Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
President Trumps great and defining global decision to exit the flawed and unnecessary Paris climate agreement has driven the climate alarmist mainstream media (MSM) over the brink with articles frantically supporting that only government dictated mandates should be used to establish how global energy demand and use must be controlled.
An L. A. Times article for example falsely implies that state governments lead by California (OMG!!) must take command of future U.S. emissions performance and deliver Obama’s ill-advised emissions reduction promise that President Trump has now wisely decided to abandon.
The emissions reduction leadership role for California championed by the L A Times is touted despite the fact that our state doesn’t have the foggiest idea of how it can achieve its SB 32 emissions goals nor does it have any idea of how many tens of billions it will cost nor care at all about how the state will end up dictating how all Californians must live their lives.
These seemingly panic driven articles by the MSM are completely devoid of any supporting emissions data and analysis for the U.S. and world for both present and future time periods.
Nor do they address the flawed and failed climate science built upon nothing but speculation and conjecture which is used to try and falsely justify the need for global government climate action emission mandates.
To read the biased and misleading MSM articles about the decision to exit the Paris agreement one would assume that U.S. emissions must be skyrocketing and represent a huge crisis.
In reality of course nothing could be further from the truth.
U.S. energy use data through 2016 clearly shows that our country has done an exemplary job in reducing emissions through free energy market changes with increased use of natural gas displacing coal fuel thereby reducing U.S. CO2 emissions by over 800 million metric tons since 2005.
EIA data shows 2016 U. S. CO2 emissions are 14% lower than peak year 2005 levels.
This significant reduction is of course hidden and concealed from public view by government mandate loving climate alarmists and the biased MSM.
Climate alarmist MSM articles attacking President Trump’s Paris agreement exit decision meticulously avoid any discussion of how free energy market outcomes brought about by use of fracking technology to increase natural gas supply at reduced costs have revolutionized energy markets and significantly reduced CO2 emissions without onerous and costly bureaucratic mandates from government.
The deception of hiding U.S. emissions levels is simply standard operating procedure for climate alarmist activists and the biased MSM supporting them.
Furthermore any mention of EIA data addressing future energy use forecasts for the U.S. and other world countries is also studiously avoided by climate alarmists and MSM because it so clearly exposes that their claims about the need to have government mandated reductions in U.S. emissions are completely unwarranted.
The 2016 EIA IEO report shows that future U.S. emissions growth has been curtailed because of the energy market driven increased use of natural gas.
Most importantly EIA forecasts future energy use in the U.S. is irrelevant to the continued increase of global CO2 emissions brought about by the increasing energy needs of the developing nations which EIA shows will increase global emissions by about 12,500 million metric tons by 2040.
EIA data clearly shows that free energy market forces are far superior for addressing global energy demand and use instead of politically driven government mandates which are based upon badly flawed and failed climate alarmist science speculation and conjecture.
President Trump was wise to exit the monumentally bureaucratic global government driven Paris climate agreement and his decision to do so is supported by free energy market innovation, creativity and benefits as well as the overwhelmingly flawed and failed state of climate alarmist science.
200 people meet at a restaurant for dinner. 199 of them expect the richest guy to pay for dinner, He has in the past.
This time though the richest guy refuses to pay.
The other 199 start screaming “he’s destroying the restaurant”.
Ha!
If it had not been for “deniers” challenging the “consensus” doctors and surgeons would still be going patient to patient with dirty hands and clothes.
Start at 1.50-
In reply to:
Old, but still relevant.
“… state governments lead by California (OMG!!) must take command of future U.S. emissions performance.”
The Progressives will actually attempt to use a “rule by judiciary” approach to government. The make up of the Supreme Court is critical in order to overturn a bunch of Liberal Totalitarian district courts.
What is needed, is to get the conservative/skeptic views of scientists and economists and engineers, politicians, and others, disseminated and discussed in the MSM. Discussing this all amongst ourselves forever won’t change anything. All of this has to be put out into the MSM to inform the public about other views, and be debated and discussed. This should be the main goal for conservatives and skeptics.
