Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
People wonder why anthropogenic global warming is a politicized issue. Here’s one reason among many. In a presentation aimed at the holidays that is impossible to parody, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has put up a website called, no kidding, “the Democrat’s guide to talking politics with your republican uncle”.
I loved how they capitalized “Democrat” but not “republican”. And here’s the advertisement for the web page that they’ve emailed out to alert the faithful to the new website:
Me, I’m not a member of either party. I vote for the person not the party, and my general political philosophy is “A Pox On Both Their Houses”. However, I like to stay current with the propaganda from both sides.
In any case, there’s a section of that DNC web page that covers climate. It’s hilarious. Here are all of the different parts of their climate claims:
Climate: 97% of scientists vs. your Republican uncle
Myth
Climate change is just a liberal scare tactic.
Fact
Forgive us for being convinced by the 97% of climate scientists who agree that climate change is real and believe that humans are probably causing it. Republican obstruction on policies to address climate change endangers our environment and hurts our economy.
[Source]
Now, their [Source] is a NASA web page, and it goes to some length to prove that the globe has actually warmed over the last few centuries … but then we all knew that most scientists agree about that. However, in a classic “bait and switch”, it says nothing about whether humans are responsible, much less whether 97% of scientists believe that humans are driving the climate to Thermageddon. In fact, the NASA site doesn’t mention the bogus 97% number even once … that’s their evidence for their “97%” claim??? Do they understand what [Source] is supposed to mean?
[UPDATE: An alert reader pointed out below that there is a link on their page to another page which is supposed to give support for the “97%” number … but doesn’t. Instead, what it has are links to meaningless statements from the boards (not the members but the boards) of scientific societies, plus a citation to the laughable Naomi Oreskes study and such. Pathetic. In any case, the appeal to consensus is meaningless. As Michael Crichton said:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Can’t say it clearer than that.]
And alas, even NASA can’t resist the hype. They say:
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Umm … er … no. Not true in the slightest. That claim is the result of splicing the satellite data onto the tidal gauge data, which shows no such rise. See Figure 3 here for details. [UPDATE: See also Steve Fitzpatrick’s comments below.]
NASA also gets all breathless about ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica, saying:
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
While that might sound impressive, that’s an ice loss rate for Greenland of 0.01% per year … and for Antarctica it’s a tenth of that, only a thousandth of a percent (0.001%) over three years … bad scientists, no cookies. That’s unbridled alarmism from people who should know better.
Setting NASA aside, the “republican uncle” page goes on to say,
Myth
Humans can’t do anything to combat rising CO2 levels.
Fact
Except we already are combating rising CO2. In 2012, the U.S. recorded the lowest levels of carbon emissions in nearly two decades . And by taking steps like improving fuel efficiency, we can do more in the years ahead. Because of new standards, for instance, the average car in 2025 will achieve a fuel economy equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon, nearly double that of cars on the road today. A goal, by the way, that Republicans tried to block.
They say that we “… will achieve a fuel economy…”? I do love the idea that King Barack Canute can order the tides to roll back, or order the average car to get 54.5 miles per gallon ten years from now, and it will perforce happen. The idiocy is revealed by the “.5” in the goal. These are the same fools, using the same kind of “order it and it must happen” idiotic logic who ordered oil refiners to utilize a product that doesn’t exist … but I digress.
More to the point, the reduction in CO2 emissions is NOT from any push, governmental or otherwise, to get off of fossil fuels. It is from the shift to a different fossil fuel, natural gas … the production of which has been widely opposed by Democrats. Taking credit for changes that they opposed … like I said, you can’t parody this stuff.
Finally, whether the US makes any changes in CO2 emissions is meaningless these days. We’re a minor player in the game. Here’s a graphic I made a couple of years ago showing why:
As you can see, the developing nations are now in the driver’s seat. US emissions are already nearly flat. It doesn’t much matter what we do.
Myth
The United States can’t stay economically competitive if we address climate change.
Fact
Climate change itself is taking a toll on our economy. In 2012, climate and weather disasters cost the United States more than $100 billion . And right now, other countries are making huge investments in research and development to confront this crisis with new technologies — which means new industries and new jobs. We can’t afford to fall behind them. The longer Republicans deny climate change exists, the further we fall behind.
The myth of “green jobs” has been exploded many times and places, the latest being Germany and Spain. There’s no cheese at the end of that maze.
