A Loss for the Climate

I've been keeping an eye on the Supreme Court case of Michigan v. EPA. This case consisted of several states contesting EPA regulatory procedures concerning emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The Supreme Court granted a hearing on the case limited to the question of whether the EPA "unreasonably refused to consider costs to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities."

The EPA argued in its written filing that costs do not come into play in the first part of the regulatory process, stating the agency "concluded that costs are not relevant to the decision whether to regulate such emissions, but that costs should instead be taken into account when setting emission standards."

Michigan and 20 other states objected to the wording in the Clean Air Act that states, "The Administrator shall regulate electric utility steam generating units under this section, if the Administrator finds such regulation is appropriate and necessary after considering the results of the study required by this subparagraph." The states argued in their written filings that the word "appropriate" in the sentence is ambiguous and that it renders the EPA "free to find it appropriate to regulate without any regard for the regulations cost."

The Court's decision was released today (June 29) and, by a 5-4 vote, it sided with the states, stating the EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act when it set standards.

What does this mean for the Clean Air Act? Really, the only thing it means is the EPA must take one more step and do that much more paperwork in the regulatory process. That means more expense to the taxpayers and that much more time the fossil fuel industry will be allowed to pollute the environment and the public. Of course, the climate is the ultimate loser, which means more damage and suffering by humans, especially the poor.

Will the EPA be back with the regulations? Based on what I read, I believe so. The states, using data from the fossil fuel industry, have stated EPA regulations would achieve $4-6 million worth of health benefits a year by reducing hazardous air pollutants, but would cost the industry $9.6 billion yearly to achieve. But, interestingly, the EPA states the benefits would exceed costs $27 billion to $80 billion (in 2007 dollars). Using the EPA's numbers, regulation would be exceedingly appropriate.

The People vs. The United States?

You have probably heard by now a court in the Netherlands found the Dutch government liable for not protecting its citizens from climate change and has ordered a 25% reduction in emissions over the next five years. This, of course, was a major victory for the people of the Netherlands in particular, and people every where in general.

So, the question is, should we follow a similar strategy here in the U.S.? Can, and should, the people of the United States sue the Government of the United States to force it to cut greenhouse gas emissions? We have to answer a couple of questions to determine that:

1. Is there a legal precedent that would allow such a lawsuit?;


2. Is there a legal basis for a lawsuit?;

3. Is climate change due to manmade greenhouse emissions?

Legal Precedent

The U.S. has enacted several laws with regards to the environment and the affect it has on the citizenry. Specifically, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agency were all passed by Congress with one of the stated goals being the protection of the people. So, we can conclude that, on the face of it, the legal precedent has certainly been established that it is a responsibility of the government to protect the people in regards to the environment in which they live.

Point one is determined in the affirmative.

Legal Basis

Another way to phrase this question is to ask, has anyone been harmed by greenhouse gas emissions? If there has been no harm, there is no basis. If you have been following the debate on climate change, you are probably aware this is one of the issues deniers fight about the hardest. Now, we see, that is for good reason. If people are suffering harm due to greenhouse gas emissions, the fossil fuel industry can be sued for damages. If you know anything about the tobacco fight, this is probably sounding eerily familiar to you.

The reality is, we can prove that people have suffered, and are suffering, as a result of climate change. I have detailed an enormous amount of examples of this in my blog and the record is crammed full of examples and data showing the people of the U.S. are suffering from climate change and this damage is extreme.

Point two is determined in the affirmative.

Cause

This one is so overwhelmingly established it really isn't worth discussing beyond the point of again seeing why the fossil fuel industry debates this issue. Again, the tobacco wars are repeating themselves.

Point three is established in the affirmative.

So, the conclusion I reach is that there are legal grounds to pursue such a lawsuit in the U.S. and we have reached the time when we should do just that. We need to stop fighting this fight in the media and in blogs and start fighting it in the courts.

The biggest question of all is, who's going to do it?

What's Warming the World?

Here is an excellent set of graphics from Bloomberg showing the effects of various factors on the climate. It shows many of the factors that people have proposed on this blog as the cause of global warming, including orbital mechanics, solar variability, aerosols (including SO2), deforestation, and volcanic activity. It shows each factor by itself and combined with others. The only thing that matches the increase in global temperature is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is very nicely done. It won't convince any deniers, of course, but maybe some doubters will see the validity of science over denialism.

Mixed News on Energy Front

A new study predicts investments in renewable energy sources will climb to $8 trillion by 2040. This, they say, will be about twice the amount that will be invested in coal, gas, and nuclear power over the same time period. This is certain to put a dent into the fossil fuel industry.

But, even if it becomes less dominant, these projections show fossil fuels are not going away. In addition to that $8 trillion going into renewables, approximately $4.1 trillion will be invested in coal, gas, and nuclear. This will result in continued increases in atmospheric CO2 levels until 2029. CO2 levels are projected to be 13% higher in 2040 than they were in 2014.

Still, a closer look at the number encourages me some. Of that $4.1 trillion, only about $1.6 trillion will go into coal-fired power plants. Gas plants will see approximately $1.2 trillion. The rest will go into nuclear power plants. This means only about $2.8 trillion will go towards CO2 producing power plants.