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/06/end-game-of-climate-wars-clive-james-discusses-how-it-plays-out-slowly/
Old McDonald had a farm
EIA IEO
And on that farm he had a pig
EIA IEO
With an Oink Oink here and an Oink Oink there
EIA IEO
It is interesting that these cities support the globalist agenda regarding climate change, but feel no hesitation about disregarding Federal immigration law.
Author: You chart 1 does not include any indication of how much the absorption of CO2 by the biosphere has expanded during the same time interval.
There are the expanding Easter Forests, which currently absorb a reported 80% of all US-human emissions of CO2, and the general increase in biosphere productivity. It would not surprise me at all to find that the net emissions of the USA are less than 20% of what is claimed.
The argument given by Green pressure groups against including the Easter Forest expansion/sequestration is that it used to be there to it cannot be counted as it grows back. That is a non-systematic view. The whole system includes perturbations and a rational analysis of what is happening. The fossil fuel base is limited, so is the capacity for the forest to grow back. They are, even now, approximately in balance. When the forest finishes growing we will also have experienced peak coal and probably peak energy (barring a new high density technology).
The expansion of the Western forests relative to 100 years ago is also happening. Thus if the total biomass increase in the US were compared with the total emissions and the trend in CO2 emissions combined with the trend in CO2 binding, the result is a chart very different from the one at the top of the article.
“It would not surprise me at all to find that the net emissions of the USA are less than 20% of what is claimed.”
I’ve read that the U.S. is a net sink for CO2. (If anyone has a citation to back me up, please post it!)
A LOOK INTO THE FUTURE
Year 2050:
The global population is 10.5 billion.
The average global temperature is 16.5 C.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is 645 ppm.
The breakthrough by scientists in fusion energy technology in 2038 resulted in the construction of thousands of gigawatt scale power stations which now provide of 95% of the world’s electrical energy. Electric power has become so inexpensive that it is no longer metered. Consumers and commercial enterprises simply pay a modest monthly fee scaled to their usage classification. The average single family home now pays $10/mo. for all the electricity they need. Nearly every home on the planet now has cheap reliable electrical service. Poverty has been almost completely eliminated and worldwide health has improved as everyone knows. Globally, life expectancy is now nearly double what it was just 5 decades ago.
Transportation technology has also progressed with the development of much more efficient batteries. Nearly all vehicles are now fully electric. A fully charged standardized battery provides a 300+ mile driving range even when running heating or A/C. Every garage and parking spot has a charging hook- up. Service stations have been converted to provide battery swap- outs. You can now pull into a service station and for about $5 a robot will remove your depleted battery and install a fully charged one in less than 3 minutes. Only aircraft still rely on liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
Climatologists have determined that that CO2 levels peaked 15 years ago and are now declining. Computer models which have been tested and validated against high precision measurements have raised a serious alarm. The models show that by 2100 CO2 levels will drop to less than half of their current levels. This drop will be catastrophic for the planet and human life as we know it. The primary effect will be a huge 40% decline in agricultural productivity by the year 2100. Climate scientist Michael Mann, Jr. Notes that CO2 is the fundamental building block of all life. “CO2 is the food that feeds the food we eat”, says Mann Jr. “If we allow the concentration to fall to such low levels, the plants that are the base of our food chain will be starved. This will rapidly lead to mass starvation of animals that eat plants and that includes us.”
In addition, the decline in CO2, which results from sequestration mainly through the natural processes of ocean biome converting CO2 to biomass and calcium carbonate that ultimately is buried in the ocean depths is unstoppable. Added to the massive amounts of CO2 being tied up in the increase in terrestrial biomass as seen in the shrinking of deserts (the Sahara desert is now less than 40% of its size just 50 years ago) and it is clear that CO2 decline will continue for decades to come.