And they’re playing fast and loose with the facts by claiming that the $100 billion cost of climate and weather disasters has anything at all to do with climate change. It has to do with weather, but there’s been no overall increase in extreme events … and in fact, the recent year has seen one of the lowest disaster rates in quite a while. Crisis, my okole. See here for details.
Finally, their “source” for the $100 billion number is nothing but another DNC puff piece that has no sources listed, and the figures given are labeled “Estimated” … pathetic.
Myth
President Obama wants the United States to stop climate change alone.
Fact
This summer President Obama announced a plan to reduce U.S. carbon pollution 25% from 2005 levels by 2020. But he also knows that climate change can only be solved if the international community works together. That’s why this November, the President announced a groundbreaking agreement to work with China to reduce carbon pollution and to increase the country’s non-fossil fuel energy to around 20% by 2030 .
It was a “groundbreaking agreement” alright, but not for the reasons they claim. It was groundbreaking because never in history have we given up so much in return for so little. It requires the US to take action immediately, but it allows the Chinese to increase their CO2 emissions as much as they want until 2030. Brilliant piece of negotiation, groundbreaking to say the least. The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank … and the myth is absolutely true, Obama is left going it alone.
The best part of the web page, however, is that sprinkled throughout the document are a number of links with the little Twitter tweety-bird symbol next to them. If you click on one, it composes an automatic tweet all ready to go out under your byline, like this one:
#FACT: 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and believe that humans are causing it. http://my.democrats.org/yru-climate
And the link at the end, to the website called “yru-climate”? …
Why, of course, that link goes to the website called “your republican uncle”.
Somewhere, the Founding Fathers are weeping …
Best to everyone, whether your uncles are Repuglicans or Demagogues,
w.
PS—If you disagree with someone, please be so kind as to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH. That way we can all understand the exact nature of your objections.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lesson for all those in the Eschenbach clan is “Don’t get your uncle Willis started on climate and try to defend your position with propaganda”.
Happy holidays
Lesson for TRM is “Don’t bother with vague retorts no one can possibly interpret. Spit out something, anything, with some clarity and substance that anyone can get.”
As for Democrats, Grubering is their MO and they own AGW as sure as they own ACA.
It is the party’s tenebrous mindset that assigns such pathetic needs to its minions.
Every warmist AND skeptic should be suspicious when the “science ” is condition and reflect ion of party affiliation. BOTH want you to ignore certain facts.
Ignornance for political purposes works for all sides. Which worries me. I’m A skeptic. What don’t the Republican leaders want me to know.
Thank you Anthony. A Merry Christmas to all! Of course thank you Willis.
Please…. on this day, set all politics, pseudoscience, and pHraud aside and enjoy, really enjoy a single day of ‘peace on earth, goodwill to men’.
Wishing all who enter here the Merriest of Christmas gatherings and a most bountiful and successful New Year!
Mac
And here is another Voltaire quote for you: “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”—Voltaire
Helps explain why doubt is such a poor synonym of critical thinking.
I see doubt as a product of negative thought, whereas constructive skepticism comes from an intrinsic desire for the common good. If any issue is truly settled, it will withstand the scrutiny of critical observation. Once empirical proof is established, any who doubt (which is an emotion) become the absurd nonbelievers of fact, and make for themselves a warped and unpleasant perspective.
Sorry, but an linking the two quotes with the word ‘absurd’ is assuming both quotes were made in the same context. (non sequitur)
Jeez, just looked at mt monitor with my glasses on and realized that what I read as certainly was actually certainty. Please, greymouser70, accept my apologies for for having expounded so. I now see the context of your selected quote.
This ridiculous CAGW hypothesis is quickly approaching the beginning of its demise.
The empirical evidence, the unskillful CAGW models, the complete lack of any CAGW doom and gloom predictions coming even close to fruition has relegated this pathetic social science to mindless “97%” memes and ranking annual global temps to keep this farce alive.
The only CAGW rankings that are significant are polls putting CAGW dead last on issues of public concern.
I give CAGW another five years of floundering and hand waving before it’s destined to for the shredder…..
By next Christmas both of these massive frauds may be in total collapse. What a gift to mankind that will be when the billions being devoured by climate science fiction are reallocated to legitimate research to produce cures for Alzheimer’s and many other deserving causes.
This is a great summary of the fatally flawed AGW.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/
This adds to it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/
The Coming Revelation Of The ‘Global Warming’ Fraud Resembles The Obamacare Lie
Yes, Steve, and perhaps the UN can then hold China responsible for the REAL pollution they are emitting, which more likely has an influence on weather than any greenhouse gasses.
I sometimes wonder if stuff like this isn’t written more to increase divisiveness than for any other purpose. I suspect it’s intended to be read by conservatives, not liberals, and is deliberately inflammatory.
I’m pretty conservative in most areas. Still, one of my best friends is an engineer who’s a classic old time Democrat. We disagree on some things, but not nearly as much as one might think, and without hard feelings either.
Merry Christmas all!
I guess the Democrats who have Republican Aunts must realize that they are going to be outsmarted anyway, so why try?
/grin
The arrogance and stupidity of the left has no bounds.
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 25, 2014 at 10:10 am Edit
It “may” have serious effects … and I “may” win the lottery. Until you can show that these effects exist, you’re just blowing smoke. You are proposing impoverishing the world based on “maybe” and “perhaps” and “might” … I don’t care if you are obsessing about something that might happen in 85 years, Jan. I’m concerned about today, not about your fantasies about some post-apocarbolyptic future at the end of this century.
Unfortunately, the methods proposed to date all involve making the cost of energy “skyrocket”, to quote our benighted President. And that puts all of the weight on the poor, a fact which you’ve consistently refused to acknowledge. For example, you say the “rich world has to carry most of the burden” … but what you don’t seem to notice is that it is the POOR people in the “rich world” that you are asking to carry the burden. President Obama won’t be hurt if gas prices “skyrocket” … the weight will fall on the single mom who can barely afford to drive her car to work, and can’t afford not to work.
You “do not talk about going … to shiver in our homes” … yeah, I’ve noticed how you assiduously avoid that issue. My friend, fuel poverty is happening TODAY, people are shivering in their homes TODAY, and your refusal to talk about it is typical of those wealthy arm-chair theorists with brilliant plans that involve shafting the poor. One in ten homes in the UK are living under fuel poverty … but nooo, Jan doesn’t talk about that ugly fact. Instead, he’s worried that concrete might age slightly faster in the year 2100 … spare me.
I understand that you don’t talk about the effects of your plans on the poor, Jan. If I were in your shoes I’d ignore the damage your plans involve just as you do … but fortunately, your shoes don’t fit me. You claim to be worried about the future … how about you start worrying about the present?
Finally, the amount of CO2 in the air has been much, much higher in the geological past than it is today … perhaps you could point out to everyone the huge cost to the biosphere of those high CO2 levels. And the temperature of the planet has warmed a couple of degrees since the Little Ice Age … perhaps you could indicate to us where we could locate the huge costs and the disasters due to that warming, because I’ve been unable to find them.
Best Xmas wishes,
w.
So far this fall I have given 3 cords of wood to folks and am now cutting to accumulate about the same for next fall. They need it – we don’t. In an all electric house we keep enough wood just in case an errant auto takes a power pole down.
Some of the comments suggest the author has never met a poor person.
I know you have.
Merry Christmas
Willis says:
I have not said anything about how this could be financed in the US. That is a huge topic in itself and I am sure that it is possible to find ways where the poor can be spared for most of the burden.
A gradually replacement of the cars we use today with more energy efficient vehicles could be one thing. I use a fully electric car myself in my daily commute. It is 29 kilometer each way and I measure an average energy usage of 1.4 KWh per 10 km. The energy in that is similar to 0.16 litre/ 10 km, or a mileage of 147 miles /us gallon. http://zemcar.wordpress.com/
I am not saying that electric cars are a good solution for everyone. They are perhaps not solving much at all before all electricity is generated by less carbon intensive energy, but at least they are not dependent on oil. If the electricity is generated eco-friendly, the car usage is also eco-friendly.
Yes, and unfortunately I think you are right there. But on the other hand, new technologies are always very expensive, but the costs very often drop sharply when mass production starts. The prices on renewables have dropped a lot, and will undoubtedly continue to drop.
Nuclear energy may also have a renaissance. Another promising low-carbon alternative is carbon capture from coal or gas power. The cost is still considerable, but with research in new technologies and mass production it may be competitive to alternatives.
/Jan
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 25, 2014 at 1:58 pm Edit
Jan, while you may be “sure that it is possible”, the problem is that the poor are already being shafted by your policies. Your pie-in-the-sky assurances mean nothing to the folks in Britain whose energy bills are steadily rising.
Since they’re “not solving much at all today”, why are you pushing them? In fact, it’s cheaper to burn fuel in a car than it is to burn fuel in a power plant (with attendant losses), transform it to high voltage (with attendant losses), transmit it through the grid (with attendant losses), convert it to low voltage (with attendant losses), convert it to DC (with attendant losses), charge batteries with it (with attendant losses plus a weight penalty), and then use it in a car which uses scarce rare earth elements.
So far, so good … but you seem to think that this doesn’t impoverish the very people you fantasize that you are helping, the poor.
That’s absolute nonsense. Coal replaced wood for a simple reason—it was cheaper. Oil replaced coal for the same reason—it was cheaper. Natural gas is supplanting both … for the same reason. And guess what … we didn’t need government interference for any of those shifts. We didn’t need subsidies. We didn’t need the “long term planning” that you seem to think is so critical. When a solution to a problem becomes cost effective, people adopt it, d’oh.
I am so sick of subsidizing the pipe-dreams of folks like you, Jan. You may not be old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter started subsidizing solar a half century ago, with the promise that it was only for a few years until the prices dropped. I believed him then, I was all behind it … and then, every year since, I’ve heard the same thing, it’s almost market-ready.
Now, fifty years later here you are singing the same tired tune, and trying to reach into my pocket to fulfill your fantasies … could I ask you politely to get your grabby, grubby hands off of my wallet? You and your friends have cost me far too much already with your foolish and expensive technological solutions.
Well, yeah … if the faux greens would get behind it, which they haven’t and likely won’t.
Oh, my goodness, that’s hilarious, Jan. You definitely need to get out more. You have NOT demonstrated that CO2 is a problem of any kind, and you want me to spend even of my money on your daydreams of how to capture carbon? Go away and spend your own damn money on it, and come back when it actually IS competitive to the alternatives.
I dislike being so harsh about this, Jan, but truly, you and your kind are screwing the poor into the ground with expensive energy, and simultaneously wasting my hard-earned tax dollars on Solyndra after Solyndra. STOP AND LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE DOING!! You seem to think you are on the side of the angels.
You are not. Wake up and smell the coffe. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Best Xmas wishes in any case … and do keep your hands out of my pockets …
w.
Jan said: “Nuclear energy may also have a renaissance. Another promising low-carbon alternative is carbon capture from coal or gas power.”
Yes, nuclear energy does produces energy. Carbon capture seems to be a useless “fool’s errand” that costs energy. Why did you juxtapose these ideas?
Carbon capture… plant a tree.
I like trees…
Jan sez:
Expensive, unproven, and putting known (grade-school biology), airborne crop/plant food hidden away deep in the ground? Ridiculous.
If I dare say so, that was just about the perfect amount of scorn.
lower costs through mass production!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jan claims. Well make five billion phones and yes but how do you mass produce a solar furnace plant such as Ivanpah, A massive failure but they claim, we can get the costs down. If so, why is free renewable energy producing the most expensive electricity?
Thank you, and Merry Christmas Willis and everyone else here. I worked as a legal aid attorney for a couple years. You are so right that it is the poor in rich countries that are bearing the burden of climate change policies.
People called me to help them because they can’t afford their utility bills, they are having their power cut off, and then they can’t afford the reconnect fees. I can’t pay their bills for them, and I can’t make the utility keep the power on (outside the cold weather shut off period), and I can’t make the bills go away. Eventually they will have to pay or be cold or hot. They won’t get reconnected without paying past due bills and the reconnect fee.
These are real problems for real people, and they are facing them right now. It’s not some abstract possible problem in a hundred years that creeps up on their descendants.
Merry Christmas Willis. Great stuff as always.
My disagreement:
“While that might sound impressive, that’s an ice loss rate for Greenland of 0.01% per year … and for Antarctica it’s a tenth of that, only a thousandth of a percent (0.001%) over three years … bad scientists, no cookies. That’s unbridled alarmism from people who should know better.”
My disagreement is the last sentence. They know what they are doing,
The politics in the “democratic” world has been overtaken by Progressives. They are an elitist bunch who know how to manipulate the masses. In their minds they always know what is best for the masses. And they self reinforce their position by rewarding their friends at the expense of their enemies.
Let us pray….
A Christmas Prayer
Dear Lord;
Please forgive the climate alarmists, for they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed,
and have failed to use their brains for nought more than a tush cushion.
Forgive them for believing they are somehow saving the planet, and for thinking that the ends justify the means.
Forgive them for bashing and marginalizing those who disagree with what they call “settled science”. If they speak unkindly, it is only out of ignorance and fear, and a fervent wish to be a valued member of the tribe of Warmists.
Forgive them Lord, for their ignorance is causing undue hardship for millions, particularly the poor, by depriving them of affordable and easily available electricity and other energy forms. They know not what they do.
Amen
“They know not what they do.”
Not so. They have been told and shown what they are doing and they continue to do it.
They should *not* be forgiven.
Dear Willis
Thank you for your wonderful posts in 2014 – your energy and industry is astonishing. I loved your piece on the Ibuku CO2-sniffing satellite, and have used this post to get my students to think about sequestration as the essential counterbalance to emissions.
On this Christmas Day in Johannesburg, on the high plateau of central South Africa at over 5 000 feet above sea level, the city is as green as a tropical forest, thunderstorms have rolled around here with much noise but little rain has fallen. My reliable memory stretches about 50 years (I think…?) and this Christmas is no different from the 50 before. We have had a splendid day with many happy children enjoying themselves in a swimming pool.
Thank you to Anthony for this amazing forum and to all the folks who take the time and trouble to contribute your experience and wisdom to share with all your readers. Bob Tisdale gets a special accolade for his input.
Warm Christmas wishes to all WUWT readers.
John
Merry Christmas all.
Merry Christmas to all and thanks once again for the informative read Willis!
The use of the word “Twit” did spark a memory that may appropriately fit the conversation in the End?
They look like banking CEO’s running the economic race, with 2008 at the end……And the winners are:
Them.
And the losers are:
Taxpayers.
Willis, a fittingly ‘merry’ Christmas post. Truth IS stranger than fiction, although Democrats apparently do not see the irony in that.
Thanks for all your educational posts here. Hope you have at least been provoked to additional research by mine over at Judith’s, with extended versions in Blowing Smoke. Had the book not been published yet, a riff on your DNC expose here would have made a nice addition to more than one of the various essays.
Happy Holidays to all of whatever persuasion.
Well I’m relieved by the republican Uncle campaign. This is definite proof that the Democrats have identified the issues they’ve made a complete balls-up of and the desperate way they plan to go about converting republicans (the uncles at least – they must be a den of the most intractable republicans) is a convoluted way of accepting that they are on the way out.
I only pray that the Republican Party comes out of its trance, takes ownership of the issues that really matter (several polls, even an international one by the UN of 6 million people identified these). And puhlease, don’t put Jeb Bush forward as your man. Hey, I don’t think he’s a bad guy, as I don’t think his brother and his father were bad guys, but I don’t think putting another Bush on the ballot is a wise thing to do for psychological reasons. I think choosing a Republican candidate for the Whitehouse should be a deeply thought out process (you can bet the Democrats are busy working toward this end), not simply choosing from those whose lapels have been ruined by sticking campaign buttons in them. Hey about choosing a smart bald retired general with a no nonsense demeanor and a good sense of humor.
Unelectable. If anything the Colorado races (US Senate and CO Governor) proved is that you need the guy that comes across as likeable and trustworthy. Cory Gardner has that young, energetic, thoughtful look about him. Mark Udall did not, and actually more resembles the would-be Governor, Bob Beauprez, also a loser. Retired US generals rarely have that quality.
Mark
Thanks Anthony and Willis and Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Willis I found your posting very insightful, but
the King Barack Canute may have been a bit over the top. Any way we know hurling pejoratives at the POTUS is futile because He is not a true believer, if he were, he wouldn’t have waited 6 years to “do something” about Apocalyptic Global Warming.
“…may have been a bit over the top.”
Ya’ think?
Here is the answer:
THE LIBERAL MIND –
The Psychological Causes of Political Madness
http://www.libertymind.com
Democrats have the same problem as our (canadian) Liberals, they lie as a compulsion, they will always chose to deceive in preference to plain speech.
We perhaps should start returning their BS in “Enviro-speak”.
Oil Sands of Alberta= Canadians cleaning up largest natural oilspill on planet.
That sand has not been this clean since the Rockies rose up.
Climate Change= Duh! When has it not?Can I have my 3 miles of glacial ice back?