Some top international doctors and health experts are calling for the world to get off coal completely within five years, stating,

"The prescription for patient Earth is that we've got a limited amount of time to fix things," said commission co-chairman Dr. Anthony Costello, a pediatrician and director of the Global Health Institute at the University College of London. "We've got a real challenge particularly with carbon pollution."

The issue of carbon pollution was called a "medical emergency." Projects show about 57,000 Americans dying every year from complications caused by polluted air and approximately 12,000 will die every year because of high temperatures. A study by the World Health Organization stated climate change will "be likely to cause about 250,000 additional deaths per year" around the world by 2030.

The cost of coal is extreme. The coal industry likes to say it is the cheapest form of energy, but that is true only if you pass the costs associated with burning coal to other people. If the coal industry had to pay for the damage done by CO2, mercury, arsenic, and sulfur dioxide, they would not be able to generate electricity at any rate the market could afford. It is only by making other people pay for the damages that the coal industry can afford to operate. So, why not make them pay for it?

Coal is not going away. Stopping all coal burning in five years would be a wonderful thing for the planet, but it isn't going to happen. But, if we start now, maybe we can turn that $1.6 trillion going into coal-fired power plants into a much smaller number. Zero would be a smaller number. The Netherlands showed there is a way through the courts to force a reduction in greenhouse emissions. The court there ordered the country to reduce greenhouse emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2020. In it's decision, the court said,

"The state must do more to reverse the imminent danger caused by climate change, given also its duty to protect and improve the environment,”

If it worked in the Netherlands, maybe it's time we tried it here.

The Death of Thousands Highlights John Coleman's Lie

One of the submissions to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge was John Coleman's Youtube video, "How It Started." This is one of the most grossly false productions I've seen made by any of the deniers, and I have seen some real whoppers. Simply put, almost everything John Coleman says in this film is an outright lie. Of course, Coleman is associated with the Heartland Institute, so that pretty much explains it all.

Unfortunately, current events are highlighting just how much Mr. Coleman is a liar. Let me quote part of my response to his film:

I think I have shown just how this video is an absolute falsehood, from beginning to end. but there is one more statement he made that I want to address. He stated we have not had a deadly heat wave since the 1950s. This is so offensive that I have to address it.

A heat wave in New York City in 1972 killed almost 900 people.

A heat wave in 1980 killed nearly 10,000 people in the United States from a heat wave.

A 1988 U.S. heat wave killed between 5,000 and 10,000 people, although some estimates go as high as 17,000.

A 1995 heat wave in Chicago, IL led to "many deaths."

A 1999 heatwave resulted in over 500 deaths across the U.S.

But, this is just in the U.S., what about other countries?

In the heat wave of 2003 in Europe, between 46,000 and 70,000 people perished.

For Mr. Coleman to stand there and say that there have been no deadly heat waves since the 1950s is so offensive that it discredits everything he has to say (But, of course, he has no credibility remaining by this point anyway, so what's the harm in one more lie?). And, let's make sure we understand something, he started this video bragging about his credentials as a meteorologist! Are you going to believe that a meteorologist with over 30 years experience has no knowledge of these horrible heat waves and did not check his facts before making the video? I do not believe that for an instant. I believe he made his statement with deliberate intent to deceive.

John Coleman does not have a degree in science and only worked as a TV weatherman. This does not stop him from claiming to be a meteorologist and even signing the so-called Oregon Petition, which is supposed to be limited to scientists. Still, with his experience as a weatherman, there can be no doubt that he is fully aware of at least some of the listed heat waves - and those were just a sample. Now, reality strikes again.

A heat wave that is in progress in Karachi, Pakistan has already killed as many as 140 people. This record-breaking heatwave has brought temperatures as high as 112 degrees F (44.8 C). This heat wave follows right after a heat wave in India last month killed over 2300 people. Temperatures in India reached 120 degrees F and it was hot enough to melt the roads.

(UPDATE(6/23): The death toll in the Pakistan heat wave is now up to nearly 750 people, bringing the total death toll in the two heat waves to approximately 3,250 victims.)

(UPDATE (6/25): The toll from the Pakistani heat wave is over 1000 people dead and many thousands being treated at area hospitals. Between the two heat waves, approximately 3,500 people have died and tens of thousands have suffered injury.)

So, Mr. Coleman, would you like to address how approximately 2,500 people have died from heat waves in mere weeks, but you claim there have been no deadly heat waves since the 1950s? I bet you won't, for one simple reason. Consider this quote from a civil assistant surgeon:

"All they need to do is follow basic precautions like avoiding working in the sun. Not many listen. What can we do? It's a problem of poverty."

There's the key. It's the POOR people that are dying. I guess we can amend Mr. Coleman's statement to say, "No rich people have died in heat waves since the 1950s." Strangely enough, the man who submitted Mr. Coleman's video to the challenge, Patrick Stratoti, just this evening made comments about how it is the poor people who will suffer if we do anything about global warming. I wonder if he's willing to go to Pakistan and India and tell that to the families of the people who died?