Scientists lay the blame for this situation squarely at the feet of the fusion energy revolution. “We used to add CO2 to the atmosphere at a substantial rate. At one time our predecessors thought this was bad and would cause huge problems by creating substantial global warming” says Dr. J. Hansen III. “Of course, we now know the computer models they used greatly overestimated the so-called greenhouse effect. As a result we can see that things they worried about like sea level rise and arctic ice melting away didn’t happen. But I don’t think many people back then even considered the possibility that complete ‘decarbonization’ would have the drastic negative consequences we now know are coming.”
So what can we do? Our children’s and grandchildren’s future is at stake. Fortunately there is something we can do. There are still enormous stocks of carbon buried around the globe in the form of coal and oil. We can burn these carbon stocks on a large scale to produce enough CO2 to stabilize the atmospheric concentrations somewhere between 450 and 600 ppm. In order to make this process feasible it is proposed that 1/3 of the existing fusion plants be shut down and replaced with coal/oil fired plants. This will, of course, result in electricity prices sky-rocketing. Economists estimate that the average home owner will need to pay 3-5 times what they now pay. It may even be necessary to meter electrical usage to assure fairness. But it must be done. Think of the children!
/satire/
Brilliant!
Here’s a slightly different version, from Murray Leinster, in his 1928 short story, “The Mad Planet.”
“…the change that had begun in the latter half of the twentieth century.
At about that time, civilization had been high, and apparently secure. Mankind had reached a permanent agreement among itself, and all men had equal opportunities to education and leisure. Machinery did most of the labor of the world, and men were only required to supervise its operation. All men were well-fed, all men were well-educated, and it seemed that until the end of time the earth would be the abode of a community of comfortable human beings, pursuing their studies and diversions, their illusions and their truths. Peace, quietness, privacy, freedom were universal.
Then, just when men were congratulating themselves that the Golden Age had come again, it was observed that the planet seemed ill at ease. Fissures opened slowly in the crust, and carbonic acid gas—the carbon dioxide of chemists—began to pour out into the atmosphere. That gas had long been known to be present in the air, and was considered necessary to plant life. Most of the plants of the world took the gas and absorbed its carbon into themselves, releasing the oxygen for use again.
Scientists had calculated that a great deal of the earth’s increased fertility was due to the larger quantities of carbon dioxide released by the activities of man in burning his coal and petroleum. Because of those views, for some years no great alarm was caused by the continuous exhalation from the world’s interior.
Constantly, however, the volume increased. New fissures constantly opened, each one adding a new source of carbon dioxide, and each one pouring into the already laden atmosphere more of the gas—beneficent in small quantities, but as the world learned, deadly in large ones.
The percentage of the heavy, vapor-like gas increased. The whole body of the air became heavier through its admixture. It absorbed more moisture and became more humid. Rainfall increased. Climates grew warmer. Vegetation became more luxuriant—but the air gradually became less exhilarating.
Soon the health of mankind began to be affected. Accustomed through long ages to breathe air rich in oxygen and poor in carbon dioxide, men suffered. Only those who lived on high plateaus or on tall mountaintops remained unaffected. The plants of the earth, though nourished and increasing in size beyond those ever seen before, were unable to dispose of the continually increasing flood of carbon dioxide.
* * * *
By the middle of the twenty-first century it was generally recognized that a new carboniferous period was about to take place, when the earth’s atmosphere would be thick and humid, unbreathable by man, when giant grasses and ferns would form the only vegetation.
When the twenty-first century drew to a close the whole human race began to revert to conditions closely approximating savagery. The low-lands were unbearable. Thick jungles of rank growth covered the ground. The air was depressing and enervating. Men could live there, but it was a sickly, fever-ridden existence. The whole population of the earth desired the high lands and as the low country became more unbearable, men forgot their two centuries of peace.
