Tuesday, April 03, 2018

The evolution of global warming theory

I have not seen any explicit comment on this but it seems that there has been a large change over the years in what Warmists try to scare us with. There has been a Warmism 1 and a Warmism 2.

Warmism 1 is the Warmism of Al Gore, with sea level rises of 20 feet drowning most coastal cities. That was certainly scary and warranting of urgent action.  But it was most implausible. 96% of the earth's glacial ice is in Antarctica and even at the continental margins the temperature there is many degrees below  zero.  So a few degrees of temperature rise might melt some sea ice but nothing more would happen. Melting sea ice cannot raise the sea level.  So where was the required great volume of water going to come from? Mars?

Warmism 1 had another fault as well. It assumed a most implausible effect of clouds.  It said that warming would be gradual until the cloud cover became much more extensive than it now is.  And there is no doubt that a warmer world WOULD have more clouds as more water evaporated off the oceans.

But Warmism 1 at that point made two great theoretical leaps.  They said that the increased cloud cover would warm the earth when clouds in fact normally cool the earth by blocking out the sun. But let's glide over that point and accept their assumption that clouds would warm us.  The Warmist at that point makes another great leap.  He says that at some point a "tipping point" would be reached so that warming would suddenly accelerate and we would really roast.

Normally, when scientists try to predict the future they make a straight line extrapolation from existing trends.  But Warmism 1 aborts that.  Because of the tipping point, the past is no longer a guide to the future.  Things will get a lot hotter very suddenly.  They will get much hotter than they would under a normal extrapolation from the past.  So while scientific prediction of the future is possible in some instances  -- by looking carefully at the past -- Warmism 1  abandons that and makes a prophecy based purely on speculation.

I have tried to tell the story of Warmism 1 as straight as I can but I think its implausibilities are nonetheless obviously gross.  And, although it has never been formally abandoned by anyone, it has quietly faded away from most Warmist discourse.  It is, for example, years since I have heard anything of the tipping point.  So Warmism 1 has been replaced by Warmism 2

Warmism 2 is much less fantastical. It has reverted to the normal scientific method of predicting the future by extrapolations from the past. There is no Deus ex machina that causes warming to suddenly leap. It hypothesizes a steady process of warming at some specified rate. But finding that rate is the issue. Vast guesses about what CO2 does are used to get a rate.

Different authors assume different rates and the actuality always seems to be less than any predicted rate. So the accepted rate of warming has trended steadily down in the face of all the predictive failures

So under Warmism 2 we will have a temperature rise of only about 2 degrees Celsius and a consequent rise in sea levels of inches, not the yards predicted by Al Gore.

But that is rather boring.  It is hard to frighten people with just a few inches of sea level rise so a whole new industry has arisen which says that the few degrees of predicted warming will lead to catastrophic weather events -- hurricanes etc.  But even that is a dead end as dramatic weather events considered overall do not seem to be increasing and may even be decreasing.

So Warmism has in a way disappeared up its own back passage.  It no longer has any pretence of science behind its warnings of doom.  It is merely an example of telling a big enough lie often enough so that less informed people will believe it.  And while it continues to give scientists a golden shower of research grant money, the myth will be maintained -- JR.

The Federal government needs to prosecute grant fraud

Including all grants given to study global warming?

Every year, the federal government gives out billions of taxpayer dollars through dozens of federal agencies to study man-made climate change. It has become a cottage industry supporting hundreds of “scientists” around the world. Their research has led to countless federal agency regulations costing the U.S. economy thousands of jobs and trillions in economic output. What would happen if the underlying data in the studies was falsified?

The studies are used in courts of law around the country. New York City is suing Exxon, Shell, and several other oil companies for what it calls, “present and future damage to the city from climate change.” San Francisco and Oakland are also suing five oil companies in California, stating oil companies must “pay for the cost of protecting the Bay Area from rising sea levels and other effects of global warming.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger is even getting into the act, recently announcing he is going to sue oil companies “for knowingly killing people all over the world.” He has yet to announce he is going to stop making movies that use copious amounts of energy to produce or quit flying private.

But a recent decision by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt may throw everything up for grabs, including the studies used to launch the lawsuits. As the Daily Torch reported last week, Pruitt is ending the practice of “secret science” to justify regulations within the EPA.

This raises an interesting question. If the scientists manipulated data to come to a preconceived result, is this a crime? If the scientists filled out grant applications using manipulated data, is that fraud? The law says yes.

18 U.S. Code 1341 – Frauds and swindles – Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio, or television – Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code 371 – Conspiracy – If two or more personsconspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. to commit offense or to defraud United States.

After looking at the hacked emails of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, it certainly appears data was manipulated to achieve a preconceived outcome. Several scientists around the world manipulated data to end the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) according to the leaked emails. The new data was then used to push massive governmental regulations.

This is not the first time questionable science has been used to justify regulations or lawsuits.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a division of the Centers for Disease Control, issued a report linking health problems to a chemical called diacetyl. The report spawned more than 1,000 lawsuits, but there appears to be a flaw in the science.

The agency tries to link diacetyl to Bronchiolitis obliterans, also known as popcorn lung, through exposure from microwave popcorn and coffee roasting, but the agency ignores cigarette smoke. Perhaps they do this because other studies cannot link smokers to popcorn lung. Cardno ChemRisk published a study in Critical Reviews on Toxicology stating, “We found that diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione exposures from cigarette smoking far exceed occupational exposures for most food/flavoring workers who smoke.” They continued, “Further, because smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis obliterans, our findings are inconsistent with claims that diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione exposure are risk factors for this disease.”

Why would NIOSH ignore one set of facts to concentrate on another set of facts? Could trial lawyers have anything to do with it?

If the federal government is going to continue handing out billions in grants for research, then create regulations based on the research, it must ensure the accuracy of the research and prosecute fraud when found. All data must be made available to agencies and the public, bare minimum. And if a scientist manipulates data to meet a preconceived result, he is not a scientist, he is a fraud and should be prosecuted as such.


Weather Underground, The Weather Company, IBM

Duane Thresher

Weather Underground prominently features Bob Henson, who declares himself a meteorologist everywhere.  He is not a meteorologist (and certainly not a climatologist, even though he writes a lot about climate, including the books he hawks on Weather Underground).

Weather Underground came to be seen as a weather authority, which made it seem worth the price to IBM (via The Weather Company).  However, it is only a weather authority if its people are and Bob Henson, for starters, is not, by any stretch of the imagination.

Weather Underground (and so The Weather Company and IBM) are companies like any other and so subject to laws about making false claims, like claiming to be authorities on the weather.  Weather can be a life or death issue where false claims can be disastrous.

Additionally, it is outrageous in this day and age that Weather Underground thumbs its nose at common decency and keeps its name.  Its name is a tribute to a terror bombing group bent on overthrowing the U.S. Government.  If that is OK with you why not update the name to Al-Qaeda?  As someone who lived in New York City during 9/11 and in Austin during the recent bombings, I find you offensive.

For more on all this see: HERE 

U.S. Energy Exports Hit Record in 2017; Petroleum and Natural Gas Both Hit All-Time Highs

U.S. total energy exports hit a record high in 2017 when measured in British Thermal Units (Btu), according to the Monthly Energy Review released today by the Energy Information Administration, which is a part of the U.S. Department of Energy.

U.S. petroleum and natural gas exports (measured in Btu) also both hit all-time highs in 2017, according to Table 1.4b in the report, while the U.S. energy trade deficit (measured in dollars) hit a 20-year low, according to Table 1.5.

During 2017, total U.S. energy exports equaled 17.998711 Quadrillion Btu, according to the report. That was up approximately 27.4 percent from the 14.129837 Quadrillion Btu in total U.S. energy exports in 2016.

At the same time, the U.S. imported 25.342199 Quadrillion Btu in total energy, meaning the U.S. was a net importer of 7.343488 in energy in 2017.

That is the lowest net energy imports the United States has seen since 1982 (measured in Btu), when the country was a net importer of 7.253481 Quadrillion Btu of energy.

The U.S. total energy exports included a record 12.044051 Quadrillion Btu in total petroleum exports (including both crude oil and refined products such as gasoline, kerosene and lubricants). That was up approximately 20.6 percent from the 9.989907 Quadrillion Btu that the U.S. exported in 2016.

U.S. total energy exports in 2017 also included a record 3.196449 Quadrillion Btu in natural gas. That was up approximately 35.6 percent from the 1.237954 Quadrillion Btu in natural gas that the U.S. exported in 2016.
Ad Feedback

U.S. total energy exports in 2017 also included 2.487339 Quadrillion Btu in coal exports. That was up approximately 60.9 percent from the 1.546253 Quadrillion Btu in coal exports the U.S. made in 2016.

According to the Monthly Energy Review, U.S. energy exports in 2017 had a merchandise trade value of $136,358,000,000. At the same time, U.S. energy imports had a merchandise trade value of $194,945,000,000. That gave the U.S. an energy trade balance for the year of -$58,587,000,000.

That is the smallest energy trade deficit the United States has had (measured in dollars), according to the Monthly Energy Review, since 1998, when it was -$47,072,000,000.

The Congressional Research Service has attributed the U.S. surge in the international energy market to the development of new technologies including “hydraulic fracturing.”

“The United States has seen a resurgence in petroleum production, mainly driven by technology improvements—especially hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling—developed for natural gas production from shale formations,” said a CRS report published in 2015.

“Application of these technologies enabled natural gas to be economically produced from shale and other unconventional formations and contributed to the United States becoming the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2009,” said CRS.


The huge labor costs of "renewable" energy

LONDON: In the US electric power generation sector, the solar industry employed nearly 374,000 people in 2015-16 – double the number of jobs in oil, coal and gas combined, according to a new report from the US Department of Energy.

Traditional energy and energy efficiency sectors today employ approximately 6.4 million Americans. These sectors increased in 2016 by just under 5%, adding over 300,000 net new jobs – roughly 14% of all those created in the country.

A separate report by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) shows how sustainability now collectively accounts for an estimated 4.5 million jobs – up from 3.4 million in 2011 – with renewable energy now making up 64% of new electricity generation capacity installed in the US each year.

“These newly published statistics show once more that clean energy is good for the environment, businesses and the whole economy,” comments Amy Davidsen, Executive Director North America, The Climate Group.

“We recently published our RE100 Annual Report, which demonstrates how leading companies are going 100% renewable - not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it also makes business sense. In the US alone, RE100 member companies source almost 7 terawatts/hours from renewable electricity – the highest amount in any country worldwide.

“We urge businesses, companies and states to accelerate this journey to deliver a healthier, more sustainable and prosperous future for all.”


Electric power generation and fuels technologies sectors in the US employ almost 800,000 workers in low carbon emission generation technologies.

The solar workforce increased by 25% in 2016 (+374,000 jobs), while wind energy employment increased by 32% (+102,000 jobs).

Between September 2015 and September 2016, net generation from coal sources declined by 51% – while electricity generation from natural gas increased by 33% and solar by over 5,000% in the same period.

In the transmission, distribution and storage sector, almost a third of employees work in grid modernization or other utility-funded modernization projects.

The advanced vehicles industry employs 174,000 individuals, especially in the hybrid sub-sector.

There are now 769,000 renewable energy jobs – mainly in bioenergy – with a compound annual growth rate of nearly 6% since 2012. By comparison, jobs in fossil fuel extraction and support services had a negative rate of -4.25%.

California leads on solar and energy efficiency jobs, while Texas has the largest employment for the wind sector.

Solar and wind jobs have grown at rates of about 20% annually in recent years and are each creating jobs at a rate 12 times faster than that of the rest of the US economy.




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: