Again: Their own figures contradict global Warmists

I have on a few occasions mentioned that global warming was demonstrably wrong from the outset.  The theory was that after WWII there was a big expansion of industry worldwide that pumped lots of CO2 into the atmosphere and that the earth warmed as a result of that. But what actually happened would almost be enough to convince one that God opposes Warmists. Let me go over that again before I go on to a new hole in the theory.

Yes. On theory, more CO2 should produce more warming.  Yes. There was a great rise in CO2 output in the postwar era. But, No.  Global temperatures did not rise.  There was a "long hiatus" between 1945 and 1975.  That is a pretty exact refutation of global warming theory.  Warmists mutter about "special factors" giving that theory-destroying result but what special factors could exactly match and cancel out 30 years of warming?  It is a non-explanation.

Warmists also say "There are always gaps". But that is fatal too. ANY gap disproves the theory.  When a CO2 molecule arrives in the atmosphere it is just an inert little puff of gas with no capacity to "decide" what it can do.  It just does what it does and does it immediately.  So if it causes warming it must do that at once -- not after some "gap" in time.  So there is no escape.  The long hiatus is a conclusive disproof of global warming.

I have said all that before but I have repeated it because I think it can not be repeated enough.  It is basic science but usually passes unmentioned.

So let me go on to another absurdity in Warmism.  It is broadly agreed that the amount of global warming was 8 tenths of one degree Celsius over the 20th century.  So did all that warming take place after 1945?  Far from it.  Because of the long hiatus, most of the 0.8C warming happened BEFORE 1945.

But the warming before 1945 was supposed to be natural.  So NATURAL warming exceeded the warming attributed to anthropogenic emissions of CO2.  So why is the warming after 1945 man-made when natural factors did an even bigger job of producing warming?  If the warming before 1945 was natural, how can we be sure that the warming after 1945 was not natural too?  If the warming after 1945 was greater than the warming before 1945, the Warmists could have had some case -- but the post-1945 warming was in fact LESS than the prior warming.

Even if the warming before and after 1945 was split 50/50, you would still need evidence to show that the post-1945 warming was anything but a continuation of a natural trend.

The graph at the head of this blog is drawn with rather thick  lines but you can still  easily see the 1945 - 1975 hiatus and the fact that there was at least as much warming before 1945 as there was afterwards.

Global warming theory flies in the face of reality.  If it were a scientific theory and not a money-grabbing racket, it would have been abandoned long ago -- JR






More deliberate fraud from the professional Warmists

Still no mention of the well-known land subsidence on the U.S. East coast.  As pointed out in "Sea Levels, Land Levels, and Tide Gauges" (1993) by K.O. Emery and David G. Aubrey, mean sea level is masked by much larger changes due to changes in Land Level. To quote them: "With respect to estimating globally coherent changes in sea level during the last 100 years. the biases arising from vertical land movements mean that estimates based on crude averages of tide-gauge data are subject to large uncertainties; significant elements of the physics involved may be missed".

Sea level rise caused Hurricane Florence’s storm surge to be much worse, new data analysis by non-profit First Street Foundation has found. And the economic impact is expected to be in the billions.

More than 51,000 homes were hit by the storm surge that came with Hurricane Florence, which hit the Carolinas as a Category 1 storm. But as researchers found, 1 in 5 of these homes — which saw water cover more than a quarter of their property — were damaged due to sea level rise.

Comparing today’s sea level to 1970 data, researchers concluded that some 11,000 homes hit by Florence would not have been impacted had sea levels remained stable. But since 1970, seas have risen by about 6 inches — meaning that the damage experienced by 20 percent of homes can be linked to this increase.

And with climate change, according to the Army Corps of Engineers’ projection, if seas rise by a further 15 inches (more than a foot) by 2050, the same storm surge as experienced with Florence would have double the impact, putting an estimated 102,000 homes at risk.

A damaged home and streets littered with debris are seen after Hurricane Irma passed through Florida on September 13, 2017. Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images,
Major insurers lost billions on natural disasters in 2017, they say climate change a ‘serious’ risk
Climate change is making these storms more intense, and more expensive.

Climate change is making hurricanes stronger and wetter. Storm surges are made worse with higher sea levels because it means the surge is beginning from a higher starting point — there is more water available for the hurricane to push onto the land. Plus, with all this water comes less friction which would otherwise slow down the surge. Instead, more water rushes farther inland.

More damaged homes also means higher costs. New figures released on Tuesday reveal just how expensive Florence will be. According to risk modeling firm RMS, the storm is expected to rack up a bill of anywhere between $800 million to $1.2 billion in losses for the National Flood Insurance Program.

And the losses linked specifically to storm surge and inland flood damage are expected to reach between $700 million and $1.2 billion. In total, Florence will see between $2.8 and $5 billion in insured losses.

However, as RMS analysis shows, an estimated 70 percent of homes hit by Florence were uninsured.

A sign warns people away from Union Point Park after is was flooded by the Neuse River during Hurricane Florence September 13, 2018 in New Bern, North Carolina. (Credit: Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Many homeowners hit by Hurricane Florence may not be able to pay for its destruction
Some FEMA flood maps in the area are also outdated.