They fought destructively, each for a bit of land where he might live and breathe. Then men began to die, men who had persisted in remaining near sea-level. They could not live in the poisonous air. The danger zone crept up as the earth-fissures tirelessly poured out their steady streams of foul gas. Soon men could not live within five hundred feet of sea level. The low-lands went uncultivated, and became jungles of a thickness comparable only to those of the first carboniferous period.
Then men died of sheer inanition at a thousand feet. The plateaus and mountaintops were crowded with folk struggling for a foothold and food beyond the invisible menace that crept up, and up—
These things did not take place in one year, or in ten. Not in one generation, but in several. Between the time when the chemists of the International Geophysical Institute announced that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the air had increased from .04 per cent to .1 per cent and the time when at sea-level six per cent of the atmosphere was the deadly gas, more than two hundred years intervened.
Coming gradually, as it did, the poisonous effects of the deadly stuff increased with insidious slowness. First the lassitude, then the heaviness of brain, then the weakness of body. Mankind ceased to grow in numbers. After a long period, the race had fallen to a fraction of its former size. There was room in plenty on the mountaintops—but the danger-level continued to creep up. There was but one solution. The human body would have to inure itself to the poison, or it was doomed to extinction. It finally developed a toleration for the gas that had wiped out race after race, but at a terrible cost…”
Leinster, Murray. The Murray Leinster Megapack (Kindle Locations 2178-2186). Ingram Distribution. Kindle Edition.
Congress should prohibit States from regulating CO2, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, fracking, energy production and so forth beyond Federal Regulations to save the American economy from the looney left politicians. Congress should further constrain States by requiring Quarterly and yearly public audits under GATT rules and require full funding of future obligations such as public pensions.
This post makes no sense. Given that the Paris agreement is nonbinding (indeed Trump called it
the “non-binding Paris accord” and that any CO2 reductions are voluntary and up to each individual
country then the fact that US emissions are currently decreasing is no reason to leave it. In fact as
the author has stated the USA is actually well on tract to meet its CO2 reduction targets through use of natural gas rather than coal.
The reason to leave the Accord is that if it is not left, warmist activists will sue to force that EPA to comply with it. This has been reported to be Trump’s advisors’ major rationale.
Again a non-sensical reason. The Paris Accord is a non-binding voluntary agreement in which each nation decides independently what CO2 reductions it will make. In otherwise Trump could revise the USA’s reductions as he sees fit and that would still fulfil the terms of the Paris Accord. Hence no-one can sue the EPA to comply with it.
“Trump could revise the USA’s reductions as he sees fit and that would still fulfil the terms of the Paris Accord. ”
Not so. Once a country has stated the amount of reduction it will make, it is not allowed to revise that amount downward, only upward. (See couple of the comments in the latest thread in the Climate Etc. site for my source on this. It’s at https://judithcurry.com/2017/06/04/paris-accord-qtiips/ ) Therefore the Trump administration would be vulnerable to a lawsuit if it didn’t fulfill the pledge Obama made.
At the end of its commitment period (2030?) a country can make another commitment.
If there’s no point in leaving it because it requires nothing, there is also no point in staying with it.
The big problem for the rest of the world with the US pulling out of the Paris Accord isn’t emissions it’s the $100 Billion we won’t be paying. Other countries won’t be stepping in to cover it so the smaller countries that signed on to the gravy train are going to be disappointed.
As we called it when I was across the water in US Army, the infinite gravy train with biscuit wheels. Lots of people line the tracks with their buckets held out to get them some.
Bill,
what $100 billion is that? The USA has no commitments for $100 billion whatsoever. The only pledge was
to the green climate fund for $3 billion (which is about $3 per person over 3 years). The green climate fund
is completely seperate from the Paris Accord and should not be conflated with it. The green climate fund does have a target of raising $100 billion but has no power to force anyone to pay into it. It is again completely voluntary. There has never been any suggestion that the USA would pay $100 billion into it.