Carbon Pollution= ?? A carbon based, carbon dependent, life form obsessing over a gas essential to all green life?
Do they hate plants?Life?
Emotional knee jerkers are easily manipulated, the mass hysteria has just about run its course, taxpayers are returning to reality enmass. There is something about these abusive bills for electricity and home heating fuel that concentrate the citizens mind.
That discussion of CAGW is about to be held, those who have supported, promoted and protected policy based data manufacturing are already running for cover.
Archive their earlier words allow them no cover.
In hard economic times fools and bandits get punished, look to the state of the “world economy”, me thinks the conversation is about to begin.
Joe Crawford says:
The problem with this is that the most carbon intensive and polluting energy resource of all is coal, and that is also the resource which will last longest. Coal is not only a big source of carbon; it is also a major source of poisonous heavy metal pollution.
Higher oil prices will probably return and we may see some really high prices on oil and natural gas 20 to 30 years from now, but the coal reserves will last for hundreds of years and there is therefore no reason to believe that the prices on coal will go up.
Merry Christmas
/Jan
the world’s oceans actually contribute a great deal to the background levels of mercury…you do know that?
of course a few decades of CFL use and improper disposal will do a lot to distribute mercury throughout our enviroment…
Jan, if you are interested in mercury, you should read my posts The EPA’s Mercurial Madness and Mercury, the Trickster God.
Come back when you’ve read them and we can talk more.
w.
Willis:
first, I hope it is a happy christmas season for you and yours, and whoever near and dear to you that buys into that stuff….on to Jan
why bother? its pretty clear that people’s suffering today is trumped by his desire to bring about a new structure of life for us all…
He has his electric car, subsidized by taxes paid by the working poor…he uses the grid to charge it, a grid energized largely by either fossil fuels, or in SE PA, nuclear power.
He ignores the total cost on our environment…the mining required to produce the batteries, to dispose of the batteries and on and on and on.
He justifies government by fiat without any quibbles-you want him to educate himself regarding mercury in the environment?
good luck.
thanks again btw, for your posts throughout the year.
I really enjoy your writing.
Willis….Jan said, “it (coal) is also a major source of poisonous heavy metal pollution. ”
…
Your posts focused on mercury.
…
You forgot to discuss lead, nickel ,, tin, cadmium, antimony, and arsenic, as well as radio isotopes of thorium and strontium.
..
Secondly, the problems are not just downwind of the plants, the mining wastes at the mines, the processing plants , and ash disposal post combustion that are sources of these these metals.
Good heavens, David, you talk as though there was never an EPA and there were no controls on the emissions of heavy metals. This is the 21st century, and there are stringent laws covering coal plants.
Modern coal plants have to meet very strict requirements, and as a result the amount of heavy metals that they emit is quite small. The overwhelming majority of it is captured in the the smokestacks.
If you think otherwise, then surely you can point us to clusters of heavy metal poisoning cases around the locations of coal plants … I await your citations.
w.
too much mercury and too little mercury are both a problem. developing brains need some mercury, but not too much.
Not all cola plants are subject to the strict control requirements.
..
In fact that is the crux of the problem, retrofitting older plants.
Jan,
Something we tend to overlook/forget here in the developed world is that there is a direct relationship between GDP and energy usage. This at least implies that one of the best ways to improve GDP is to improve energy availability. China seems to understand this. There also appears to be a fairly direct correlation between the relative size of the middle class (average comfort level?) and both family size and concern for the environment. China also seems to understand this, or at least their rising middle class does when they state a willingness to suffer current high pollution levels in order to make a better world for their children (child?). Carrying this to it’s logical conclusion, the best, and most likely the fastest way to improve the environment of this rock we live on is to make available to everyone on the planet the cheapest energy we can develop/discover and distribute. As per capita GDP improves both family size and the local environment will improve.
If scientific research, engineering and the energy sector are not hamstrung by bureaucrats, politicians and the well meaning but totally clueless, I think we would all be totally amazed at the world 20 or 30 years from now. And rest assured that, if the past fortells the future, absolutely none of the dire predictions of the current crop of ‘Climate Scientists’ (running so far at +>97% failure rate) has even the slightest possibility of happening in even the next 50 to 100 years. So, when the real science is finally done, and we actually understand the problems if any, we will be in much better shape to adapt. It is nothing but hubris to think that mankind will ever be able to control the climate without unintended consequences at least an order of magnitude worst that the original reason for attempting control in the first place.
Happy Boxing Day!
Joe
A merry Yuletide to all!
As a Norwegian Social Democrat, well to the left of the Democratic Party, I am fighting climate alarmism at every turn. If the Republicans wanted to invent the perfect red herring, they could not have done better than the Climate Change meme. In the end, it will serve to discredit the Democrats, and environmental science too. We need to continue research on the world’s climate system, but I for one would posit that the low-hanging fruit—no pun intended—will probably be found in understanding local land and water use issues better, and first and foremost ocean fisheries management ( a different topic, I know). If people truly understood how little we know of the state and history of the global climate, they would roll their eyes in amazement. Historical temperatures? We don’t have much clue, and what we do know should cause no alarm. CO2 levels? A toss-up between rising levels lagging rising temperatures in the Holocene, to a perhaps marginal anthropogenic component. Sea level rise? Regularly confounded with erosion and other geological phenomena. Climate models? If people knew how little they predict, even how bad they are at hindcasting, they would, or at least should, rightly ask: “Am I paying for this?”
The Democrats, who once had some credibility with ordinary Americans against the very rich and multinational corporations, have been sucked into the same maelstrom of special interest money as the Republicans. Neither represent the interest of the majority of Americans anymore. Neither is willing to take on the rise of an American oligarchy that puts the Gilded Age to shame, an oligarchy that through their buying of politicians could disrupt and permanently subvert the voice of the American voter for a long time to come.
What the American public needs to focus on is how the American experiment itself is under threat from this drastic concentration of money. When most members of the parties can be bought and sold, I would bet my last money that Climate Change will be a very handy excuse for increased hardships on the poor and the working class, and will be used to direct even more money to those who have the most already.
Let’s put a stake in its heart, and work for people. They deserve it. No worries; we’ll keep an eye on the polar bears too.
Willis,
You wrote:
“That claim is the result of splicing the satellite data onto the tidal gauge data, which shows no such rise.” and then provided a link to “Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807” by
S. Jevrejeva et al, 2014.
I don’t think your representation of that paper is accurate. From the paper’s abstract:
“There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm/yr from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993 – 2009).”
Figure 7 in the paper shows the two estimated slopes for 1993 to 2009, and they are very close to the same. Perhaps you are seeing something in that paper I am not seeing.
Steve –
Good question. The part you quote vouches for a current agreement (3.1mm/year and 3.2mm/year) between satellites and tidal gauges in an ongoing overlap period (1993-2009), suggesting calibration is possibly, or likely correct. But – the paper also mentions acceleration between current readings (satellites and/or gauges) and older data (20th century – gauges only – 1.9mm/year). That seems to be the actual issue. Note that WITH the uncertainties, the old and new data nearly overlap (2.2mm/year and 2.5mm/year – something like that).
Thanks, Steve. Jevrejeva has done a very curious thing. His data is here. If you look at it you’ll see something bizarre. His data goes entirely off the rails starting in early 2009. From that point on, his sea level data goes straight through the roof. By that, I mean that the average change in sea level from June 1992 to June 2009 is 2.3 mm/year, well below the satellite value.
But during the final year, June 2009 to the end of his data in June 2010, he claims that the sea level rose by no less than 33.7 mm … 34 mm per year? Give me a break, that’s never happened.
Look carefully, as I said, at Figure 3. At the far right, jammed up against the box to where you can’t see it, the blue line goes right up to the top of the enclosing box. That’s the additional 34 millimetres per year, hidden away so no one can see it.
Now, I don’t understand where he got that 34 mm in the final year … but it certainly makes me think that there’s something very suspicious going on.
Like I said, look at the underlying data. You’ll find the bizarre claim of a 34 mm rise in one year.
w.
Willis – good eyes. It can’t be a plotting limitation because on the 1800 left side he managed to set the axis out of the way of the data. Couldn’t he have set the right box edge to 2020, for example? Trivial to do. Anyone would have done that – unless you…. ! (Well, nothing exculpatory comes to mind to complete the sentence.)
Hello Willis,
I looked at their data. You are correct that they have an odd dip and rise in the last two years of the reconstruction. If they included all the data (through mid 2010), the slope from the tide gauge reconstruction starting in 1993 would have been higher than satellite altimetry: 3.4. mm/yr versus 3.2 mm/yr. (these values include an added 0.3 mm/yr to account for continuing glacial rebound). That the authors selected an end point for their figure #7 which best matched the slope for the satellite record is not good (a blatant cherry pick). The rather wild down-followed by sharply-up trend in the last 2 years of the tide gauge reconstruction (which does not exist at all in the satellite record!) suggests their methodology has some serious problems, and their stated uncertainty range is obviously too small. That they did not comment (at least, not that I could find) about these problems makes their paper much weaker; had I been a reviewer, I would have recommended against publication until they addressed these issues and offered reasonable explanations. IMO, it is not a very good paper.
But all that being said, it seems pretty clear to me the authors did not add the satellite altimetry data to the end of the tide gauge data, as you claimed in your post. Do you agree?
There are lots of exaggerations and misrepresentations offered by climate science, and these should of course be criticized and discredited. But there really is clear evidence that global mean sea level has been rising on average at about 2.9 mm per year (relative to a geologically stable coast) since the early 1990’s. It rose at a similar rate in the 1930’s to early 1940’s, apparently in response to the relatively rapid warming in that period.
Thanks, Steve. My problem is that I simply don’t know what they’ve done. You’re correct that they likely haven’t simply spliced the satellite data onto the end of the graph … but what did they do? Here’s a smoothed look at the changes in the rate of rise … the blue dotted line is the satellite rate of rise
Your call … but in any case, the claim of acceleration due to warming simply isn’t true.
w.
Hello Willis,
You wrote “but in any case, the claim of acceleration due to warming simply isn’t true”.
I believe the data do not support that claim.
Independent of data, the most reasonable expectation is that if the ocean is accumulating more heat due to surface warming, then there will be thermal expansion at a greater rate, in addition to any increase the rate of melting of land supported ice. Of course if the surface temperature falls, then there should be less heat accumulation and less melting of land supported ice, so a slower (or even negative) rate of rise. But you don’t have to believe that rational, you need only look at the sea level data and compare it to the temperature history. There was considerable warming from the early 1920’s to the late 1940’s, which should have increased the rate of sea level increase. Here is the same Jevrejeva et al reconstruction from tide gauge data from 1925 to 1950: http://i57.tinypic.com/1580dxc.png showing pretty much the same rate of sea level rise as during the satellite period. Both are periods of more rapid surface warming, both show more rapid sea level rise. If you look at all Jevrejeva data, you will see periods of both faster and slower sea level rise, which correlate reasonably well with the Hadley temperature history. I don’t think this is much of a surprise, even though the average rate for the whole of the 20th century is in fact much lower than the periods with the fastest rate of rise.
In addition, you can see that the satellite data (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/) shows more rapid sea level rise through about 2004 and somewhat slower since then…. corresponding (with a bit of lag) to the period of the ‘the pause’.
Why do you think that surface warming does not increase the rate of sea level rise?
As I said before, I think Jevrejeva et al is a weak paper, and it overstates certainty in the results. But that doesn’t mean that warming the ocean will not cause sea level rise. It pretty much has to.
Steve Fitzpatrick December 26, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Thanks, Steve. It seems you’re not distinguishing between rising sea levels, and an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. The fact that the ocean is accumulating more heat over time does NOT mean that the level of sea level rise will accelerate. If the rate of accumulation is constant, the rate of rise will be constant.
The expectation from the alarmists has been that the rate would be accelerating … but we’re not seeing that in the sea level record I posted above. In fact, according to Jevrejeva the rate of sea level rise at the end of the 20th century is about the same as the rate at the start of the century.
Yes, the planet is warming, and has been (in fits and starts) for centuries. And yes, the sea level is rising, and has been (in fits and starts) for centuries.
What we’re not seeing, however, is any sign of the kind of acceleration in sea level rise that would lead to, e.g., the sea level swamping parts of New York City like James Hansen famously predicted.
My best to you,
w.
Hi Willis,
I do understand the difference between continuing constant rise and increasing (accelerating) rate of rise. The rate of ocean heat accumulation (and melting of land supported ice) would have to increase compared to today to see acceleration in the rate.
Of course the crazy (> 1.5 meters by 2100!) sea level predictions made by James Hansen (and many others, like Stefan Rahmstorf) are risible and should be ignored… or maybe just enjoyed for their comedy value. More realistic projections are not so easily discounted. The actual rate of rise will of course depend very much on future temperatures and how the rate of melting of land supported ice and ocean heat uptake react to those future temperatures.