One recent analysis by McClatchy found that the number of homes in North and South Carolina with flood insurance dropped significantly only a couple miles inland from the Atlantic coast. Part of this is likely due to the fact that many FEMA flood zone maps are out of date and so people may not know they’re living in a risky area.

And it’s not just storm surges fueled by sea level rise that are making homes more vulnerable — it’s also a matter of where homes are being built. As the analysis by First Street Foundation notes, changes in housing development are also a “significant” factor in why so many homes were hit by Florence.

Over the past several decades, wetlands and farmland in the Carolinas have been developed for urban use. Researchers compared housing development patterns in 1970 and today and found that as a result, more than half of the homes hit by Florence can be linked to increased development.

According to one estimate by The News & Observer, roughly 610,000 homes were built within 50 miles of North Carolina’s coastline over the past 30 years. Add to this the fact that FEMA disaster aid often results in homes being re-built or repaired in the exact same vulnerable areas, and it’s no surprise that the number of people at risk isn’t declining.

“With sea levels and coastal development on the rise, the impacts of hurricane storm surges will only get worse,” Matthew Eby, executive director of First Street Foundation, said in a statement. “The time to rethink America’s sea level rise and adaptation strategy is now.”

SOURCE





Market forces triumphed over government ethanol mandates

A funny thing happened on the way to the gas pump.

Consumers want cheaper fuel and bought as much of it as they could without Washington telling them they had to.

That shouldn’t come as a surprise. What’s funny is that some people still needed to learn that economic incentives are a powerful motivator.

Our story begins in Washington, where government regulation is the go-to method of persuasion.

The EPA has sought to increase the use of ethanol, a “renewable” biofuel made from corn. To accomplish this goal, it orders refineries to blend ethanol with the gasoline and other products they produce. Gas sold at the pump contains roughly 10 percent ethanol.

The giant global consolidated oil companies have no problem meeting Washington’s mandate, but it’s put the squeeze on small, independent refiners across the country.

One of those refiners, Philadelphia Energy Solutions, declared bankruptcy after the cost of complying with EPA biofuel regulations hit $300 million – double the cost of its payroll.

The Trump administration has been giving the independent refineries waivers from the EPA regs to help save the thousands of good paying blue-collar industrial jobs that are at risk.

That had the Ethanol Lobby up in arms. They claimed if the government didn’t force every single refinery to adhere to mandatory quotas, there would be no market for ethanol, and demand for the biofuel would fall off a cliff.

Researchers from the University of Illinois department of agricultural economics decided to put this to the test. They wanted to see if the administration’s policy of exempting small refiners from the EPA mandates did in fact reduce demand for ethanol.

And that’s where the funny thing happened.

They found that while the Ethanol Lobby predicted a collapse in ethanol use, it just didn’t happen.

“There is little if any evidence that [demand] for ethanol was reduced as the waivers went into effect. If there has been any ethanol ‘demand destruction’ to date it was very small,” University of Illinois economics professor Scott Irwin writes.

Shorter version of the findings: People are buying just as much ethanol as before even without the government forcing independent refiners into bankruptcy.

More revealing is the reason why ethanol demand remains strong.

Professor Irwin reports, “Ethanol prices since late 2017 have become very cheap relative to gasoline. … This is the reason ethanol demand … has not been affected. … Put differently, ethanol is highly price competitive.”

Imagine that – ethanol is cheaper than gasoline, so people want to buy it.

The market works.

Time and again, we’re told renewable energy (wind, solar and biofuels) is an “infant industry” that can’t stand on its own and absolutely must have government support to survive.

This argument has been used to justify subsidies, perennial tax breaks and production mandates.

It looks like one of the infants has grown up.

The Trump administration has kept its promise, saving good paying blue-collar jobs at independent refineries across the country.

This latest study shows there are win-win solutions that can help corn farmers in the Midwest and industrial workers in the Northeast.

SOURCE





Total makes decade’s biggest gas find

A big natural gas discovery has been made off the Shetland Islands that experts believe could be the biggest in British waters for a decade.

Early estimates for the find made by Total, the French oil major, suggest that there could be one trillion cubic feet of gas, equivalent to more than 175 million barrels of oil, at the Glendronach prospect in the North Sea.

Analysts from Wood Mackenzie, the energy consultancy, said that figure would make it the largest find since the Culzean gasfield in 2008.

The area west of Shetland, which is relatively unexplored, is seen as one of the most exciting areas for the UK continental shelf, with oil industry giants such as Total, BP and Shell investing heavily alongside independents.

SOURCE





Be glad you don't live in "Green" Britain

Where I livev in Australia, ALL garbage is collected once a week -- and you don't have to sort it

More than 50,000 homes will have their bins emptied only once every four weeks under a local authority plan to save money and increase recycling.

Conwy county borough council in north Wales has become the first in England and Wales to cut collections of waste destined for landfill or incineration to once in four weeks. Many other councils are considering reducing the frequency of collections, with less than a quarter of English councils still collecting residual waste once a week. Fifteen per cent of UK councils plan to collect waste once every three or four weeks, according to a survey.

Conwy council said the change could save £390,000 a year and persuade more people to put waste in the correct bin

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   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

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