If was good to see Scott Pruitt didn’t get rolled by Chris Wallace today as he was in April. Overall better prepared but still on the economics/anti UN sovereignty only debate approach but that’s in line with the current administration line;
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/06/04/pruitt-defends-decision-to-withdraw-from-paris-climate-deal-al-gore-weighs-in.html
He did drop the Global Warming Policy Institute’s name in the interview which was encouraging. Starting to work the edges of junk science/consensus talking points. https://www.thegwpf.org/
The MSM focus has been on old DJT tweets about “hoax” and trying to unleash the assumed AGW premise and the mish-mash of “climate change” meaning which is basic leftist coded talk at this point. The admin people have basically ducked this confrontation. The weakest link they found was Nikki Haley and you have to wonder why she should would be a troll weak point;
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/03/politics/nikki-haley-donald-trump-climate-change-cnntv/
She could and should have punted to Pruitt and she got near a dangerous line. Of course where is the WH spokesperson to point out the entire idiocy of the term “climate change” in the debate all together? First rule should be to restore the originally fraud term Americans got sick of….”global warming” and all the failed claims in the legacy file made a PowerPoint presentation in every media sit-down or every-time the word “hoax” is attributed to DJT. Every failed prediction of Manhattan underwater should be in the slide show. Every failed model as well.
It’s already overdue that the WH needs science skeptics on the front as spokespeople and the AGW propaganda can’t be defeated on an economics only agenda. Next stop might be the endangerment finding and that will require the climate war and skeptical science dissent. Pruitt clearly has his hands tied but overall the Paris exit is a win. The leftist backlash has been predictably inane and I think the base public ranges from not caring at all to supporting the exit. Exit politics could have been a much better and a bigger success but still winning.
/////////////////
Larry,
“These seemingly panic driven articles by the MSM are completely devoid of any supporting emissions data and analysis for the U.S. and world for both present and future time periods.”
I watched some video of various MSM talking heads interviewing spokespeople for the Trump admin. and the like, and they constantly seemed to be trying to turn the discussion toward “the science” as they refer to it, as though they simply weren’t prepared for/with much else.
I highly suspect there was a strong assumption that if the PA was ditched, skepticism about the official CAGW (catastrophic anthropocentric (human caused) global warming) position, was going to be a major reason cited. When it wasn’t, and they had no particular excuse to drag out the usual suspects, so to speak ; ) they were caught flat footed . .. almost desperately trying to get someone to give them an excuse to bring out the climate clowns . . so to speak ; )
That was an intentional “head-fake” (as it’s called in basketball) I’d bet a pretty penny.
(Oops, that should say anthopogenic . . but it’s the same thing . . )
Hopefully this will pave the way for their hosting a series of televised or radio braodcast debates on CAGW theory and weak points.
Not going after the junk science hard de facto validates it given the general level of ignorance and indoctrination. I get the WH tactic short term but it has to evolve.
CO2 emission is the hypothesis, not the evidence. The former is politics, not science.
A failed hypothesis at that, second CO2 and no warming with a temp stat inside its margin of error.
The politics are stale and past peak as well. Even allied MSM players are sick of it watching the samples since the exit. They go through the climate cut and paste but their emotions are on other silly talking points about “Russians” for example.
I wish DJT went harder at the Greenshirts but focusing on UN Anti-Americanism and money scored easy points as well.
“Record CO2 “
I never thought the Paris agreement was that exiting.
You’ve made my day.
So sadly misinformed you are, obviously pushing someone’s agenda, rather than understanding the reality most of the world gets.
BTW, most of the progress in the US to achieve GHG reductions is due to the exact policy direction Trump wants to get rid of.
I am sure that you can do better.
Talk is cheap, Robert . . and around here you need to bring some evidence and logic, or folks just don’t care what the talk-talk says.
“BTW, most of the progress in the US to achieve GHG reductions is due to the exact policy direction Trump wants to get rid of.”
