Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Our scorched Earth in 2100: Nasa maps reveal how climate change will cause temperatures to soar

That the Warmists keep issuing these extreme prophecies is compellingly reminiscent of chiliastic religions.  Warmism is merely the latest of the many doom religions that have sprouted  over the centuries.  It is pure religious faith.   You HAVE to be religious to think you can predict the future.  Scientists can't.

New data released by Nasa scientists is revealing how temperature and rainfall patterns around the world may change by the year 2100.

Using climate change predictions based on increasing levels of carbon dioxide, the data reveals what may happen to the climate in individual towns and cities. 

Much of the data is still in raw form for now to allow scientists to run models on a daily timescale.

However, a map of the world released by Nasa, which shows the predicted temperature for July 2100, provides some clues for what the world may look like.

By that time, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will have reached 935 parts per million, meaning the gas comprises nearly 0.1 per cent of the atmosphere.  Earlier this year carbon dioxide levels reached 400 parts per million.

If by the end of the century carbon dioxide in the atmosphere more than doubles, much of Africa, South America and India will endure average daily maximum temperatures of more than 45°C.

Jerusalem, New York, Los Angeles and Mumbai could see summer temperatures reaching these levels too. 

London will experience temperatures in the mid 20s and Paris could see its July temperatures reaching the low 30s. 

Ellen Stofan, chief scientist at Nasa, said: 'Nasa is in the business of taking what we've learned about our planet from space and creating new products that help us all safeguard our future.

'With this new global dataset, people around the world have a valuable new tool to use in planning how to cope with a warming planet.'

The new dataset is the latest product from Nasa's Earth Exchange (NEX), a big-data research platform within the NASA Advanced Supercomputing Centre its Ames Research Center in California.

The data shows projected changes worldwide in response to rising carbon dioxide levels and can be viewed on a daily timescale for individual towns and cities.

Unlike other climate prediction maps, which tend to show how global temperatures will differ from a pre-industrial average or current levels, the data gives predicted values.

Nasa says the data will help scientists and planners better understand the risks facing the world due to climate change.

Ecoalarmists Were Wrong. Again.

In 2009, Al Gore said the Arctic would be ice-free by summer 2014. He was wrong. A year before that, ABC News warned that climate change would flood the City of New York by 2015. That was wrong too. Newsbusters' Scott Whitlock explains: “New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. 

Or at least that was the wildly inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.” 

The show was taped in 2008, though the network held off airing the program until a year later — and probably now wishing it had delayed it permanently. 

“The program showcased the terrible impact of global warming from 2015 through 2100,” adds Whitlock. “In the special, a ‘storm of the century’ wiped out Miami. Other highlights included a destroyed New York City and an abandoned Las Vegas. By 2084, Earth’s population will apparently be just 2.7 billion.” Trust them. They’re experts.

Is climate change affecting birth weights?

If there were any truth in this scare, babies born in the tropics would all be underweight.  They are not.  I am from a population of British origin that has existed in the tropics for many generations and I can assure all that the normal experience there  -- as elsewhere -- is of 8lb boy babies and 7lb girl babies

A link between air temperature and birth weight has been discovered by researchers.  They have found that exposure to high temperatures during pregnancy increases the risk of giving birth to smaller babies.

The study could be seen to have worrying implications for pregnant women in heatwaves and hints that dramatic global warming may lead to less healthy babies in the long-term.

Researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) and Harvard University studied the relationship between birth weight and ambient air temperature during pregnancy in Massachusetts between 2000 and 2008.

‘We found that exposure to high air temperature during pregnancy increases the risk of lower birth weight and can cause preterm birth,' Dr Itali Kloog of BGU said.

‘An increase of 8.5 °C (47.3°F) in the last trimester of average exposure was associated with a 17g (0.6 ounce) decrease in birth weight of babies born full term after adjusting for other potential risk factors,’ he said. 

For the experiment, experts developed a ‘high resolution air temperature estimation model’ technique to predict daily air temperature in regions.

This helped scientists analyse how women were exposed to differing temperatures from the date of conception to the birth of their babies.

Dr Kloog believes the research, which is published in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal, is important as the Earth is said to be heating up.

‘With the increase in temperatures over the last century and continued emissions from greenhouse gases, more attention is being focused on effects from heat,’ he said.

G7 leaders’ absurd 2100 commitment

The G7 group of world leaders last weekend committed to eliminating fossil fuels’ usage by 2100, as well as to cutting their use by 40-70% by 2050. That commitment is absurd; neither the world leaders nor anyone else knows anything about what the world economy or its technical capabilities will look like by 2100, yet in this area they are attempting to micromanage it. The world has already suffered eight years of lousy economic performance because of politicians’ mismanagement of fiscal, monetary, and environmental policies. It is time to call out the intellectual bankruptcy of these attempts to wreck our living standards.

