Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

The idea that climate change is producing heat records across the Earth is among the most egregious manipulations of data in the absurd global warming debate.

Americans receive a daily barrage from the fake news media and climate “experts” reporting that each and every day, week, month or year is the hottest on record due to global warming. On Feb. 7, several major newspapers carried stories of the declaration by NASA and NOAA that the past five years have been the warmest on record. Sadly, these supposed experts use mathematical equations that do not jive with reality over the past 140 years.

The same climate experts warn that record heat is just the tip of the iceberg. We are constantly told that global warming is the root cause behind any and all weather events that are extreme, destructive, unusual or uncomfortable. Many of these fear mongers also say we should stop burning fossil fuels that are causing this mayhem.

Is the Earth truly experiencing the hottest weather on record? Absolutely not.

After examining actual weather records over the past 100 years, there is no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

However, climate change alarmists always find somewhere on Earth where temperatures are hotter than ever. The focus is always on isolated temperatures that have reached all-time highs while ignoring reports of all-time record lows. These zealots would like you to believe that due to fossil fuel emissions, summers are now longer and hotter while winters are shorter and milder.

Yet, the actual temperature records tell a very different story. Did the Earth experience its hottest temperature ever this year? The answer is no. The highest record temperature ever reported was 136 degrees Fahrenheit in Libya in 1922. The record high temperature for the United States was 134 degrees Fahrenheit in Death Valley, California in 1913. Fossil fuel emissions in 1913 and 1922 were negligible compared to today.

The coldest temperature ever reported was minus 129 degrees Fahrenheit in Vostok, Antarctica, in 1983 when Carbon dioxide emissions were five times higher than in 1913. The coldest temperature in the lower 48 states (excluding Alaska) of minus 64 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded in 1996 in Embarass, Minnesota. Did the media and climate scientists warn that this low temperature indicated that we are headed for another Ice Age?

The maximum reported difference between high and low temperatures at a single location is 188 degrees Fahrenheit (from minus 90F to plus 98F) in Verhoyansk, Siberia. In fact, record changes of highs and lows have occurred in 22 U.S. cities on a single day. For example, in 1989 the temperature in Alamosa, Colorado, varied between a low of 35F and a high of 91F for a temperature swing of 56 degrees F.

We hope these examples, right out of the weather record books, compiled by C.C. Burt in his book Extreme Weather Changes, will help you to understand the scams alarmists are trying to pull. These examples all illustrate that cherry picking record high temperatures in isolated locations tells absolutely nothing about the Earth’s climate.

The strongest heat wave ever recorded occurred in July 1936, generating high temperatures in half of America’s 50 states. In 1935, fossil fuel emissions were 25 times lower than today. America’s coldest year occurred in 1899, when temperatures dropped below 0 F in all 50 states.

Interesting that the figure above shows the most severe historic cold wave during the past century took place in 1936, which was the same year when the strongest heat wave took place. In terms of general behavior, the global warming alarmist prediction is that as time progresses and fossil fuel emissions increase, the number of record highs should increase and record lows should decrease. However, these trends do not exist and the data dispels, rather than supports, the global warming hypothesis.

Concurrently a compilation of all days since 1915 when temperatures exceeded 90F shows them decreasing with time rather than increasing in Figure 2.



The heat wave experienced in the 1930s and 1950s are clearly evident here. Once again, the data does not support the claim that the United States is hotter than ever as a result of rising Carbon dioxide levels.

From 1970 until 1998 there was a warming period that raised temperatures by about 0.7 F that helped spawn the global warming alarmist movement. However, since 1998, little warming has occurred while carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase. This is totally consistent with variations in the amount of heat the Earth receives from the Sun.

These facts are completely supported by 4,000 ocean floats which measure ocean temperatures at a variety of depths. This data at argo.ucsd.edu measures the oceans where climate-induced temperatures occur.

Isn’t it time to start ignoring the calamitous annual claims that this is the hottest year on record? It just ain’t so.

SOURCE





US Forests Are Burning Up in an‘Epidemic,’ Experts Say We Must Act

The basic problem with America's wildfire epidemic is Greenie interference with professional forest management

Forests are an iconic feature of the western U.S.’s dry, rugged landscape, but the risk of massive wildfires on these lands is growing because of decades of poor management.

It turns out western forests have too many trees. The answer to this problem, somewhat paradoxically, is more logging, according to experts.

“Forests have to be actively managed — logging, road maintenance, tree planting, weeding, animal control, thinning, salvage — in order to avoid these events,” Bob Zybach, a forestry expert, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Logging in government-controlled forests is probably one of the most contentious environmental policy debates. However, one expert recently told Congress that one way we deal with massive wildfires is by harvesting trees.

“It’s a bit counter-intuitive, but we cut more trees,” Elaine Oneil, a forestry management consultant, told the House Committee on Natural Resources in a hearing Wednesday.

“What we are seeing in the western U.S. is an epidemic — of insects and disease and wildfires — brought on in large part by an epidemic of too many trees,” Oneil testified before Congress.

Federal wildfire statistics show the average number of acres burned every year since 2000 is double what it was the preceding four decades.

The hearing was meant to highlight the supposed impacts of global warming on public lands and forests, including increased wildfire risks. However, Oneil’s testimony shined a light on what may need to be done in order to reverse decades of forest mismanagement.

Democrats tend to oppose increased logging, but megafires that devastate up millions of acres of forests and chaparral lands threaten their crusade to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Indeed, Democrats and some scientists argue global warming is behind the recent rise in western wildfires — though, that point is hotly debated. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to blame bigger wildfires on poor land management and environmental litigation.

In most cases, healthy forests sequester carbon dioxide, which scientists blame for global warming. However, Oneil said tree mortality in some states is at the point where forests emit more carbon dioxide than they sequester.

California’s devastating 2018 wildfire season, for example, emitted just as much carbon dioxide as producing the entire state’s electricity needs for an entire year, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Not all of these emissions, however, come from burning forests.

The Rim Fire that started near Yosemite National Park in 2013 reportedly emitted up to four times more carbon dioxide emissions as California reduced that year to meet its global warming goals.

For many Republicans, however, carbon sequestration is an ancillary benefit to what is otherwise just commonsense land management policy. Zybach said active forest management can also be an economic engine for rural America.

“Active management has the additional benefit of producing tax-paying jobs rather than follow the recent model of using taxpayer monies to ‘battle’ these things and ‘mitigate’ the results,” Zybach said in an email.

Wildfire experts say California’s wildfire woes will only get worse if tree mortality continues unchecked. Oneil said not only do diseased and dead trees need to be removed, but the number of trees needs to be reduced, especially in the dry, western states.

The overcrowding in California’s forests is stark. Some forests in California have more than 1,000 trees per acre instead of the more ideal 40 to 60 per acre, according to forestry experts.

U.S. forestry officials reported 27 million trees died in California in the 12 months running up to December 2017. Since 2010, 129 million trees died in state, federal and private California forests, according to a 2018 report by the Little Hoover Commission.

LHC, which investigates California policies, recommended officials “use more prescribed fire to reinvigorate forests, inhibit firestorms and help protect air and water quality.”

“Tree mortality is related to the number of living trees,” David South, professor emeritus of forestry at Auburn University, told TheDCNF.

South pointed out that wildfires were likely worse in the early 20th century, especially during the 1930s, but agreed with Oneil that fires were getting worse because not enough trees were being harvested, along with a lack of active forest management.

“At one time, the U.S. Forest Service was harvesting about 10 billion board feet of timber per year,” South said. “My guess is this rate would make a difference in the risk of crown fires” in the coming decades, he added.

Active management of forests — thinning and prescribed burns — seems to have gained bipartisan support in the wake of California’s 2018 wildfire season. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, proposed spending $305 million to remove debris from state forests and expand wildfire response capabilities.

President Donald Trump is also pushing for more forest maintenance but went a step further and signed an executive order in December allowing more than 4 billion board feet of timber to be logged from federal lands.

Trump also signed legislation in 2018 that included provisions allowing foresters to more quickly remove dead and diseased trees.

Trump’s order allowed for a big boost in federal timber harvests, however, it’s still well below what South and other experts say is needed to bring wildfires back under control.

Congress would also likely need to act in order to greenlight more timber harvesting, though South was doubtful that would happen.

“As long as the public owns the lands, there will be trees dying due to overcrowding,” South said.

SOURCE




Critics: The Green New Deal Isn’t Just About Energy, It’s Also About Controlling What You Eat

The Green New Deal isn’t just a climate change manifesto targeting U.S. energy production, it also looks to drastically change how food is produced and, ultimately, what Americans eat.

“I think it’s pretty clear they want to change people’s consumption habits,” Nic Loris, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey introduced highly anticipated Green New Deal bills in early February, calling for “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years through a radical transformation of America.

The bills also call for a slew of new social justice and welfare programs totally unrelated to global warming.

The original “frequently asked questions” material about the Green New Deal contained a reference to “farty cows” THAT sent ranchers into a panic, fearing Democrats were taking aim at their livelihoods.

Environmentalists have targeted the beef industry for years, and concern over methane only gave activists more ammunition.

“Livestock will be banned,” Wyoming GOP Sen. John Barrasso, who represents lots of cattle ranchers, warned on the Senate floor after the Green New Deal was introduced. “Say goodbye to dairy, to beef, to family farms, to ranches.”

“Farty” was eventually deleted — in fact, most of the methane cows emit is from burping, not farting. The entire gaffe-riddled FAQ was eventually taken offline by Ocasio-Cortez’s staff amid national ridicule.

Even so, the legislation itself is no less radical than its gaffes. The bill calls for “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers … to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

“It’s technologically feasible to shut down factories and farms,” Loris told TheDCNF in an interview. “It can happen today.”

Loris’ point is that the seemingly benign language in the Green New Deal resolution is worryingly broad. Technological feasibility is an open-ended phrase the government has used to crush industries in the past.

The Obama administration, in fact, used a similar rationale to impose a de facto ban on new coal plants. The Obama Environmental Protection Agency essentially ruled the best way to reduce emissions from coal plants was to, well, use natural gas or renewables.

Loris said the Green New Deal seems to endorse the long-held disdain for industrial agriculture harbored by the environmental left, especially when it comes to beef and dairy operations. The resolution even calls for policies to encourage small-scale, “sustainable” farming. Does that mean they want the whole country to go local and organic?

Ted Nordhaus, director of research at the eco-modernist Breakthrough Institute, said the bill seemed to push so-called “regenerative agriculture” policies that often include implementing grazing methods to sequester carbon dioxide in the ground.

Proponents of “regenerative agriculture” say it would benefit farmers and ranchers. However, claiming that these methods can make beef operations carbon neutral is dubious, Nordhaus said.

Cows and other ruminant animals are a major source of methane — a byproduct of their unique digestive system. Livestock and their manure cause about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. agricultural sector, according to Breakthrough’s senior agricultural analyst Dan Blaustein-Rejto.

So any effort to cut U.S. agriculture emissions would necessitate dealing with cattle and dairy operations. With Ocasio-Cortez claiming humanity only had 12 years before catastrophe, what wouldn’t a concerned climate activist be willing to do?

In fact, the 2018 United Nations report behind Ocasio-Cortez’s 12-year-to-apocalypse deadline said “dietary shifts away from emissions-intensive livestock products” as one of the societal changes needed to keep future warming under 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

EPA data show U.S. agriculture emissions on the rise since 1990 while the country as a whole has cut emissions largely because of the natural gas boom. Agricultural emissions are mostly increasing because of methane from livestock manure management.

Per capita beef consumption peaked in the 1970s, Nordhaus said, declining mostly because of health concerns and industry innovations that brought down chicken and pork prices. Norhaus said continuing that trend was necessary to further limit emissions.

“A Green New Deal that was serious about reducing greenhouse gases from the U.S. agriculture sector would focus on supporting more, not less, intensification and improving the environmental performance of intensive systems through better cattle breeding, medical care, and then dealing with manure ponds and similar,” Norhaus told TheDCNF.

However, the Green New Deal resolution seems to suggest the opposite and reflects the environmental movement’s general opposition to industrial farming operations that provide Americans with affordable, abundant food.

The resolution calls for “supporting family farming,” “investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health” and “building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”

Democrats and environmentalists who endorse the Green New Deal — every Democratic senator running for president in 2020 co-sponsored the bill — tend to oppose large-scale industrial livestock operations.

The Organic Consumers Association, which also backs the Green New Deal, calls concentrated animal feeding operations “a disaster for the environment and our health.” The group also seems to oppose industrial-scale agriculture that currently feeds billions of people.

“We need stop the industrial overproduction of food—the root cause of agricultural pollution, food waste and greenhouse gas emissions,” Eric Holt-Gimenez, executive director of Food First, told the food news website Civil Eats.

Likewise, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, who’s running for the party’s nomination for 2020, railed against “the industrial animal agriculture industry” and its supposedly “devastating” impacts on the environment in a recent interview.

“The tragic reality is this planet simply can’t sustain billions of people consuming industrially produced animal agriculture because of environmental impact,” said Booker, a vegan. “It’s just not possible.”

However, research by Virginia Tech and the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that eliminating the livestock industry would only reduce emissions 2.6 percent domestically, but that shift also came with a host of different health concerns.

That 2017 study found that eliminating livestock would deprive Americans of key nutrients and animal proteins, including calcium, vitamins A and B12 and some fatty acids. In fact, consumers would need higher-calorie diets to make up the nutrient loss.

Given everything else about the Green New Deal, including its democratic socialist overtones, it’s got many ranchers worried the resolution is more about changing people’s lifestyles and not just about reducing emissions.

Could we see a carbon tax on meat? What about policies against feedlots and other large-scale beef operations? Or what about incentives to eat less beef and more poultry and pork? Pro-vegetarian tax credits?

“A carbon tax on meat and dairy would have a hard time making it from economics textbooks into law,” environmental economist Richard Tol said in an email.

“I can see them nudging people through tax credits and mandates like they do with energy systems,” Loris said, referring to policies like tax credits for wind turbines, solar panels and energy efficiency upgrades.

“When you decide to incentivize one product over another, that’s effectively a tax,” Loris said.

Rejto was skeptical of some sort of meat tax as well, but said the government could incentivize “practices like feeding cattle algae or giving them drugs that reduce methane emissions could further reduce emissions.”

USDA could also “direct its research into cell-based meat and other next-gen meat alternatives,” Rejto added. “This could lower the cost of high-quality beef alternatives, and reduce meat consumption through market forces.”

SOURCE





Germany Echoes Ocasio-Cortez in Killing the Coal Industry

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s draft “Green New Deal” produced anger, confusion and outright laughter across the nation this week, effectively proposing to eradicate the health insurance, nuclear energy and fossil fuel industries overnight, in addition to providing “economic security” to those “unable or unwilling to work.”

While Ocasio-Cortez’s proposals cater to leftist, radical environmentalists, and are utterly ludicrous in an economic sense, causing even CNN’s Jake Tapper to balk at the $40 trillion price tag, it appears that other nations are leaping headfirst into similar proposals that invite economic destruction.

Germany grabbed headlines across the globe in late February by proposing a complete government ban on utilizing coal for energy by 2038, effectively signing the industry’s death warrant. President Donald Trump has repeatedly slammed Germany for the country’s immense trade surplus with the United States, however, if the German government continues to cave to the demands of green energy extremists, Berlin’s robust economy will be a thing of the past.

The German Coal Commission’s plan involves Germany phasing out coal as early as 2035, a timeline which a number of senior lawmakers have denounced as unrealistic. The proposal would see billions spent to help deal with the economic effects of such a dramatic shift, while the country’s power system will be forced to make a sharp turn to the left.

Moreover, as is often the case for ideologically-motivated policy, German taxpayers will be left footing the bill, sacrificing Germany’s future as an industrial powerhouse in the process.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has made the Energiewende, or energy transition, a key part of her legacy. The Wall Street Journal offered a particularly damning verdict on the coal commission’s proposal, referring to it as “the world’s dumbest energy policy” — which will heighten dependence on Russian gas, sap the country’s coffers, and yet barely make a dent in global coal consumption.

Simply put, phasing out coal and nuclear at the same time in a country of 82 million would be utterly disastrous.

According to the plan, taxpayers can expect to be hit with a 35 billion aid bill to four coal-dependent regions by 2028 as the country closes its last remaining 120 coal stations. The same stations, that is, that supplied more than a third of Germany’s electricity last year — and which neighboring France relies on to meet peak demand in winter.

By some reports, this aid is already a “definite underestimate” of what is actually required to support these soon-to-be-destitute swathes of German industry.

“The faster Germany pulls out of coal, the more expensive it’s going to be and we’re not talking about negligible costs,” says Lars Ruzic, spokesman of the IGBCE miners, chemical and electrical workers’ union, “the phase-out is an immense disruption for utilities, the coal regions, jobs and the broader economy.”

Worse still, Berlin’s entirely avoidable phase-out aid bill is just a side dish to the 500 billion already spent on switching off the lights at Germany’s biggest power plants, a move intrinsically tied to the fact that Germans are already paying more for electricity than anyone else in Europe. Most leaders would think this markup is bad enough, but Merkel’s plan to squash coal will likely cause price swings across the power, natural gas and carbon allowance markets.

Currently, coal still provides nearly 40 percent of Germany’s electricity. In comparison, even under the pro-coal Trump administration, the U.S. only gets 29 percent of its electricity from fossil fuel. The percentage is even lower in other Western nations —  only 5 percent of the UK’s electricity comes from coal, for example. Berlin’s newfound vexation towards coal, then, sets the country up at a massive competitive disadvantage if Germany’s ambition is not matched by its peers.

Everyday German workers are likely to immediately feel the impact of the hasty coal exit. Parallels can be drawn to historic mining regions like West Virginia in the United States, which have had the rug pulled out from under them by politicians eager to baselessly crack down on the coal industry without offering up alternatives.

Likewise, Germany is full of regions which depend heavily on coal mining, with no other industries capable of absorbing the thousands of job losses heralded by hardline environmentalists. “Everyone has something to lose: industry, the regions, workers and the electricity producers themselves,” says Holger Lösch, deputy director-general of Germany’s BDI industry federation. “Who is going to pay for all this?”

Supporters of the measure don’t seem to grasp the impending economic fallout. Stefanie Langkamp from the Climate Alliance Germany network goes so far as to claim, “the coal phase-out should have been much more ambitious.”

Radical environmentalists like Langkamp may not yet have grasped the disastrous effects of the policy they are championing, but it seems Merkel, at least, is wizening up to the catastrophe. Speaking at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos last month, the so-called “Climate Chancellor” herself admitted that “without being able to assure a baseload in our energy generation, we will not be able to survive.”

Ironically, less than two months ago, the German Environment Minister chastised Trump for claiming that the United States is saving trillions of dollars by pulling out of the Paris Agreement. She would be better off focusing on the billions her policies are likely to cost German workers.

SOURCE





Australia: Experts claim power bills could surge by 50% under Labor's carbon emissions plan that would see workers lose $9,000 a year

Electricity bills would soar by 50 per cent, 336,000 full-time jobs would be lost and the average full-time wage would drop by $9,000 a year under federal Labor's plans to slash carbon emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, experts have claimed.

New independent modelling has revealed the predicted economic impacts of the alternative climate change policy approaches proposed by the two major political parties in lead up to the federal election in May.

There would also be wages cuts and jobs losses under the federal Coalition's plan to cut emissions by 26-28 per cent drop over the next decade as part of the Paris Agreement.

Authored by former Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics head Brian Fisher, the BAEconomics report released on Thursday states Australian climate policy is at a cross-road.

The average full-time wage is projected to be around $2,000 lower under the federal Coalition's 26-28 per cent emissions reduction target.

'At the same time this scenario is projected to result in an economy with around 78000 fewer full-time jobs,' the BAEconomics report states.

'With a 45 per cent reduction target the projected fall in real annual wages is around $9,000 per year by 2030 together with a loss of around 336000 full-time jobs, illustrating the extent of the economic adjustment required by the economy to reach the more stringent target.'

Labor's plans would result in economic losses of $472billion over the decade, with GDP $144billion a year lower by 2030.

'Meeting a 26-28 per cent reduction target is projected to mean that by 2030 the Australian economy would be around $19bn smaller in terms of GDP than it otherwise would have been,' the report states.

Wholesale electricity prices would also skyrocket under both policy scenarios.

'Under the reference case the wholesale electricity price is projected to be $81/MWh in 2030. This is projected to rise to $93/MWh under the 26-28 per cent scenario and to $128/MWh under the 45 per cent scenario,' the report states.

A former chief advisor on climate policy for both sides of government, Dr Fisher accused both sides of politics of dishonest debate.

'I still get frustrated about how deficient and even outright dishonest the climate debate continues to be … regardless of the approach Australia adopts to reduce emissions, there is an inevitable cost to our economy as more emissions-­intensive activities make way for less intensive industries,' Dr Fisher told The Australian.

He also described a recent ANU report which stated Australia could meet its Paris commitment by as early as 2025 without cost and using reductions in the electricity sector as 'appallingly' inaccurate.

The BAEconomics research is ongoing and will be updated as policy options become clearer.

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 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

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