What policy are you referring to? And how did it do what you claim?
Trouble for you Robert there is no hard science relationship between CO2 and weather that you mistakenly call “climate”.
It can’t be weather when events go one way against your argument and climate when it suits your propaganda.
Even the semi disinterested public has caught on. Gore looked like an idiot today with an in-the-climate-fraud-tank MSM player, Chris Wallace. Soft ball tosses and all.
The US is the only major industrial power to have achieved the reductions called for by Kyoto, wisely without ever ratifying that preposterous pact. We did it by using more natural gas, which we did for good economic reasons.
There is no reality which you imagine. The reality is that more CO2 is good for the planet.
“The US is the only major industrial power to have achieved the reductions called for by Kyoto,”
Not true, the EU is on track to meet their targets.http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_On_track_factsheet.pdf
I am very surprised that an article like this was published in the Australia alarmist media.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/trump-was-right-to-scrap-paris-20170603-gwjxa2.html
PRESS Note by Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy [Scientist]
Subject: Impact of US Withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement???
The following is my observation in Environment/Climate Change/The Guardian:
Instead of blaming Trump’s decision on withdrawing from Paris Agreement, nations and people why not create an atmosphere in their respective countries and places energy efficient methods with moderate life styles? This is the right solution, if carbon dioxide is really causing global warming as predicted by modelers and IPCC. Take for example, Indian Government is weakening environmental norms even along the coast line that severely impact on sea level and inundation of fertile coastal zones to benefit ruling clan forgetting the people or life forms. Let the Guardian take up this task to help the nations and people, hear people means commoners. Green Fund helps politicians amass wealth only.
Paris Climate Agreement:
The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 was held in Paris, from Nov. 30 to Dec. 12.
Before the Paris Climate Meet, several prominent leaders put forth agendas on environment to save people from health hazards. To counter this vested groups lobbied to see the “environmental issues” will not find a place in the Paris Climate Agreement. They were successful on this.
Now the media and national leaders are using the word “Environment [Paryavaranam]” invariably as they are shy of using global warming. Paris Agreement is on climate but not on environment. This is in fact not a new issue even in 70s to thwart the environmental movement; the vested groups pressurized UN to sabotage this movement. They were successful; and as a result born the “global warming” but with the time, people are shy of using the word global warming and instead using climate change, a vast subject.
The objective of the 2015 conference is to achieve, for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, to binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. However, the new Paris Agreement of 12th December 2015 has no legally bounding clause. Instead the Agreement introduces model of voluntary “national determined contributions” by governments in terms of emissions and finances. It included a clause on limiting global temperature rise over the pre-industrial levels as “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 oC and pursue efforts temperature increase to 1.5 oC, but this is not associated with the anthropogenic greenhouse gases alone but a combination of factors which are not addressed in the agreement but mostly local and regional in nature. The document included several “jargons” impact of climate change and pollution aspects [environmental aspects], but dealt only on global warming and emission control. For example, Indian agriculture is primarily related to natural variability in rainfall [droughts & floods] over different parts of India under variable climate system and general circulation patterns; and heat and cold waves form part of Western Disturbances. In fact we are producing food in excess and wasting. This is around 30% for the globe and 40-50% for India. We are attributing local poor governance problems to climate.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is part of nature. We breathe oxygen and release carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere; trees breathe carbon dioxide and release oxygen; carbon dioxide is helping the crop production.
With the non-linear population growth and destruction of forests more carbon dioxide is entering in to the atmosphere with the time. We rarely account these aspects.
Though we see reports media editorials as well politicians including Prime Minister of India, using the word environment, wherein climate change is not environment and global warming is not climate change. The present Indian government is pursuing the environmental destructive mode. The government in 70s and 80s brought out environmental acts to protect the nature but the present government is destroying them to serve vested interests. That means we give least importance to environmental issues that are causing health hazards and thus affecting 130 crore population. But we are more worried on Trump withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement.