First, a political commitment that stretches to 2100, or even 2050, is completely meaningless, given that all seven of the G7 countries are democracies, with evidence of hereditary leadership only in the United States. All but one of the G7 politicians at last week’s meeting are in late middle age; even with science perhaps lengthening lifespans, they will not be in office by 2100, or even 2050.

For one thing, their countries’ political cycles forbid it. Barack Obama leaves office in 2017; it seems unlikely that Michelle will succeed him, as Hillary is attempting to succeed Bill Clinton. David Cameron seems likely to pass his “sell-by-date” by about 2020, and indeed he has promised to stand down then. German leaders last longer, but Angela Merkel is 60 and has been in office for almost a decade. Francois Hollande is also 60, and French tradition doesn’t lead to long leadership terms. Stephen Harper is younger, only 56, but after 9 years in office is surely reaching the limits of the Canadian electorate’s tolerance. Shinzo Abe is also 60, and Japanese leaders are lucky to survive even 5 years – no Japanese prime minister has ever made it past a decade.

Only Matteo Renzi of Italy has a shot at being in office in or after 2050. He’s only 40, and will be 75 in 2050, a plausible leadership age. What’s more, Italian leaders can go on and on (though not consecutively) – Giulio Andreotti’s terms of office stretched over 20 years, ending in a conviction for organizing a Mafia murder (later reversed) while Amintore Fanfani’s terms of office stretched over 33½ years (which wouldn’t quite take Renzi to 2050) and ended when he was 79 (which would take Renzi triumphantly to 2054.)

Still, that’s 2050; even if we grant that today’s politicians have some marginal credibility making commitments for 2050, they have none whatever in making such commitments for 2100. Only if we were ruled by hereditary monarchies, with heirs bound by their ancestors’ actions, would such long-term commitments have any meaning – and even in that case, Queen Victoria in her old age in 1900 did not feel herself bound by commitments made by her uncle as Prince Regent in 1815.

The second problem with the G7 leaders’ commitment is that they are relying on pretty unsettled science and, with political enthusiasm exceeding scientific competence, going beyond it. No reputable scientist has suggested that we need to reduce carbon emissions to zero to eliminate the possibility of global warming. There are innumerable natural sources of carbon dioxide, include human exhalation, so short of wiping out human life (and much animal life) entirely we will not prevent CO2 emissions.

In reality, the main danger of destabilizing the global ecosystem is the inexorable increase in world population. By 2100 on current projections, we will have 10 billion people on the planet. Their natural carbon dioxide emissions would thus have multiplied by a factor of ten the natural emissions of 1800’s 1 billion people even if the Industrial Revolution had been conducted entirely on the basis of clean technologies.

What’s more, unlike a policy of switching to more expensive and unreliable sources of energy, a policy of reversing population growth would actually increase the standards of living of ordinary people over the long term, as global resources would be less heavily utilized and would consequently be reduced in price. Merrie England was most Merrie in about 1470, after the Black Death had wiped out more than a third of the population; similarly among the richest societies in human history have been late Colonial America and 1880s Australia, both of which benefited enormously from very low population density and massive availability of resources per individual.

A third objection to the G7 proposal is the rigidity of the technologies themselves. It’s by no means certain that even with all the subsidies we are doling out to Elon Musk, we can get solar cars to the efficiency and affordability necessary for their universal use. Aircraft are even more difficult to imagine without fossil fuels; the Solar Impulse 2, an experimental solar powered aircraft, is in the process of flying one pilot round the world over a period of five months (since extended because atmospheric conditions need to be exactly right, with winds of no more than 4 mph.) Of course, we could revert to dirigibles, and to taking a week or so to circumnavigate the globe. Plastics, too, are difficult to imagine without hydrocarbons. Overall, the technical difficulties in moving to zero fossil fuel usage appear insuperable, even by 2100. The last 10% is the devil, technologically speaking.

Finally, there is the problem that the goal of abolishing fossil fuel usage is based on climate science that has yet to prove conclusively that a problem exists that is close to warranting these draconian solutions. No, I am not a climate change denier – heaven forbid I should attract that noxious epithet! But the scientific evidence so far shows only a modest warming effect, and the 17-year pause in warming since 1998, together with the further cooling that climate scientists are now postulating between now and 2050, suggest strongly that the warming effect will continue to be modest, probably no more than 1 degree Celsius per century, easily solvable at minimal cost by a few sandbags on the sea walls.

The credibility of the “global warming” hypothesis is seriously damaged for all thinking people by the tactics used by climate change extremists, most of the scientists among whom are dependent on the problem for their livelihood. The left has seized on global warming as an unparalleled opportunity to shift the world into a planned economy, with them doing the planning, at infinite cost to our living standards. The regulations they impose are extortionately expensive, and have little or no effect on carbon levels; one shudders to think of the regulations they could come up with if anybody took the zero fossil fuel usage goal seriously. 

Their attempts to befuddle dozy politicians into doing their bidding, and to shut down debate among the rest of us, are typical of the left’s modus operandi in any economic or social debate. There is indeed “settled science” in the global warming debate – a little of it – but it doesn’t say what the fanatics claim it says.

