglacial period. For most of the past 10,000 years, temperature was higher than now. CO2 was fairly steady below 300ppm (vs over 400ppm now). There were cycles of warm and cool periods at a periodicity of 1200 to 1500 years. This periodicity correlates with the interplay of the several solar cycles. The sun itself goes through cycles of solar intensity and magnetic flux. When the cycles are in a strong phase, the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere is reduced, there are fewer clouds to block the sun, so it is warmer. When solar cycles wane, as is beginning to happen now, more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere and produce more clouds which block the sun, so it becomes cooler. The number of sunspots (hence magnetic flux) varies on an average cycle of 11 years. There are also 87-year (Gliessberg) and 210-year (DeVriess-Suess) cycles in the amplitude of the 11-year sunspot cycle which combine to form an approximately 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling.

The 20th Century:

 

The first part of the 20th Century experienced warming in the 1920s and 1930s comparable to current temperatures. According to NASA, atmospheric CO2 rose from 295ppm in 1900 to 311ppm in 1940. Major emissions from burning fossil fuels, however, commenced after WWII in the mid 1940s. The period 1940-1970 saw a CO2 rise of 311ppm to 325ppm. That period also showed global cooling to such an extent that climate scientists were predicting a return to glacial conditions. From about 1980 to 2000, CO2 rose from 339ppm to 370ppm and we had warming during that period until the super El Nino of 1997/1998. Some of this data has been “corrected” by NOAA.

Source: NOAA Climate at a glance

The 21st Century so far 

Microwave data from satellites converted to temperature.

Between the El Nino of 1997 and that of 2016, there have been temperature fluctuations but no net warming. Atmospheric CO2 rose from 363ppm to 407ppm today. It seems that there is no correlation between global temperature and CO2.

As I said at the beginning, while the CO2-induced greenhouse effect has some hypothetical warming potential, that warming is tiny and overwhelmed by the forces of natural variation. So far, I have seen no physical evidence to contradict my contention.

Source : http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/

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

More March Madness – AZ Star blames human-caused climate change for March heat

On Sunday, April 30, the Arizona Daily Star published a front-page story by Tony Davis which proclaimed “Greenhouse gases called a factor in March heat.” (Link to online version)

The story begins: “Human-caused climate change was at least partly to blame and probably mostly to blame for Tucson’s record-setting March heat, says a researcher with expertise in this field.”

This story is another example of speculation based on computer modeling and cherry-picked data rather than physical evidence. The Star consulted Dr. Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute who analyzed possible factors for explaining Tucson’s March temperatures. “He concluded that long-term temperature trends point almost certainly to human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions as a factor. The unresolved question, he said, is how big of a factor they are.” The article provides no physical evidence to support that conclusion.

Ignoring the high temperatures during the 1900s to 1930s, van Oldenborgh examined the record beginning in 1950 and found “a clear upward trend in the March high temperatures started in the middle 1970s.” (See my article: March 2017 – Hottest Ever in Tucson? for earlier temperature data. That article shows Tucson’s temperatures steadily rising, probably due to the urban heat-island effect, while temperatures in rural Tombstone remained level.)

From the Star: “Looking across Southern and Central Arizona high temperatures for March, van Oldenborgh found they seem to be warming across the region but that Tucson’s temperatures are rising faster than in nearby cities Casa Grande and Willcox.”

“The urban heat-island effect often accounts for differing temperatures between larger and smaller cities. But van Oldenborgh said he tried to account for such differences by focusing his analysis on daytime high temperatures, not nighttime lows that are most commonly affected by the heat island effect.” So he didn’t study the heat island effect.

Oldenborgh looked at computer models. One model set “showed that March high temperatures have risen at a point near Tucson at about 2.5 times the rate the global average temperature has risen since about 1950. The model shows that is the local effect of global warming.” (A new term: local global warming?) The other model set “showed that Tucson has received on average less long-term warming than shown by the first model.”

The article contained much “expert” speculation, but from the material presented, I see no physical evidence justifying the conclusion nor the headlines that could attribute the high March temperatures to carbon dioxide emissions. If it was not just a quirk of natural variation, then maybe Tucson has its own evil cloud of carbon dioxide hovering above the city. Of course, there was lots of hot air expelled by local politicians in March.

In my opinion, this type of story is, to put it politely, junk science, designed to stir up alarm about a subject that has become purely political. It is not really news, but propaganda.

Here is the temperature record from the USHCN weather station at the University of Arizona. The top red line shows March high temperatures. The other lines show a slow rise consistent with the urban heat island effect. Had van Oldenborgh used this more complete record, his “clear upward trend” would have disappeared.

See also:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Also look at this story from 2012: MILD WINTER MAKES MARCH MADNESS

Tucson’s March for Science – a plea for continued climate funding

The several “Marches for Science” (held April 22) around the country are not really about science, but about fear that President Trump’s proposed cuts to the EPA and other agencies for climate research will make federal grants disappear. It’s about the money, not the climate.