Impact of Trump
According to IPCC, Global warming started from 1951. Global warming is linked to Carbon Dioxide emissions through sensitivity factor to energy factor. According to 2014 data global Carbon Dioxide Emissions and contribution to Green Fund are:
Country % share of Contribution to
CO2 Emissions Green Fund [$]
China 30% Nil
USA 15% 3 billion
India 07% Nil
Japan 04% 1.5 billion
India got green fund for FPO45 – Groundwater Recharging and Solar mico-irrigation to ensure food security and Enhance Resilience in vulnerable Tribal Areas of Odessa in India — $ 166.3 million total project investment.
By US withdrawal from “Paris Climate Agreement”, modelers predicted that global warming will rise by 2100 [that is in 83 years] (a) according to one group it is 0.3 oC and (b) according to another group it is 0.1 to 0.2 oC. That is, it may raise anywhere between 0.1 to 0.3 oC. That means the sensitivity factor is highly variable with modelers to modelers [IPCC report clearly demonstrated this variability with time (Reduced) and with the modeler groups]. That means, if all countries without control releases Carbon Dioxide in to atmosphere then according to these estimates, the temperature may raise by 0.67 to 2.00 oC, respectively for 0.1oC and to 0.3 oC. Here we must not forget the fact that the energy factor is limited and not unlimited – sensitivity factor links energy with carbon dioxide. In nature, they follow a classic sigmoid model. That is with the increasing carbon dioxide, the rise in temperature comes down to a flat pattern. Thus the estimates will be less than 0.67 to 2.00 oC.
Definition of Climate Change
According to the IPCC Third Assessment Report “Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period [typically decades or longer]. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcing or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use”. UNFCCC in its Article 1, defines “climate Change” as:”a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. From these definitions, it is clear that climate change can occur naturally or from man-made causes. Global warming is one component of man-made causes and that too starting from 1951 onwards.
In 1966 World Meteorological Organization brought out a manual on “Climate Change” prepared by eminent meteorologists from different country’s meteorological departments. (late) Shri K. N. Rao from IMD was a co-author [with whom I was associated in early 70s and initiated work on natural variability part (as part of this I found 52 year cycle in the onset dates of Monsoon over Kerala as part of responding to a quarry in parliament on the onset date of Delhi) and another colleague of mine started work on land use change aspects as by that time global warming was not an important issue].
Indian temperature showed a raise of about 0.5 oC since 1871 in which minimum temperature raise was nearly double to the maximum temperature suggesting the impact of urbanization which is nothing to do with carbon dioxide. However, the main weakness in this data is that though rural areas present more than double to the urban areas, the met network present very sparse over rural areas and dense in urban areas. This bias is negated by the satellite data, which present less than 50% of ground based estimate of global temperature anomaly [adjusted]. Thus, so far the global warming component of temperature anomaly raise is less than around 0.15 oC. Yet people say and write the happening catastrophic impacts on nature. Somebody writes already raised by 4 oC and by 2100 it may reach 8 oC. Let these people atleast look at the temperature anomaly data published by several pro-warming groups instead of fooling people with model simulation estimates.
So-called Impacts
The Antarctic [around 90% of the ice is located here] is in some ways the precise opposite of the Arctic [less than 10% of the ice is located here]. Both follow natural variability but in opposite pattern – present phase is building ice in the former and loosing the ice in the later with clear-cut seasonal peaks [summer & winter]. Same is the case with the ocean temperatures. These influence sea level raise and fall. If we look at San Francisco Airport, which is in sea water, so far there is no change in sea level. So also the case with the Hong Kong Airport located in the sea. Hong Kong presents a clear-cut urban-heat-island effect.
In 2014 a study of 2181 Himalayan glaciers from 2000-2011 showed that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding [this was informed to parliament in December 2015 after returning from Paris meet]. Gangotri is now recovering from the impact of fault zone.
The present day urban disasters are caused by humans to meet their greed with government machineries apathy; but they are attributed to global warming, easy pray that can’t defend it.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Formerly Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN
Fellow, Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Academy of Sciences
Plot No. 277, Jubilee Hills-III, Road No. 78
Near Padmalaya Studio
Hyderabad – 500 096
Telangana State, India
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/viral-and-trending/030617/hyderabad-no-climate-deal-wont-impact-us-say-scientists.html
This is the last chance for a 1 dictatorship world. Once the fraud and it’s purpose is exposed the mega-rich, the mega-powerful and the narsassistic Hollywood self-proclaimed celebrities will be double checked meticulously by the masses they secretly despise.
Based on paleoclimate data and upon modeling results one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is cuased by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warming causes more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler water but there is no real evidence that the additional CO2 adds to any warming. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero.
One researcher has pointed out the the original radiametric calculations of the possible warming effects of CO2, ignoring feedbacks, is too great by more than a fact of 20 because those making those original calculations forgot to include that fact that a doubling of CO2 will cause a decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of a climate sensivity of 1.2 degrees C, we have a climate sensivity of less than .06 degrees C.
To make the warming effect of CO2 seem significant the AGW conjecture adds the idea that H2O acts as a positive feedback because warmer air and water causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming because H2O is a greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture likes to assume a gain factor of 3 caused by H2O feedback but they are really not sure. That is why in their first and last report, the IPCC published the exact same range in their guess as what the climate sensivity of CO2 really is. What they completely ignore is that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a msjor coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth;s surface which is mostly water to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to energy balance models, more heat energy is moved via H2O then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. Considering that the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than dry lapse rate, more H2O in the atmosphere has a cooling and not a warming effect. So instead of amplifying CO2 warming by a factor of 3, H2O retards CO2 warming by a factor of 3. Hence the climate sensivity of CO2 is less than .02 degrees C.
After more than two decades of study the IPCC has been unable to reduce their range of gueeses as to the climate sensivity of CO2, one iota. This would be consistant with the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is two small a number to detect. The IPCC will never admitt such for fear of losing their funding..
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of LWIR absorbing greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass lowers cooling by convection. There is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm but rather it is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on earth. There is no radiant greenhouse provided for by the LWIR absorption properties of some trace gases that keeps the surface of the Earth 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise due to atmospheric warming. Derived from first principals the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect which is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the depth of the atmosphere and gravity keeps the surface of the Earth 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise. 33 degrees C is what has been calculates and 33 degrees C is what has been measured so there is no room left for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in thge solar system with a thick atmosphere. Without the radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW cnjedture is just science fiction.
So based on science. changing the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will have no effect on climate. There may be many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.
It is very interesting to look at Der Spiegel’s report on President Trump’s Paris exit.- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-western-rift-deepens-a-1150486.html
The president’s speech looked at the numbers and showed that the Paris agreement was ineffective at reducing emissions and unfair on the USA.
Der Spiegel opens with the title- “Donald Trump’s Triumph of Stupidity” and goes on to say “His speech was packed with make-believe numbers from controversial or disproven studies. It was hypocritical and dishonest. In Trump’s mind, the climate agreement is an instrument allowing other countries to enrich themselves at the expense of the United States”.
Their conclusion is that- “ It’s America against the rest of the world, along with Syria and Nicaragua, the only other countries that haven’t signed the Paris deal.”
I find it amazing that after so many billions have been spent on researching Climate Change there is still a chasm between opposing viewpoints as to what is fact.
A nice example of a lemming mentality.
Interestingly, if you take the actual German headline from Der Spiegel, “Triumph der Dummheit,” it seems perilously close to the title of Ms. Riefenstahl’s magnum opus, “Trumph des Willen.”
Not exact, but perilously close.
DAMMIT! Funny as it might look, I did not mean to misspell “Triumph des Willen.”