Far from devising ever more fanciful and more distant goals which would require the Sovietization of our economy, sensible statesmen should take global warming seriously as a problem, but meet it with a modest carbon tax, which could be ratcheted up if the problem appeared to be becoming more serious and ratcheted down if as at present it appeared to be receding. That would eliminate the cost of regulation, and the gigantic costs of such follies as shutting down the German steel industry or devoting the entire coast of Britain to wind farms. By all means discuss the problem at G7 meetings, but with a sensible 10-year time horizon and without all the gigantic intellectually dishonest bureaucracies whose livelihoods are fueled by alarmism.

Whose Fossil Fuel Use Will G7 Leaders Reduce by 70%?

Our global political masters met in Germany this week: see how green they are? They’re walking … in a field: can’t get any greener than that!  And, as usual, they are coming up with the definitive solutions to the greatest threats of today: the end of the use of fossil fuels—in 85 years.

No worries if that sounds a little pie-in-the-sky: they also promise to hit a 30-70% reduction by…2050!

The reduction certainly won’t come from the G7 leaders: no cutbacks in motorcades, fleets of presidential 747s, entourages of hundreds:  Obama’s one-night trip to Brussels last year entailed an entourage of 900, with 45 vehicles transported in three cargo planes (not to mention Air Force One and the Presidential Airlift Group), and his trip through Africa included hundreds of Secret Service agents, 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks, and fighter jets flying in shifts.

As also reported, last year’s UN summit on climate change held in Peru generated more CO2 than a small country.

So, if we can’t look to our “leaders” to set the example of conservation, just whose use of fossil fuels will Obama et al. restrict to achieve their lofty goals?

I’ll give you three guesses. (G7 leaders to their subjects: “Conservation for thee but not for me!”)

Then, start contemplating how a centrally mandated 70% reduction in today’s cheapest and most readily available energy will likely play out your daily life.

Meanwhile: these folks say no carbon use by 2100 is too late; while others point out there’s been no increase in warming in 18 years.

EPA Fails to Punish Corrupt Workers, Lets Them Keep Full Pay

The scandal-plagued agency that's wasted millions to bring underserved and minority communities "environmental justice" fails to punish corrupt employees and allows them to keep their government paychecks, according to a new federal audit.

It involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which just a few years ago was investigated for dodging potential public scrutiny and possibly congressional oversight by using bogus electronic mail accounts to conduct official business. This occurred under President Obama's first EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, who dedicated tens of millions of dollars to an "environmental justice" movement that helps minority communities get green. Under the program the EPA has doled out large sums to leftwing community groups that help poor, minority and indigenous people increase recycling, reduce carbon emissions through "weatherization," participate in "green jobs" training and avoid heat stroke.

Other EPA transgressions have been reported by Judicial Watch over the years, including agency funds going to groups that help illegal immigrants. In fact, JW uncovered documents that show a New Jersey nonprofit (Lazos America Unida) that advocates on behalf of the "Mexican immigrant community" and a Missouri farm workers' group that aims to increase awareness about the dangers of sun and heat exposure in migrant populations were among EPA grant recipients. A few years ago the EPA gave Tijuana $93,000 to launch Mexico's green transformation.

Earlier this year the EPA served as an inspiration for a bill introduced in Congress to curb an epidemic of federal employees watching pornography on government computers during work hours. The congressman who introduced the law disclosed that various EPA Inspector General probes have uncovered multiple cases of employees working hard at watching porn. "One EPA employee was viewing as much as 6 hours of pornography a day in his office," the congressman said. "The same federal employee was found to have downloaded as many as 7,000 pornographic files onto his government computer."

With this consistent record of perpetual lapses over the years, it's hardly surprising that this bloated agency with an annual budget of nearly $8 billion sits idly by while its workforce engages in illegal behavior. The EPA does little to discipline employees for misconduct, according to the latest report issued by the agency's inspector general to Congress. It includes a multitude of examples in which the agency failed to take action against workers who committed wrongdoing. For instance, a senior executive simultaneously worked in a private-sector job while he was supposedly performing tasks at the EPA. Agency brass took no action for nearly a year and ultimately put the executive on "paid administrative leave," allowing the worker to collect full pay for doing nothing.

Other cases include eight employees accused by the EPA of misconduct who are also on paid leave and have accrued around 21,000 hours at a cost of more than $1 million and two employees who got busted watching porn during work hours. Each of the porn viewers has an annual salary of $120,000 and both were placed on administrative leave for a year before they were even reprimanded, according to the audit. One of them retired with full benefits without any punishment and the other is still collecting a full government paycheck. The anecdotes go on and on. "Recent events and activities indicate a possible ‘culture of complacency' among some supervisors at the EPA regarding time and attendance controls, employee computer usage, real property management, and taking prompt action against employees," the report says.


For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: