10 Failed Global Warming Predictions That You Need To Know About

Ever since the theory of global warming began being advanced by the left, there have been failed global warming predictions. Heck, you can look at Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” which was somehow a box office hit a little more than a decade ago, and see just how badly the predictions have failed.

We could (and others have) fill a book with the failed predictions of both scientists and politicians in regard to the climate over the past half-century. However, these are 10 of the biggest failed global warming predictions you need to know about.

Prediction #1: Global cooling is the real problem

When the environmentalist movement began in earnest back in the 1970s, climate change was still a core tenet of true believers. Unlike now, however, they were more concerned about an ice age than a planet that was too hot.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years,” ecologist Kenneth Watt said in 1970. “If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

He was hardly alone. In 1975, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said that “(t)he cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” Scientist Nigel Calder wrote that “(t)he threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

Scientific consensus eventually moved away the global cooling alarums and instead began warning against global warming in the 1980s. Columbia University scientist James Hansen’s 1988 congressional testimony was one of the watershed moments in putting the global warming agenda before the American people in a major way. These days, Hansen is suing the government on behalf of children and future generations because he thinks they’re not doing enough to stop global warming.

Prediction #2: If global warming isn’t reversed by the year 2000, it will be too late to avert catastrophe

That was the 1989 prediction by Noel Brown, an environmentalist apparatchik at the U.N. — that global body that has brought us so much rubbish when it comes to failed global warming predictions.

According to the San Jose Mercury News, Brown said that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.”

None of this Mad Max-esque vision of the world has come to pass in the years since, but that hasn’t stopped people from issuing dire predictions that haven’t shaken out. You’re going to see more than a few of them in this list.

Prediction #3: We’ll be living in Antarctica pretty soon

Ten years ago, a group called Forum for the Future predicted that we would be living in a world so dire that we would actually have to move to Antarctica as “climate refugees.”

The 2008 study produced what the U.K. Telegraph very charitably called “a radical set of ‘possible futures,'” among them that the first climate refugees would begin flooding our planet’s icy, southernmost when temperatures made everywhere else too hot to live.

“Refugees are expected to move to Antarctica because of the rising temperatures that will see the population of the continent increase to 3.5 million people by 2040,” the Telegraph reported. “As the world fails to act on climate change, researchers predict that global trade will collapse as oil prices break through $400 a barrel and electrical appliances will get automatically turned off when households exceed energy quotas.”

Other predictions? “Australia and Oklahoma will be abandoned because of water shortages and athletes will stay at home in the world’s first virtual Olympics, competing against each other in virtual space with billions of spectators,” the Telegraph reported.

We’re just 12 years away from when we were supposed to all start heading to Antarctica, and I think it’s pretty safe to say we can call this one a complete wash-out. (Or not enough of one, given how I’m sure rising sea levels were supposed to play into this.) Meanwhile, the very non-virtual Olympics are planned for 2028 in Los Angeles, so there goes that theory.

“We still have the chance to alter the future,” Forum head Peter Madden said at the time. “This is what the world could be like and some of these options are not very pleasant.”

This is true. They’re also not very accurate. And surprisingly, Madden wasn’t the only person predicting this fate. Back in 2004, the British government’s chief scientist, Professor David King, said that “Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked.” Meanwhile, the average annual temperature in Antarctica currently ranges from -76F for the interior to 14 degrees in some coastal areas. Good luck finding those 3.5 million people to live there.

Prediction #4: Great Britain will be almost snow-less thanks to global warming

Back in 2000, climate scientist David Viner had a very dire prediction for those living in England: Snow was going to become almost extinct there.

In a viral interview with the U.K. Independent, Viner said that snow on the isles was going to be “a very rare and exciting event.”

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” Viner said. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time.”

So, in almost 20 years time — Feb. 27, 2018 to be exact — here was the first paragraph of a story from the U.K. Express: “London has been hit by a wall of snow in a huge blizzard as the UK is rocked by bone-chilling temperatures, ice and wintry weather from the ‘Beast from the East’. The snow fell lightly at first but quickly picked up speed as forecasters warned the freezing Siberian winds gripping Britain could be the coldest the UK has faced in 27 years.” And, in fact, the U.K. has faced plenty of snow over the past few years.

