CO2 was not cause of Global Warming between 1979-1993

I’ve been examining how global planetary temperature can be predicted from various things like pressure and tropospheric height. The reason for this is that planets appear to have their tropopause at a constant 0.1bar pressure. And like a thermometer as the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the “bulb” of the atmosphere should expand. And if the tropopause is at a fixed pressure with increasing temperature, the tropopause should rise in height – but at the same pressure because the weight of atmosphere above it remains the same.

This paper: "Behavior of tropopause height and atmospheric temperature in models", reanalyses, and observations: Decadal changes. Most of the paper is the standard revolting non-science of regurgitating the output from failed climate model – which tell us nothing except the failure of those involved to model the real climate.

But hidden away there was a section of a graph which shows actual measurements as shown to the right. (originally the graphic was much bigger – but I removed all the misleading dross).

The key figure is the top value from which we see the tropopause pressure has dropped by about 4mb from 1979–1993.

WHAT IT MEANS

This either means the tropopause is at the same height and pressure dropped (which would occur with cooling of the atmosphere) or it means the troposphere has moved up with no change in global temperature (or a mixture of both).

What it does not show is global warming!!

This is because the signature of global warming would be either:

The tropopause stayed at the same physical height but  pressure INCREASES because due to gas expansion there is more weight of air above this height

The tropopause would move up physically with the expanding atmosphere and be at the same pressure but this pressure level would be further from the ground (due to expansion).
From this we can conclude that between 1979-1993 there was:

⇒ No global warming

So, we now have fairly strong evidence that there was no net global warming in the period of this research (1979–1993). Instead, this seems to support overall net cooling of the atmosphere. But how could this happen when measurements on the ground and particularly 3-8 days downwind of major 1970s polluting areas shows warming?

The most likely answer is that there must have been warming, but that warming occurred in only the very lowest portions of the atmosphere. In the rest it must have cooled.

Is this Consistent with the REDUCTION in low level pollution?

In order to get overall cooling in of the troposphere in this period when the ground warmed, the majority of the troposphere must have experienced cooling. Half the bulk of the troposphere lies below 4.7km so if the cooling were a similar magnitude to the warming, the warming would be below 4.7km. Typically rain clouds form up to about 6500feet or 2000m.

Therefore this change in the tropopause together with apparent increased ground temperature particularly downwind of major 1970s polluting areas suggests that we have seen an increase in these areas below 2000 or the cloud forming region.

This is consistent with EAIW (Environmental Action Induced Warming) stemming from reducing low-level pollution after the 1970s clean air acts. Because this only warms the very lowest parts of the atmosphere (in the hot spots shown)

It is not compatible with CO2 warming which would be much more widely spread throughout the atmosphere and would not be localised.

SOURCE





It's done: Trump signs order ditching Obama’s curbs on carbon

Vowing to end the “war on coal”, President Trump signed an executive order last night that will dismantle American efforts to combat climate change.

The order scrapped curbs on carbon emissions from American power plants, which had been a cornerstone of President Obama’s environmental legacy and a critical part of America’s plan to meet its commitments under the Paris climate accord.

It rescinds a ban on leasing federal lands for coal production, reverses rules to limit methane emissions from oil and gas production and reverses a policy that forced federal agencies to weigh the likely effect on climate change when drafting regulations.

SOURCE





If Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Government Scientists Have To Keep Cheating?

A few decades back, an upstanding member of the global warming alarmist community said that if the public was going to take the threat of man-caused climate change seriously, the alarmists were going to have to exaggerate the evidence.

It was in 1989 that Stephen Schneider wrote in Discover magazine that in order "to capture the public's imagination . . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Let's not forget that the late climatologist was first a believer in global cooling in the 1970s. He was worried that a new ice age was coming.

Of course the alarmist community has followed Schneider's script. It's spent much of the last three decades trying to spook the public into a panic.

One example of this agenda to drive fright into our brains was the ClimateGate scandal at Britain's University of East Anglia. A series of email threads between climate scientists showed that they were torturing the temperature data to produce evidence of warming that wasn't occurring.

Who can forget their conspiracy to "hide the decline"?

Don't think this is an isolated incident. News out of the United Kingdom over the weekend tells us that "world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data."

"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the United Nations climate conference in Paris in 2015," the Daily Mail reports.

"The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 — revealed by U.N. scientists in 2013 — never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected."

The Daily Mail identifies the whistleblower as "John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation." His strong objections to the publication "of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a 'blatant attempt to intensify the impact.' "

Bates blames Thomas Karl, the paper's lead author, whom he said insisted "on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation . . . in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause."

Please don't be surprised. Government-paid researchers are desperate to perpetuate the climate shock. They know that if there is no warming as they have predicted, the generous public funds that support their work will eventually dry up.

It is in their financial interest to keep the public tied up in knots of anxiety and to dupe politicians, who are eager to assume the posture of caring guardians of the environment so they'll to continue to hand them money

And it fits right in with the other evidence problems that undermine the global warming narrative, such as the hopelessly flawed temperature record, the unreliable models that can't even predict the past, and the possibility that as many half of the alarmist research papers could be wrong.

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds is fond of saying that he'll believe there's a warming crisis when the people who are saying it's a crisis start acting like it is. Maybe we'll start believing there's a warming problem when government scientists quit cheating to make it look like a problem exists.

SOURCE





Coal hatred behind South Australian blackout

Windmills are given huge subsidies but a small subsidy for a much more useful generator was denied

The owner of the now-defunct Port Augusta power station made a secret offer to keep generating electricity until mid-2018 in return for $25 million from the State Government — 22 times less than its $550 million power plan.

Extensive details of Alinta Energy’s bid to subsidise the 520 megawatt Northern plant’s operation are revealed in a May, 2015, letter from the company to the Government.
The Port Augusta power station. Picture: Kelly Barnes

Seizing on the explosive revelations, Opposition Leader Steven Marshall branded the rejection of an affordable deal to keep power prices down and prevent blackouts as the State Government’s biggest failure since the 1991 State Bank disaster.

In the six-page letter supplied to The Advertiser by the Liberals, Alinta warns of significant risk to the security of South Australia’s power supply and a surge in electricity prices — costing the state $56 million to $112 million a year — if the power station and associated Leigh Creek brown coal mine were to close.

Other sources have told The Advertiser that Alinta made another bid for $30 million to the government, which made a rejected counter-offer of only $8 million. Alinta then announced in June 2015 that it would close the station.

The secret Alinta letter revealed also warned that closure of Flinders Power, which included the Northern power station and Leigh Creek, would trigger a $150 million annual blow to regional GDP and cost 450 jobs.

The bulk of Alinta’s demand was for a 70 per cent subsidy of maintenance costs for the 250km Leigh Creek railway, which supplied brown coal to the power plant — equivalent to about $8 million over three years.

SA has been hit by three major blackouts, including a statewide outage last September, since the closure last May of Alinta’s Flinders Power operation.

Businesses across the state took an estimated $450 million hit because of the statewide blackout and mining giant BHP Billiton has said that outages at Olympic Dam cost it $137 million.
The Port Augusta power station on a clear day, in 2008. Picture: Supplied

Electricity prices for forward contracts in SA have jumped from about $80 per megawatt hour in mid-2016 to about $140MW/h.

Premier Jay Weatherill this month branded the Port Augusta plant a “clunky, old, coal-fired power station”, declared Alinta’s temporary offer did not secure SA’s energy future

SOURCE

***************************************

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   main.html 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

*****************************************