A front page story in the Arizona Daily Star ( 4-14-17) was about Tucson’s “March for Science.” (Link) They called off the march itself, because they could not afford the price “to barricade North Stone Avenue, hire off-duty police and medics, and take out insurance.” Instead, they settled for a rally on Saturday.

The article featured University of Arizona professor Scott Saleska who is concerned that cuts to the EPA budget will jeopardize his research funding. The article quotes part of a letter which Saleska and other professors sent to EPA head Scott Pruitt.

Here is the money quote: “In fact, we know with an exceptionally high degree of confidence that most of the climate warming over at least the last six decades has been caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.”

I emailed Dr. Saleska (on April 14) asking this question: “What specific physical evidence supports the contention that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is the principal cause of recent warming? Note: computer simulations are not physical evidence. Consensus is not physical evidence.”

Dr. Saleska replied on Thursday, April 20. Rather than citing specific evidence, he deflected the question: “My apologies for the slow reply. Busy week. But you raise an interesting question. What kind of evidence are you looking for? That is, what evidence would, in your mind, support the contention if it were observed?”

My response: “I think physical evidence supporting your contention does not exist because the hypothesis is wrong. So again, what physical evidence do you have in support?”

I have posed that same question to four other UofA “climate science” professors during public meetings. None could cite any supporting physical evidence. Strange that they all have an “exceptionally high degree of confidence” but can cite no physical evidence.

Once upon a time, science was based on empirical evidence rather than politics.

Most of the climate models make the assumption that CO2 is the main driver of global temperature. That assumption, however, causes model output to diverge widely from observations, showing that the assumption is wrong:

 

On the national “March for Science” website (link) is this statement: “We unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest.”[emphasis added] Where is the evidence for the policy on global warming?

In my opinion, climate science has turned into political science and many professors fear that “draining the swamp” will kill their cash cow.

See some real physical evidence:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Climate Madness 10

Here is another collection of recent articles that show the madness and stupidity of global warming hype. I lead off by reporting that my own Congressman, “Rowl” Grijalva, wants to ban politically incorrect books:

Democrats Ask Teachers To Destroy Books Written By ‘Climate Deniers’

by Andrew Follett, Daily Caller

Three senior House Democrats asked U.S. teachers to destroy a book written by climate scientists challenging the environmentalist view of global warming.

The Democrats were responding to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute that is sending copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 science teachers. Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott of the Committee on Education, Raúl M. Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources, and Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology all issued a statement telling teachers to trash the book. Read more (You can download the book for free here.)

From the alternative universe of California:

California doubles down on stupid

by Anthony Watts

From the LA Times and the “let’s double down on stupid” department:

A cornerstone of California’s battle against climate change was upheld by a state appeals court that ruled the cap-and-trade program does not constitute an unconstitutional tax, as some business groups had claimed.

The 2-1 decision from the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento does not eliminate all the legal and political questions that have dogged the program, which requires companies to buy permits to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

But environmental advocates dismayed by President Trump’s decision to roll back federal regulations in Washington were buoyed by the victory, which preserves the only program of its kind in the country. Read more

And: Global warming fears are driving Malibu home buyers to higher ground out of fear of rapid sea level rise. (Source)

More stupid states:

States File Legal Challenge Asserting Trump’s EPA Must Fight Global Warming

by Chris White, Daily Caller

A coalition of states filed a legal challenge against the Trump administration’s decision to roll back a slew of Obama-era climate regulations.

The legal motion comes after Trump signed an executive order targeting climate change regulations ushered in by former President Barack Obama. The New York-led group of states argue Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has a legal obligation to regulate emissions some climate scientists believe contribute to global warming. Read more

Reigning in politically incorrect ceiling fans:

Dems, Enviros Sue To Force Trump To Issue More Regs On Household Appliances

by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

Democratic attorneys general and environmentalists are suing the Trump administration for delaying the implementation of federal energy efficiency regulations for household appliances and other equipment.

Republicans have long been critical of Energy Department efficiency regulations, and many economists have argued such rules don’t make much of a difference on overall energy consumption. Efficiency regulations also increase appliance prices, but proponents argue the increased up front cost is more than outweighed by increased energy savings over time. DOE’s ceiling fan rule is expected to cost $4.4 billion. Read more

Watch your language!

“Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’”

by David Middleton

As President Trump seeks to reorganize government agencies:

A supervisor at the Energy Department’s international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases “climate change,” “emissions reduction” or “Paris Agreement” in written memos, briefings or other written communication. Setting aside the fact that it is truly idiotic for the Department of Energy to even have an office, department or bureau with the word “climate” in its name… The irony here is priceless. (Read more)

The state of academia:

The carbon footprint of crime has fallen, study finds

by Anthony Watts

A study led by an Engineering Doctorate student at the University of Surrey has found that the carbon footprint of crime over the last 20 years has fallen.

The study, published in the British Journal of Criminology, applied estimates of the carbon footprint of criminal offences to police-recorded crime and self-reported victimization survey data, to estimate the carbon footprint of crime in England and Wales between 1995 and 2015. (Read more) It’s nice that criminals are being more politically correct.

Oh, never mind:

Ex-Chief Scientist: Our Advice To Gov’t On Preventing Global Warming Was Wrong

by Andrew Follett, Daily Caller

Former chief scientist Sir David King admitted he was wrong in advising the U.K. government to encourage diesel vehicles to fight global warming.

King said the government overestimated the effectiveness of its programs to encourage diesel vehicles. King was the U.K.’s chief scientific adviser from 2000 to 2007 and until recently a special representative for climate change.

King advised the U.K. government to push programs to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and concluded that switch to diesel cars would be better for the environment.

Though well-meaning, the continent’s environmental efforts haven’t decreased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and have raised power prices. Many of Europe’s anti-global warming policies have actually made the situation worse. Read more

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” – Martin Luther King Jr

“The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible.” –H. L. Mencken

See also:
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

Arizona State University researchers want to deploy 100 million ice-making machines to the Arctic

Fourteen researchers from Arizona State University want to save the Arctic ice sheet by deploying up to 100 million ice-making machines at a cost of about $5 trillion over the next 10 years. Essentially, wind-powered pumps will spread ocean water over ice where it will freeze and thicken the sea ice. Their proposal was published January 24, 2017, in Earth’s Future, an open access journal of the American Geophysical Union. You can read their full paper here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000410/epdf

The researchers claim that loss of Arctic sea ice is due to global warming caused by human release of CO2 (they don’t provide any evidence). Thus, there is an “urgent need to deal with climate change.” Within the paper they invoke all the usual boogeymen of dangerous global warming alarmism.

The paper abstract begins: “As the Earth’s climate has changed, Arctic sea ice extent has decreased drastically. It is likely that the late-summer Arctic will be ice-free as soon as the 2030s. This loss of sea ice represents one of the most severe positive feedbacks in the climate system, as sunlight that would otherwise be reflected by sea ice is absorbed by open ocean. It is unlikely that CO2levels and mean temperatures can be decreased in time to prevent this loss, so restoring sea ice artificially is an imperative.”

Their ice-making machine:

“We propose that a wind pump mounted on a large buoy, could perform the function of capturing wind energy to pump seawater to the surface. The basic components of such a device would include: a large buoy; a wind turbine and pump, drawing up seawater from below the ice; a tank for storing the water; and a delivery system that takes the water periodically flushed from the tank and distributes it over a large area. The goal is to raise enough water over the Arctic winter to cover an area approximately 0.1 km2 with approximately1 m of ice. A system of such devices would have to be manufactured and delivered to the Arctic Ocean, probably repositioned each season, and would need to be maintained.”

The researchers recognize “it is a challenge to prevent the water inside the device (tank, delivery system) from freezing.” But, they provide no solution. Where will they get energy to heat the water to prevent a freeze? They also say that the buoy-turbine contraption must be sturdy enough to prevent it tipping over in the fickle Arctic environment.

The researchers propose starting small with only 10 million pumps at a cost of $500 billion. They say we would need 100 million devices costing $5 trillion to cover the entire Arctic.

In my opinion, this is just another wacky and completely unnecessary geo-engineering scheme. It is also a complete waste of money and resources. Within the paper is a discussion of the need for a multinational governance of the Arctic ice. This seems to me to be a plea for more bureaucracy and future funding. Why 14 authors for this paper? Maybe the group wants to get “publish or perish” credit, which is vital in academia, before President Trump pulls the plug. Or, it could be a class project with professors and students. By the way, a note in the paper says: “The authors received no funding to carry out this work.” That probably means they had no special grant funding. I presume that the University pays the professors a salary (with taxpayer’s money).

I saw no mention in the paper of an unintended consequence of freezing ocean water: it will increase the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. “When sea water freezes, all of the CO2 that is bound up in that water is forced out. Not only is the dissolved gaseous CO2 released, but all of the CO2 held in the carbonate form is released as well.” (Source)

 

See also:

Predictions of an ice-free Arctic Ocean

Wacky Geoengineering Schemes to Control Climate

The Arctic-Antarctic seesaw

Climate models for the layman

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a British think tank, has just published an excellent review of climate models, their problems and uncertainties, all of which show that they are inadequate for policy formulation. The paper is written by Dr. Judith Curry, the author of over 180 scientific papers on weather and climate. She recently retired from the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she held the positions of Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. She is currently President of Climate Forecast Applications Network.

You can read the 30-page paper here:

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

Here is the executive summary:

There is considerable debate over the fidelity and utility of global climate models (GCMs). This debate occurs within the community of climate scientists, who disagree about the amount of weight to give to climate models relative to observational analyses. GCM outputs are also used by economists, regulatory agencies and policy makers, so GCMs have received considerable scrutiny from a broader community of scientists, engineers, software experts, and philosophers of science. This report attempts to describe the debate surrounding GCMs to an educated but nontechnical audience.

Key summary points

• GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

• There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.

• There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.

• There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

• The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.

Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system. However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCMs are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of the debate surrounding climate models.

NOAA caught manipulating temperature data – again

Dr John Bates, a recently retired senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), alleges that a NOAA paper written before the historic climate conference in Paris in 2015 breached NOAA’s own rules and was based on misleading and unverified data. That, to many, looks like the paper was designed to stoke up hysteria over global warming in the run-up to the conference. (Source)

NOAA has often been accused of manipulating data for political purposes. See for instance, my ADI article: The past is getting cooler which reflects a curiosity of published government temperature records that show the 1930s getting cooler and cooler with each update of the record. The more recent scandal derives from NOAA’s attempt to erase the 18-year “pause” in global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising, global temperature has failed to respond as the climate models say it should. (See El Nino to El Nino – no warming of global temperature) This recent scandal was exposed by David Rose in an article in the British paper Daily Mail.

Global temperatures published by NOAA compared to global temperatures published by the British MET office shows that NOAA temperatures are consistently higher. In the graph below (source), the red line shows the current NOAA world temperature graph, which relies on the ‘adjusted’ and unreliable sea temperature data cited in the flawed ‘Pausebuster’ paper. The blue line is the UK Met Office’s independently tested and verified ‘HadCRUT4’ record, showing lower monthly readings and a shallower recent warming trend.

noaa-vs-met

David Rose notes: NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas. Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend. The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

To add to the confusion, NOAA also changed the computer programs it uses to compile temperature data, and guess what? The new program creates global warming where there had been none before. These changes are documented in a post by Rud Istvan.

“A 2011 paper announced that NOAA would be transitioning to updated and improved CONUS software around the end of 2013. The program used until the upgrade was called Drd964x. The upgrade was launched from late 2013 into 2014 in two tranches. Late in 2013 came the new graphical interfaces, which are an improvement. Then about February 2014 came the new data output, which includes revised station selection, homogenization, and gridding. The new version is called nClimDiv.” The graphs below show some of the results for temperatures from 1900 to 2010. Left shows old system results versus new system results on right.

maine

michigan

california

Another way NOAA influences the official temperature is by removal of thousands of weather station land thermometers from remote, high altitude, and/or non-urban locations since the 1970s. These are stations which do not show the warming trends predicted by models, as they are not affected by proximity to artificial or non-climatic heat sources (pavements, buildings, machinery, industry, etc.) like urban weather stations are. (Thermometers near urban heat sources can cause warming biases of between 0.1 and 0.4°C per decade.) This inflates the average temperature reported. Read more

Perhaps the Trump administration can get NOAA out of politics and back to science.

El Nino to El Nino – no net global warming

uahdec2016

The Earth experienced two super El Ninos recently: 1997/1998 and 2015/2016. It was expected that 2016 would be the hottest year in the satellite record which begins in 1979. It was, but by only 0.02°C over 1998. That is not statistically significant according to Dr. Roy Spencer, keeper of the UAH satellite system data. (The margin of error is 0.1°C, much larger than the difference between the El Nino years.) The graph above shows the UAH results. A separate satellite analysis by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) came to the same conclusion.

Satellites measure the temperature of the lower troposphere, the portion of the atmosphere where weather takes place. These measurements give a more realistic picture of global temperature than do surface measurements. Essentially, global temperature now is the same as it was nearly 18 years ago.

The earlier El Nino had a sharp drop off as a strong La Nina cooling took effect. The 2016/2017 La Nina appears to has started in mid December, 2016, and we can expect more cooling during the first half of 2017, but the current La Nino is expected to be weaker.

The media may still proclaim 2016 as the hottest year ever (in a cherry-picked time frame). For some perspective on that let’s see a longer perspective.

CCIP fig1

One thing the media may not mention is that our carbon dioxide emissions seem to have had no effect on global temperature. This was recently noted by Australian Jo Nova in her article “Since 2000 humans have put out 30% of their total CO2 but there is nothing to show for it.” There has been an 18-year “pause” in global warming.

If CO2 is supposed to be the principal cause of global warming, why hasn’t this great outpouring of CO2 had a noticeable effect? According to the Department of Energy, “Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.” And 30% have occurred since the 1997/1998 El Nino. There is no indication that all this CO2 is producing global warming.

global-co2-human-emissionsBoth North America and Europe are experiencing record cold weather. The North Atlantic Ocean has been rapidly cooling since the mid-2000s. (Source) Also, Solar activity is now at a low point as the current cycle winds down. Many scientists are confident the next cycle will also be a weak one. Periods of weak solar cycles are associated with periods of global cooling.

It seems that any alleged warming effect that CO2 may have is overwhelmed by natural variation in climate.

See also:

An Illustrated Guide to El Nino and La Nina

 

Climate Madness 9

The climate madness highlight in November was the UN’s Climate Change Conference in Marrakech, Morocco, held 7-18 November. The bureaucratically official designation of this meeting is: The 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 22), the twelfth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 12), and the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 1).

It seems that the UN delegates are terrified of Trump because it could mean the end of their cash cow. (“My only worry is the money,” said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of Democratic Republic of Congo, who heads a group of the 48 least developed nations. “It’s worrying when you know that Trump is a climate change skeptic,” he toldReuters.)

COP22 climate conference has now ended – and green groups are just waking up to the fact that without US financial support, nobody has committed any money to anything. Read more

Marc Morano, who publishes the Climate Depot website and co-wrote and hosted the new skeptical film ‘Climate Hustle,’ demonstrated outside the meeting by literally shredding the UN Paris agreement. Morano was removed by UN guards (See videos). Morano also attempted to present a 43-page report on the state of the climate (Read full 43-page report).

This is what the meeting accomplished:

UN Climate Talks Agree to Delay Paris Rules until 2018

by Alister Doyle and Megan Rowling, Reuters

At the end of two-week talks on global warming in Marrakesh, which were extended an extra day, many nations appealed to Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, to reconsider his threat to tear up the Paris Agreement for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Showing determination to keep the Paris Agreement on track, the conference agreed to work out a rule book at the latest by December 2018. A rule book is needed because the Paris Agreement left many details vague, such as how countries will report and monitor their national pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Read more

Also you can:

Get Your Gender Climate Tracker

by Rupert Darwall

An event of such magnitude struck the latest round of the climate conference – talks which have been going on in various forms since the early 1990s – that the response of many participants and NGOs is to pretend nothing’s happened and carry on as before. Today is gender and education day at the COP22 in Marrakech. Gender equality and the empowerment of women is written into the preamble of last December’s Paris Agreement, the climate treaty that President Obama ratified without sending to the Senate for its advice and consent. ‘Gender justice is climate justice,’ as one feminist NGO puts it.

There are Feminists for a Fossil Fuel Free Future. You can download a Gender Climate Tracker app for iPhone and Android. ‘Our existing economies are based on gender exploitative relationships,’ one speaker told a side meeting. ‘The first ecology is my body,’ another declared. Sexual and reproductive rights require climate justice. ‘Sixty percent of my body is water. What I’m drinking takes me to my city and to the health of the planet.’ Read more (What is she drinking?)

COP22 also had to deal with an inconvenient fact: a dramatic decline in global temperature (1.2°C drop) since early 2016; and the fact that satellites show very different temperatures than “adjusted” land based thermometers. See: Hottest Year?! NOAA claimed ‘record heat’ in numerous locations that don’t have any actual thermometers. Maybe this was the “Gore Effect.” (see ADI explanation)

Other climate madness news:

There Is A Major Climate Issue Hiding In Your Closet: Fast Fashion

by Maxine Bédat and Michael Shank

Disposable clothes, often made from oil, in factories powered by coal, and shipped around the world, mean that the apparel industry contributes 10% of global emissions. Today, more than 150 billion new articles of clothing are produced annually. People don’t keep their clothing anymore; it is no longer owned, it is just consumed. They wear and discard it quickly. That’s fast fashion and it’s ruining our planet. Read more

UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change

by Eric Worrall

A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change. Pricing food according to its climate impacts could save half a million lives and one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Taxing greenhouse gas emissions from food production could save more emissions than are currently generated by global aviation, and lead to half a million fewer deaths from chronic diseases, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change. Read more

Children win right to sue US government for climate change inaction

You may not have realized we have the right to a perfect climate. A bunch of kids age 8 to 19 have won the right to take the US government to trial for not protecting the atmosphere. It’s being called the “biggest case on the planet”. Read more

New study quantifies your personal contribution and guilt over Arctic sea ice melt

by Anthony Watts

From the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft and the department of “it’s all YOUR fault and it’s worse than we thought” comes this guilt trip over Arctic sea ice from Greenpeace activist and NSIDC scientist (now just a person because she stopped being a scientist when she started accepting Greenpeace assistance, IMO) Julienne Stroeve. Of course, Stroeve has no explanation of what caused dramatic sea ice melt in 1922, but she’s certain you caused it today.

For each tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) that any person on our planet emits, three square meters of Arctic summer sea ice disappear. This is the finding of a study that has been published in the journal Science this week by Dirk Notz, leader of a Max Planck Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and Julienne Stroeve from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre. These figures enable us for the first time to grasp the individual contribution to global climate change. Read more

Feds Join Conference on ‘Psychosocial Resilience’ to Climate Change – Causes Depression, PTSD, Suicide, and Spiritual Problems

by Penny Starr

(CNSNews.com) – Several federal officials spoke on Friday at a conference in Washington, D.C., organized by The Resource Innovation Group, an Oregon-based organization that promotes the idea that climate change can cause a range of human health problems, including PTSD, depression and suicide and that human behavior should be changed to avoid these problems.

The website said attendees to the conference will learn:

The personal mental health, spiritual, and psychosocial impacts of climate change on youth, adolescents, adults, and why major preventative human resilience-building policies and programs are urgently needed to address the risks.

Methods, policies, and benefits of building personal resilience for climate change-enhanced traumas and toxic stresses.

Methods, policies, and benefits of building psychosocial resilience within all types of groups and organizations for climate change-enhanced traumas and toxic stresses.

Methods, policies, and benefits of building psychosocial resilience within communities for climate change-enhanced traumas and toxic stresses. Read more

Green heads to explode: ‘elimination of GMO crops would cause hike in greenhouse gas emissions’

by Anthony Watts

From Purdue University and the “better living through genetics” department comes this press release that is sure to setup an impossible quandary in the minds of some anti-GMO zealots who also happen to be climate proponents…

Planting GMO crops is an effective way for agriculture to lower its carbon footprint.

A global ban on genetically modified crops would raise food prices and add the equivalent of nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, a study by researchers from Purdue University shows. Using a model to assess the economic and environmental value of GMO crops, agricultural economists found that replacing GMO corn, soybeans and cotton with conventionally bred varieties worldwide would cause a 0.27 to 2.2 percent increase in food costs, depending on the region, with poorer countries hit hardest. According to the study, published Oct. 27 in the Journal of Environmental Protection, a ban on GMOs would also trigger negative environmental consequences: The conversion of pastures and forests to cropland – to compensate for conventional crops’ lower productivity – would release substantial amounts of stored carbon to the atmosphere. Read more

The Latest Global Warming Threat: Trick Or Treating

by Andrew Follett

Environmentalists have decided that letting kids trick or treat on Halloween is increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and the only solution is for the activists to get more money to fight it.

Environmentalists suspect that candy eaten by trick-or-treating kids probably generates a lot of CO2 and therefore isn’t sustainable. The environmental website TerraPass even encourages parents to “start a new trend and skip the candy handouts, opting for more sustainable treats as a greener way of participating in the festivities. Instead of candy coated, sugary bites, offer up little storybooks, crayons, playing cards or toys.” Read more (That sounds like the “safe places” offered college students traumatized by Trump’s election.)

Explosive coolant being put into cars to fight global warming

By Ed Straker

A new kind of explosive coolant called HFO-1234yf is being put into cars to fight global warming.

HFO-1234yf is already becoming standard in many new cars sold in the European Union and the United States by all the major automakers, in large part because its developers, Honeywell and Chemours, have automakers over a barrel. Their refrigerant is one of the few options that automakers have to comply with new regulations and the Kigali agreement.

It has its detractors. The new refrigerant is at least 10 times as costly as the one it replaces.

Daimler began raising red flags in 2012. A video the company made public was stark. It showed a Mercedes-Benz hatchback catching fire under the hood after 1234yf refrigerant leaked during a company simulation.

Daimler eventually relented and went along with the rest of the industry, installing 1234yf in many of its new cars.

“None of the people in the car industry I know want to use it,” said Axel Friedrich, the former head of the transportation and noise division at the Umweltbundesamt, the German equivalent of the Environmental Protection Agency. He added that he opposed having another “product in the front of the car which is flammable.”

While cars, obviously, contain other flammable materials, he was specifically worried that at high temperatures 1234yf emitted hydrogen fluoride, which is dangerous if inhaled or touched.

The new coolant is superior to the HFC it is replacing in its impact on global warming.

Man-made global warming is a myth, a fantasy; there has never even been a workable theory to even prove it. (The current theory, that man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming, doesn’t work because most CO2 is produced naturally in the environment, not by industrial output.) And yet our lives are risked, again and again, to protect us against this fantasy.

More and more people are dying because cars are getting lighter and lighter – the left’s human sacrifices to appease their global warming gods. The left won’t be satisfied until we are driving around in vehicles loaded with explosives with the crash-worthiness of papier-mâché. (Source)

 

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 8 – global warming is racist and will cause moose to freeze

As you read the items below, remember this:

Despite constant claims to the contrary, the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions affect Earth’s climate. The questions are whether those emissions are overwhelming the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate fluctuations, and whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.

No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us. -Paul Driessen

Dirty Politics:

WIKILEAKS: ThinkProgress Trashes A Climate Expert’s Career To Appease A Hillary Donor

by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

ThinkProgress Editor in Chief Judd Legum sent an email to a billionaire donor bragging how the liberal blog’s environmental writer targeted a climate researcher who challenged a major Democratic talking point on global warming, according to leaked emails.

The blog’s environmental arm, ClimateProgress, took issue with pollster Nate Silver’s 538 website, hiring Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. to write about global warming issues. Pielke is no skeptic of man-made warming, but he challenged a Democratic talking point that global warming was making extreme weather more severe.

ClimateProgress is part of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), which was created by Clinton’s presidential campaign chair John Podesta. Read more

From the climate science “experts”

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016

by Sarah Knapton

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more ice now than in 2012.

Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012. Read more

Eye roller: we measured sea levels in the wrong places, therefore it’s ‘worse than we thought

by Anthony Watts

From the UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA

New research published in Geophysical Research Letters shows that the longest and highest-quality records of historical ocean water levels may underestimate the amount of global average sea level rise that occurred during the 20th century. Dr. Philip Thompson, associate director of the University of Hawaii Sea Level Center in the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST), led the study.

“It’s not that there’s something wrong with the instruments or the data,” said Thompson, “but for a variety of reasons, sea level does not change at the same pace everywhere at the same time. As it turns out, our best historical sea level records tend to be located where past sea level rise was most likely less than the true global average.” Read more

Study: Global Warming Causes Cold Winters

by Eric Worrall

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research claims that global warming is the root cause of recent spate of cold winters in the Eastern United States. But don’t worry – as temperatures rise, the warming effect of global warming will overcome the cooling effect of global warming. Read more

Huffing and puffing over HFCs won’t cut global warming

by Christopher Booker

Back in 1987, when there was a huge panic over the hole opening up in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, 197 countries signed the Montreal Protocol, the world’s first major environmental treaty, agreeing to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in everything from refrigerators to hair-sprays, which were supposedly causing the ozone to disappear.

How far this has actually been responsible for the fact that the ozone hole has recently been shrinking is still a matter of scientific dispute. But CFCs have been widely replaced by hydrofluorocrabons (HFCs), used in refrigeration and air-conditioning, which, because they are short-lived, were viewed not to be damaging to the ozone layer.

However these HFCs are even more powerful greenhouse gases than the CFCs. So the Montreal Protocol must now be amended to ban these wicked “pollutants” as soon as possible, not least in light of last December’s Paris agreement that supposedly pledged the world to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.Read more See also: The biggest players in the chemical industry were all too happy to line up behind the United Nations (U.N.) deal to cut hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) from air conditioners, freezers and other appliances. Link

Bad timing: Study Claiming Less Rain Published in the Middle of a Flood

by Eric Worrall

A study led by ANU Professor Neville Abram, which claims climate is driving clouds south, resulting in less rain reaching Australia’s Southern Coast, has been published in the midst of massive flooding in South Australia. Greens of course blame climate change for the deluge. Read more

Brainwashing and the Thought Police:

Climate Change may destroy sunsets — Southern Cross Uni teaches children

from Australia

Apparently CO2 can absorb sunsets:

The Climate Change Challenge will be held at the Lismore campus where students from ages 8 to 15 can take part in the ‘photo voice’ competition, where they can use photography to have a voice on the issue and win prizes.

‘Some students take photos of beautiful things such as sunsets or waterways and then write about how it could be lost or destroyed because of climate change. Some take photos of land that has been bulldozed; they are very aware about how plants repair from damage, produce oxygen, absorb CO2 and so on. (Source)

Don’t say Climate Change: “Its a poisonous term to use”

by Eric Worrall

EPA funded Sociologist Sabrina McCormick has some advice for city officials trying to push their climate projects past the legislature: The best way to fight climate change? Don’t call it climate change. McCormick said she learned that many city officials believe the key to getting everybody on board to battle climate change is to avoid uttering the words “climate change.” It’s “a poisonous term to use.” Read more

To Fight Climate Change Attorney General Eric Schneiderman Deputizes Thought Police

by Jeff Stier, New York Observer

With his latest plan to punish even thoughts and speech related to climate change, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has raised the eyebrows of even his fellow climate-change activist Democrat attorneys general. Officials from a number of state AG offices expressed anxiety about Schneiderman’s controversial plan to investigate and possibly prosecute not only energy companies, but think tanks, for challenging the science underpinning some of the more alarmist statements coming from the Al Gore camp of the party on climate issues. Newly-released emails, obtained under freedom of information laws, reveal a level of discomfort with Schneiderman’s strategy. (Source)
Guardian: Global Warming Is ‘Racist’

by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

Just when it seemed that climate change fantasies couldn’t get any more bizarre, the liberal UK newspaper The Guardian has launched the wild theory that global warming is essentially a “racist” crisis, perpetrated by wealthy whites against poor, vulnerable blacks. The “reasoning” behind the outlandish hypothesis runs something like this. Begin with the unprovable premise that “Britain is the biggest contributor per capita to global temperature change.” Next, assume that Britain “is also one of the least vulnerable to the effects of climate change,” whatever that means. Finally, declare that “seven of the 10 countries most vulnerable to climate change are in sub-Saharan Africa.” Et voilà, climate change has just become a racial issue, wrought by selfish white people on unsuspecting blacks. Read more

Scary stories:

Global warming may cause moose to freeze

JACKSON, Wyo. – Global warming might cause moose to freeze to death in Yellowstone National Park.

As explained in Headwaters, a special environmental supplement to the Jackson Hole News&Guide, moose populations in Jackson Hole have declined significantly in recent years, as they have across the northern United States. The reason for the decline is complicated. Wolves have taken moose, and grizzly bears have been expanding their presence. But climate could be the biggest challenge. Part of the problem is ticks. A moose with too many of the parasites during the winter can lose its hair and freeze to death. Read more

Climate change threatens status of several British mountains

Staff writers, News Corp Australia Network

Several mountains in the UK could literally disappear from the map because of climate change after it was revealed that rising sea levels could see them reclassified as hills. Read more

NYTimes & Zika: a brief case study on climate change hype

By David Wojick

The folks who make their living by hyping the supposed threat of runaway global warming use a lot of scary language in the process. Here the ever creative New York Times has set what may be a new standard in scary climate change hype, by tying it to the Zika outbreak.

In our Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases we point to the press exaggerating unproven scientific hypotheses that support government policies. Policies that depend on scaring people are especially subject to this kind of press bias. The NYT has provided a fine example of this sort of scientific distortion, one that is worth analyzing to see just how the game is played. Not surprisingly, they do this in what they call a “Science” article.

It begins with this ever so scary headline:

“In Zika Epidemic, a Warning on Climate Change” Read more

Money and Regulation:

STUDY: US Carbon Tax Would Devastate Economy And Not Change Temp

by Andrew Follett

Newly proposed carbon taxes would devastate the U.S. economy while doing nothing to reduce projected global warming, according to a new study published by scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Researchers found that carbon taxes cause considerably more economic damage than generic taxes do and disproportionately target the poor, so even a revenue-neutral carbon tax would probably reduce economic growth while doing little to fix global warming. (Read CATO report)

There are all sorts of things wrong with a carbon tax, but primarily, it does little to nothing to limit carbon dioxide emissions to the extent necessary to have any appreciable impact on the future course of the earth’s climate, and it produces a net drag on the economy.

Only four nations — Ireland, Sweden, Chile, and Finland — actually have carbon taxation today. The largest economy to ever have a carbon tax, Australia, repealed it in 2014 over concerns it was harming the economy.

Critics have said carbon taxation disproportionately harms the poorest members of society. A 2009 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that a carbon tax would double the tax burden of the poorest households, making it effectively impossible to have both a carbon tax and a living wage. Read more

Germany’s Bundesrat Resolves End Of Internal Combustion Engine

by Bertel Schmitt, Forbes

Diesel and gasoline-powered vehicles officially are an endangered species in Germany, and possibly all of the EU. This after Germany’s Bundesrat has passed a resolution to ban the internal combustion engine starting in 2030, Germany’s Spiegel Magazin writes. Higher taxes may hasten the ICE’s departure. Read more

UN Brokers New Global Green Tax on Air Travel

by Eric Worrall

The United Nations has brokered a new international agreement which forces airlines to pay for “green” projects. By 2035, the UN expects the deal will siphon $24 billion / annum from the pockets of air travelers. Read more

Taxes Are Purgatory In The Religion Of Environmentalism

Environmentalism drains our wealth in a doomed effort to buy us salvation.

By Georgi Boorman

Long has it been noted by conservative commentators that environmentalism is a religion, in which Earth becomes a deity, carbon emissions become sin, and environmental activism is the pursuit of paradise through good works.

But no longer is climate-change alarmism a cult of the hippie left. It has grown into a full-fledged establishment, a church, if you will, complete with funding (separation of church and state need not apply here), dogma, and clergy. Unlike the religions of old, there is no “wall of separation” between this church and the state, and that means a portion of our taxes ($39.14 billion were earmarked for energy and the environment in 2015) are really a tithe to the church.

Such an intertwining of faith and government merits a discussion of how the religion of environmentalism practically impacts us all: namely, how it is draining our wealth in an effort to buy us salvation. Read more
President Obama Demands Intelligence Agencies Draft Plans to Combat Climate Change

by Eric Worrall

President Obama is asking 20 federal offices to work together on a national security strategy to address climate change.

How does the CIA, the NSA, and all the other agencies in the bottomless government agency alphabet soup respond to a demand that they plan for combatting climate change? Do they simply analyse what is happening around the world, and make stuff up when it becomes apparent that climate is not a significant issue? Or do they try to look busy, by harassing ordinary people who oppose government policy? (Source)

France Bans Plastic Forks And Knives … Because Of Global Warming

by Chris White, Daily Caller

France passed a law to outright ban the use of all plastic cutlery in an effort to fight man-made global warming. The law, which goes into effect in 2020, mandates that all disposable utensils and dishes must be made of biological, rather than petroleum-based, material. It is part of the Energy Transition for Green Growth, a plan that amps up France’s efforts to combat climate change. Read more

Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered

by Andrew Follett

This Labor Day, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs and 400 coal mines than it did when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, showing that the president has followed through on his pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry. Read more

Cow Fart Regulations Approved By California’s Legislature

California’s Legislature has approved regulations on cow flatulence and manure – both blamed for releasing greenhouse gases.

The measure was approved shortly before the end of the legislative session Wednesday after its author, Democratic Senator Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens, agreed to give dairy farms more time to comply.

The legislation seeks to reduce methane emissions associated with manure to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030. Methane is one of several gases known as short-lived climate pollutants that don’t persist for long in the atmosphere but have a huge influence on the climate. Read more