Has the Independent disowned Viner’s statement or their original story (titled “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”)? Of course not, even though they hedged their bets by publishing a story in 2010 with the headline “Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists.” That same year, they published a story admonishing those pointing out Viner’s failed global warming prediction titled “Don’t believe the hype over climate headlines.” You shouldn’t, but not for the reasons the Independent thinks.

Prediction #5: Snow is going to be a thing of the past in other places, too

It wasn’t just the United Kingdom. A 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that “(m)ilder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” but increase the number of ice storms.

So, how did that work out? A few years ago, the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center reported that “U.S. snow cover on the morning of Dec. 1, 2015 is the highest on record for this day of the year.” In addition, The New American notes that “Global Snow Lab data also shows Eurasian autumn snow cover has grown by 50 percent since records began in 1979.” Studies of Northern Hemisphere snow area by Rutgers also show little change since 1967.

In response to cold temperatures in 2014, Obama-era director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren said that “a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.”

So you’re either going to see milder winters or colder ones due to climate change. In a way, you can’t even call this a failed prediction, in the same way you’re pretty unlikely to lose when you play roulette and bet on both red and black.

Prediction #6: We only have 50 days to save the world from global warming

During the negotiations for the Copenhagen agreement in 2009, former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown predicted that if they didn’t solve the “impasse” they found themselves in within 50 days, the world was pretty much doomed.

“If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice,” Brown said. “So we should never allow ourselves to lose sight of the catastrophe we face if present warming trends continue.”

The Copenhagen agreement, much like the Paris agreement that followed and the Kyoto Agreement that preceded it, was reached and did almost nothing except transfer wealth from wealthier nations to poorer ones. The world, meanwhile, hasn’t gone to hell quite yet, in spite of Brown’s predictions.

Prediction #7: Prince Charles says we only have 96 months to save the world

I’m not entirely sure when the moldering heir of the House of Windsor became a climate scientist, but nearly 10 years ago, Prince Charles warned us all “that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world,” the U.K. Independent reported at the time.

“We face the dual challenges of a worldview and an economic system that seem to have enormous shortcomings, together with an environmental crisis — including that of climate change — which threatens to engulf us all,” Prince Charles said, without revealing how he had “calculated” we only had 96 months left to save the world.

A man who has access to the most prodigious conveniences and luxuries in the world told a crowd at St. James Palace that the “age of convenience” was over and that we had eight years to prevent “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”

Except for technological advancement and a few accords which have had a relatively minor effect on the environment in the intervening years, not much has changed. Prince Charles’ deadline passed in 2017, and the “age of convenience” is still here. So is the planet Earth.

Prediction #8: The Earth will warm by 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2025-2050

Back in 1988, as the global warming “consensus” began to grow, New York Times environmentalism reporter Philip Shabecoff wrote a piece of alarmism based on the work of the aforementioned James Hansen, fresh from his congressional testimony.

“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections,” Shabecoff wrote. “The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”

That’s a pretty wide band of predictions, but it turns out that Shabecoff was still well off. As the Institute for Energy Research points out, 30 years after his prediction, global temperatures have only risen by 1 degree Fahrenheit — not even close to the low mark of 3 degrees and far from the median of 6 degrees — and sea levels are up only up a few inches. And it’s not even clear the latter part is man-made.

“The rate of sea level rise during the period ~1925–1960 is as large as the rate of sea level rise the past few decades,” climate scientist Judith Curry writes. “Human emissions of CO2 mostly grew after 1950; so, humans don’t seem to be to blame for the early 20th-century sea level rise, nor for the sea level rise in the 19th and late 18th centuries.”

Shabecoff could end up being right, but current trends certainly don’t seem to bear that out.

Prediction #9: Most species on the Earth will perish by 1995

Back in 1970, around the time of the first Earth Day, Democrat Wisconsin Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote an article for Look Magazine. In it, he repeated one of the most preposterous claims in the whole climate change/pollution movement: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

So, how has that worked out? Even the World Wildlife Federation — certainly not known for a lack of alarmism when it comes to climate change — notes that experts “calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1 percent of all species will become extinct each year.” Even if you buy that number, that’s a long way off from getting to 75 to 80 percent. As in, hundreds of years off.

Prediction #10: Pretty much everything in “An Inconvenient Truth”

Yes, the movie that popularized the “hockey stick” graph regarding carbon emissions turns 12 this year, and it’s not exactly looking too prescient, as Michael Bastasch noted two years ago in The Daily Caller.

“One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free ‘within the decade,'” Bastasch wrote. “Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.

“Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com,” he continued. “In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.”

Mt. Kilimanjaro isn’t all: “Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were ‘uninterrupted and intensifying,'” Bastasch wrote. “He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.”

“Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore’s film was released. Global temperatures showed little to no warming trend after Gore released his film. In fact, surface temperature data showed no significant global warming for a period of about 15 years, starting in the early 2000s.”

Then there was Gore’s prediction that storms would increase due to climate change; even the IPCC says that there’s “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” Or you can look at polar ice, of which he said: “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.” (He later said the ice would be gone by 2013, which was even more ridiculous.) Scientists have said that’s simply not going to happen.

Gore still received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, one imagines mostly for his work on this movie. As if the prize needed more devaluing, Barack Obama won it two years later merely for winning an election.

This is the problem when it comes to global warming predictions: We’ve heard so much nonsense over the past half-century that it’s simply difficult to believe more of it. These are just ten of the biggest failures we’ve seen. Rest assured, there will be others — and conservatives need to have the gumption to speak out and chronicle them.

SOURCE 





Environmental radicals are burning the west

California is once again on fire. The Mendocino Complex fire, near Redding, is now the largest wildfire in California history. The blaze is giving firefighters trouble, as it has leapt across barriers, natural and man-made, burning more than 280,000 acres so far. Many were quick to point to the blaze as evidence of global warming because apparently global warming is the cause of everything. But the environmental radicals do raise an interesting question, why does this keep happening out west?

The short and sweet answer is, the environmental policies pushed by the environmental radicals have contributed to and made forest fires out west much worse.

Forest fires were a common sight in the early 20th century. The fires were numerous and large. The available data from National Interagency Fire Center shows the 1920s and 30s were the toughest years out west. From 1926-1929 there was an average of over 140,000 fires per year, burning over 270 acres per fire. The 1930s saw over 180,000 fires per year while burning 218 acres per fire. From the 1940s through the 1970s the average size of fires continued to drop with the 70s being the low point at only 21 acres per fire.

The sheer volume and size of fires in the early 20th century is easy to explain. The west was still sparsely populated, and firefighting had not advanced, technologically or tactically enough to make a difference. Two things happened in the 50s to change all that. First was the westward movement of the population. Returning service members decided to move out west instead of remaining in the overpopulated east.

The second thing to happen was Smokey Bear. In 1944, the Smokey Bear campaign was rolled out, followed in 1947 by the slogan “only you can prevent forest fires.” The campaign gained more recognition after a bear cub was caught in a 1950 New Mexico fire. The poor cub was badly burned and used as a national symbol for the fight against forest fires.

The combination of more people, better technology, and an advertising campaign had a real impact. So much in fact, that the average number of fires per year in the 1970s was 15 percent less than the 1950s and the size of the fires were reduced by an astounding 83 percent.

Then the environmental movement happened. The number of fires continued to decrease, but the size of the fires started to grow. So much so, that from 2010-2017, the average size of a fire increased over 400 percent, to 102 acres per fire. What happened?

The first problem is who is in control of the land. The federal government controls the majority of the land west of Texas. Federal rules and regulations have made it next to impossible remove dead trees, infected trees, and dry underbrush. That is all fuel for a fire. When a fire starts on unmanaged federal land, it doesn’t stop at the fence line or city limits. That is why the fight must be to stop the fires before they happen by denying a small fire the fuel to become large and creating breaks to stop a fire once it starts.

As William Stewart, a forestry specialist at the University of California at Berkeley, told the Washington Post in relation with the recent wildfires, “the rates of mortality from fire, insects, and disease are about three times as high on national forest lands as they are on private lands regulated under California’s strict environmental laws.” Whether the regulations on private land play the vital role there is another matter. The fact is, the underbrush and dead trees are being cleared on the private lands, but not the federal lands.

One only has to look at the map of federally controlled land in the western U.S., figure 1, to understand the problem. There are just as many forests in eastern Texas, Arkansas, and the Appalachian Mountains as there are in the west. The plains are nothing but highly flammable grass. The only difference is the amount of control the federal government has on the land.

Land owned privately is taken care of for a simple reason, profit. If someone owns the land and is intent on harvesting the timber or farming, there is a financial incentive to maintain proper land maintenance. Otherwise, profits could literally go up in smoke.

The federal government might own the land out west, but it is the environmental radicals that control it.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have more to do with the increase in the intensity and size of forest fires more than anyone cause. Both were established in the early 1970s. As noted above, it only took a decade to reverse generations of hard work.

The ESA was enacted to protect animals on the verge of extinction. A problem occurs when radical environmental groups sue, under the ESA, to stop forest management practices, such as brush clearing, controlled burns, or logging. The northern spotted owl is the perfect example.

In the 1990s the owl was listed as a threatened species, whose habitat range includes northern California, Oregon, and Washington. A 1991 court order put a halt to logging national forests in those states, for fear of disturbing the habitat. Following the court ruling, logging decreased sharply. The amount decreased by so much that logging on federal lands has decreased 75 percent since 1990.

The decrease in logging is an ecological disaster. When the government is not allowed to remove dead trees and underbrush, it is bound to become fuel for a fire. The dead tree situation in California is an abomination. Late last year, the U.S. Forest Service, Cal Fire, and the Tree Mortality Task Force announced there was a record 129 million dead trees and warned of the danger posed by the excess fuel.

There is good news on the horizon, however. Secretary of the Department of Interior (DOI) Ryan Zinke is working to make the federal government more efficient in its management of forests. Recently he announced a reorganization plan for the department to place more resources and personnel out west, including giving the regional managers more responsibility to act. Zinke wants more personnel in the field and wants them to be able to make decisions, instead of having to wait on D.C. for permission to do anything.

Zinke recently tweeted about the fires out west, “Fires across the west are burning hotter and more intense. The overload of dead and diseased timber in the forests makes the fires worse and more deadly. We must be able to actively manage our forests and not face frivolous litigation when we try to remove these fuels.” But the Secretary can only do so much; Congress must also act.

So far, half of Congress is moving on the issue. Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ariz.) introduced, H.R. 2936 The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. According to the House Committee on Natural Resources, “the bill streamlines onerous environmental review processes to get work done on the ground quickly, without sacrificing environmental protection. The bill also minimizes the threat of frivolous litigation by providing alternatives to resolve legal challenges against forest management activities.” The legislation passed the House on a bipartisan basis and sits in the Senate awaiting action. Hopefully, the intensity of the fires will force the Senate to move the legislation forward as a standalone bill or put it in the upcoming omnibus.

All this situation proves is that there is no one more dangerous to the environment than a radical environmentalist.

SOURCE 





Finally! Some fuel economy common sense

But Greens go apoplectic over rule change that would have no climate or other benefits

Paul Driessen

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards were devised back in 1975, amid anxiety over the OPEC oil embargo and supposedly imminent depletion of the world’s oil supplies.

But recall, barely 15 years after Edwin Drake drilled the first successful oil well in 1859, a Pennsylvania geologist was saying the United States would run out of oil by 1878. In 1908, the US Geological Survey said we’d exhaust our domestic oil reserves by 1927; in 1939, it moved petroleum doomsday to 1952.

Somehow, steadily improving technology and geological acumen kept finding more oil. Then the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) revolution postponed the demise of oil and natural gas production for at least another century. The fuels that brought wealth, health, longevity, and modern industrialization, transportation, communication and civilization to billions will continue doing so.

However, the powerful forces arrayed against fossil fuels, internal combustion engines and automobiles have kept pushing for tighter CAFÉ rules. In 2012 – claiming that CO2 and other vehicle greenhouse gas emissions required a near-total shift to electric cars to prevent manmade climate cataclysms – the Obama Environmental Protection Agency decreed 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) rules by 2025.

But climate chaos is a product of computer models, a phony scientific “consensus” and hysterical headlines – not Real World evidence. (See here, here and here to launch some down-to-earth thinking.)

Electric cars represent under 1.5% of new vehicles sold in the USA, a minuscule fraction of the total US vehicle fleet, and a vanishingly small, barely detectable portion of vehicles in use worldwide. Their short range, long recharging times and dauntingly high prices deter most drivers, despite taxpayer subsidies that can reach $10,000 per car sold to rich buyers. And their batteries have significant human health, human rights and environmental problems, as detailed here, here and elsewhere.

Moreover, the rest of the world is rapidly industrializing, building coal and gas-fired power plants to bring electricity to billions who still don’t enjoy its blessings, and putting more cars and trucks on their roads. So even if carbon dioxide has replaced the powerful natural forces that have driven climate and extreme weather fluctuations throughout Earth and human history, US mileage rules would make no difference.

It is therefore hugely refreshing to see that the EPA and Department of Transportation have proposed to freeze fuel economy standards at the existing 2020 target of 37 mpg. The proposal would also create a single national mileage and emission standards – and eliminate the arguably illegal Clean Air Act waiver that the Obama EPA gave California in 2013, letting it set its own tougher automobile emission standards.

To encourage discussion, negotiation and compromise, the EPA/DOT proposal also presents seven alternatives to the 37 mpg freeze: allowing standards to ratchet upward between 0.5% and 3.0% annually through 2026. Public comments will be accepted until the end of September.

Consumer groups and would-be new car buyers welcomed the move. Reactions from certain other quarters were predictably negative. Democratic California Governor Jerry Brown labeled it “an assault on the health” of all Americans – a “reckless scheme” that will force motorists to “pay more at the pump, get worse gas mileage and breathe dirtier air.” He promised his state will “fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.” Others claimed it would “roll back” efforts to “protect the climate.”

Major automotive manufacturers would prefer to have mpg standards climb steadily upward. They want to promote their “green” credentials, while selling more cars and light trucks … and avoiding vitriolic backlash from the likes of Gov. Brown and the Sierra Club. They’d like to see a negotiated deal.

As to “dirty air,” there is virtually no connection between mileage and vehicle emissions, which have already plummeted by nearly 98% from what came out of tailpipes in 1970. That’s why radical greens call carbon dioxide “carbon pollution” – to make it sound like soot, instead of the miracle molecule that we exhale, and plants use as a basic building block to make life on earth possible. The more CO2 in the air, the better and faster forest, grassland and crop plants grow, using less water in the process.

And where do greens think electric vehicles get their electricity? Wind turbines and solar panels? Fat chance. Try coal and gas-fired power plants – or nuclear and hydroelectric plants that they also detest.

Climate benefits are equally illusory. Even if there were a connection between CO2 and global warming (or the newer always accurate nomme de guerre “climate change”), the EPA and DOT estimate that the difference between the Trump 37 mpg standard and Obama 54.5 mpg rule would be a completely undetectable 0.0003 degrees Celsius (0.0005 F) by 2100. That’s a microscopic 0.00004 degrees per year!

How can Gov. Moonbeam claim that freezing mpg will harm human health? By ignoring another reality.

As mileage standards tightened, car makers had to downsize vehicles, use less steel, and employ more aluminum and plastic. Even with expensive vehicle modifications like side air bags, these smaller vehicles have less “armor” to protect occupants, and less space between them and any car, truck, bus, tree or other obstacle they might collide with. So they are less safe, and less affordable for poor families.

Insurance industry and other studies show that bigger, heavier vehicles are safer. Drivers and passengers in 54.5 mpg vehicles are more likely to die in a crash – and far more likely to be maimed, disfigured, disabled or paralyzed – than if the fuel economy standards had been relaxed or frozen decades ago.

Freezing standards now at 37 mpg would save car and light truck buyers tens of billions of dollars over the next decade – and save families hundreds of billions in burial, hospital, disability and related costs.

But tougher standards would save drivers billions in gasoline costs, Gov. Brown and his comrades claim. What chutzpah! These are the same folks who demand mandates for ethanol, which costs more and gets a third fewer miles per gallon than gasoline. They’re the same ones whose great champion once said, “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

That champion would be Paul Ehrlich, who remains deeply concerned about “population bombs” … and the human population levels that smaller, lighter, less safe cars are as good a way as any to reduce.

Then there’s the basic matter of “choice.” Not just for pregnant women; consumer choice. Not everyone is an urbanite, with one kid, comfortably squatting down almost to pavement level to squeeze into an econobox “smart car,” happily hauling one or two non-plastic grocery bags a week from Whole Foods.

The rest of us – including those in the 85% of US counties who did not vote for Hillary Clinton – want affordable options, sizes and features that meet our individual needs. We’re tired of having urban and government intellectuals, pressure groups and ruling elites dictating our vehicle choice, steadily reducing our access to full-size sedans, mini or full-size SUVs, light trucks, panel trucks or whatever vehicles best meet our diverse family, boating, camping, farming, ranching, small business or other needs.

54.5 mpg definitely limits choice. And econoboxes are inherently unsafe slamming into an urban wall or tree at even 20 or 25 mph; at virtually any speed “mating” with an oncoming bus or truck; and almost anywhere on a rural highway, with traffic moving at 55-70 mph, and along which many of us have seen these minuscule cars blown right over onto their sides by high winds or passing semi-trucks.

A EQ Smart ForTwo, Fiat 500 or other “micro urban” car may be the perfect “adventure” for some. But not for me, and not for most of the folks I know and love.

From my perch, the best solution would be for EPA and DOT to roll these restrictive, dangerous, even deadly CAFÉ rules back a few notches. At least freeze them where they are – or, as a last-ditch compromise, restrict future hikes to 0.1% annually. If it matters to you, weigh in here by September 30.

Via email





NASA Proves Volcanoes Melting Polar Ice, Not Global Warming

In what amounts to dissension from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) climate change policy, a series of just-released studies by working-level scientists prove that geological and not atmospheric forces are responsible for melting of Earth’s polar ice sheets.

A review of these studies and their significance relative to what force or forces control the climate and climate-related events of Earth’s polar regions is as follows.

NASA Antarctica Study October 30, 2015

This research study authored by NASA Glaciologist Jay Zwally concluded that Antarctica is gaining, not losing, ice mass and thereby challenging the conclusions of many previous studies, most importantly the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report (see the quote from the study below).

“A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

“The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

The conclusions of this NASA study were immediately challenged by numerous climate activist groups and biased media outlets (see here). These challenges have since been proven incorrect for several reasons.

Statements by NASA Glaciologist Jay Zwally concerning his soon-to-be-published Antarctic follow-up study reconfirm that Antarctica is gaining, not losing ice.

The results of this follow-up study are bolstered by two other NASA research studies.

The first, dated January 1, 2018, shows that East Antarctica has for many years been accumulating huge amounts of snow that compact into ice and increasing overall ice mass

The second NASA study released on July 19, 2018, showed that the atmosphere above the Antarctic Continent has been continuously cooling and not warming for many years

Obviously, it’s impossible to melt Antarctica’s glaciers via atmospheric warming when the atmosphere is not warming.

Lastly, a NASA study dated Feb. 20, 2018, concludes that outflow of East Antarctic glaciers into the ocean is stable and not increasing (see here). This is proof that East Antarctica’s ice mass is not being diminished by glacial outflow into adjacent oceans.

Bottom line, research by NASA scientists clearly shows that the well-documented ice loss in West Antarctica is more than accommodated by ice gains in East Antarctica. Contrary to hundreds of pro-melting articles, Antarctica’s ice mass is increasing!

NASA Antarctica Study November 7, 2017

This research study entitled “Hot News from the Antarctic Underground“ investigated West Antarctica’s subglacial geology.

It substantiates many previous research studies that have documented this region’s subglacial high-bedrock heat-flow, active faulting, and prevalent volcanism.

Recent research by the University of Rhode Island scientists confirms the premises of a previous Climate Change Dispatch article that subglacial, volcanic heat-flow is melting West Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier

Many previous Climate Change Dispatch articles have reviewed West Antarctica’s subglacial mantle plume and the world-class fault system that is acting to bottom-melt this region’s glacial land sea ice

NASA Greenland Study August 1, 2018

The results of this research study illustrated in Figure 2 confirm the very high geothermal bedrock heat-flow from Greenland’s massive subglacial Mantle Plume, which was originally documented in four previous research studies

A geothermal heat-flow cause for the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet has been the focus of numerous Climate Change Dispatch articles

In summary, the NASA studies mentioned in this article have accelerated the ongoing demise of the once one-hundred-percent-settled-science status of global warming theory.

It is now abundantly clear that even respected mainstream NASA geologists and glaciologists are advocating that formerly underappreciated geological forces working in concert with atmospheric forces are responsible for polar ice cap melting.

Here we note that in many cases these geological forces are dominant and, in some cases, the complete cause of modern-day and ancient polar ice cap melting

Knowing this brings into question other aspects of supposedly 100 percent settled climate dogma.

Specifically, that man-made global warming is the root cause of other supposedly unnatural polar ice cap events such as alteration of marine and land animal migration patterns, anomalous plankton blooms, chemical alteration of adjacent ocean waters, alteration of polar area ocean currents, and changes in meteorological patterns.

Many of these events are more likely the result of, or strongly influenced by, geologically induced heat and chemically charged heated fluid flow at the base of polar ice sheets or in adjacent oceans.

Lastly, there is a quiet revolution occurring within NASA that will play out within the next year or two ending in the complete reconstruction of global warming theory.

The remodeled version will reflect the now proven and significant climate influence of geological forces as per the 2014 Plate Climatology Theory.

SOURCE 





Global warming misses out Western Australia

Even PM Turnbull has made the absurd claim that the drought in South Eastern Australia is due to global warming.  But if there is no drought in Western Australia, the warming is not very global is it?  Besides, global temperatures have been falling for the last couple of years

As farmers on the eastern coast of Australia battle through the worst drought in a century, their Western Australia counterparts are on track to record the best harvest in a decade.

Grain farmers in Western Australia could contribute $6billion to the economy thanks to a combination of rain and high demand.

The increased demand for grain has seen WA prices inflate to as much as $360 a tonne, the most since a record-breaking year in 2016.

Adversely, NSW grain production has slowed to a crawl, as farmers suffer through the worst drought in a century.

It has been at least ten years since seasonal and pricing factors have worked in farmers' favour agriculture marketing director Richard Vincent told The West Australian.

He says that some farmers in the right conditions could end up with as much as 70 per cent higher income than projected.

The Eastern states' drought also contributed to their profits, as a lack of production from the east means more demand for the west's produce.

'Although nobody wants to see our eastern states counterparts in drought, the high grain prices are providing enormous opportunities in the west,' Mr Vincent said.

If Western Australian farmers are able to match their export of 16.6 million tonnes, which they're on track to do, their gross income would be about $6billion.

There's also been 30 per cent more rainfall than anticipated in the west, contributing to a 25 to 40 per cent increase in prices for wheat and barley.

Western Australia produces about seven million tonnes of wheat every year.

Some Western Australian farmers reported they had 78mm of rain in the past week.

In the past month, NSW farmers reported less than 10mm of rain, with the trend of low rainfall projected for at least the next three months.

Authorities officially declared the entire state in drought on Wednesday.

With the weather bureau warning there is no end in sight, the Red Cross has set up a relief appeal, while the Salvation Army is distributing food hampers.

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

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