But, that's not the end of it. The EPA is now estimating heat waves will kill over 12,000 people per year by 2100. And, that is just in the United States. 12,000 PER YEAR!  By the way, the rich people will simply turn up the air conditioner, so guess who will be doing the dying?

As Pope Francis said in his encyclical, it is the poor people of the world who are suffering from climate change the most.

Fox News Hypocrisy on Pope Francis Displayed

When the Vatican released Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change it was headline news on nearly every single news outlet in the world.

Except Fox News.

Fox News buried the news in the very back of its online news website. You had to make a concerted effort to find any mention of it. But, not today. Today, it's their leading headline. In fact, they are they only ones I can find that are putting it on their front page this evening. Why is that? Because of a statement by one of the Cardinals.

“I would hope that no politician gets policy from his faith committee, his faith community,” Wuerl continued. “The pope is talking about what we should be doing, not ‘Here is a political agenda that you must accept.’  … “This is one of the great blessings of America. We are all allowed to speak our minds.”

To summarize this, when the pope has something to say about climate change, Republicans (and Fox News) line up to say he should butt out. But, when a cardinal says 'We are all allowed to speak our minds,' they think this is great.

So, please explain to me, Fox News. Why is it wrong for Pope Francis to speak about climate change, but it's okay for the Republicans to talk about it?

I'm just a little confused, that's all.

Anti-Science Ailes Demoted at Fox News

When I was in the Navy, I once overheard someone giving some words of wisdom to a brand-new ensign: "Be careful of who you offend because you never know who you might end up working for." Roger Ailes probably should have considered that when he referred to Rupert Murdoch's son, James, as a 'f***ing dope.' The news is he now has to work for him.

Roger Ailes is the anti-science twit who has been running Fox News for the last 15 years. Among other choice pieces pushed by Ailes are climate change denial, insistence second-hand smoke is harmless, and creationism. There is a who list of other 'fair and balanced' violations originating at his desk, but let's stick to the anti-science issues.

Ailes' boss, Rupert Murdoch recently announced he is stepping down as CEO of 21st Century Fox (owners of Fox News). In a curious development, Ailes directed the following statement be read on-air:

Rupert Murdoch would continue to serve as executive chairman, according to Stuart Varney, host of Fox Business Network’s “Varney & Co.” Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes will continue to run the news network, reporting directly to Rupert Murdoch, according to Fox News Channel.

In a direct slap-down, a spokesman at 21st Century Fox responded with this,

“Roger will report to Lachlan and James but will continue his unique and long-standing relationship with Rupert.” 

Not only is it being reported as a demotion for Ailes, it is being reported he was not warned in advance. That goes straight to the ego.

James Murdoch is a long-time conservationist and has a legendarily bad relationship with Ailes. Now, Ailes has to work for him. It will be interesting to see what changes at Fox News.

Hottest May Ever

The National Climatic Data Center released its State of the Climate report for May this morning:

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for May in the 136-year period of record, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20^th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.08°C (0.14°F). This ties with February 1998 as the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20^th century average for their respective months.

The first five months of 2015 were the warmest such period ever recorded. Both the land and the ocean temperatures set records.

What was that about there has been no warming? It looks like Monckton will have to redo is plot - once again. 

Our monthly grim count looks like this:


May was the hottest May on record;

April was tied for the fourth hottest April on record;

March was the hottest March on record;

February was the second hottest February on record;

January was the second hottest January on record.

So far, 2015 has two hottest months, two second hottest months, and one fourth hottest month ever recorded.


For the last 12 months, the tally is:

May 2015 was the hottest May ever recorded;

April 2015 was tied for the fourth hottest April ever recorded;

March 2015 was the hottest March ever recorded;

February 2015 was the second hottest February ever recorded;

January 2015 was the second hottest January ever recorded;

December 2014 was the hottest December ever recorded;

November 2014 was the 7th hottest November ever recorded;

October 2014 was the hottest October ever recorded;

September 2014 was the hottest September ever recorded;

August 2014 was the hottest August ever recorded;

July 2014 was the fourth hottest July ever recorded;

June 2014 was the hottest June ever recorded.




So, let's see what the score is for the last 12 months: one 7th hottest month, two 4th hottest months, two 2nd hottest months and seven hottest months ever.

Laudato Si - Pope Francis' Encyclical on Climate Change

The pope's encyclical has been released. You can read the entire document here. It is a long letter, so you might want to read a synopsis of it. Try the articles here at CNN, CNNMoney, New York Times, and The Washington Post. You know where you can't read about it? Fox News. That shouldn't be a surprise, considering how much they have rejected science for so many years.

Here is a story of why I am so excited about this letter. It is the story of a non-Catholic scientist that got to talk to Pope Francis about climate change with the hope that religion could change the fight. I agree. Religion, and religious leaders, are the most likely way to persuade the public the threat is real, the poor will suffer the most, and we need to act right now.

The message is out. Now, we wait.

Heartland is Desperate and People are Noticing

The Heartland Institute is possibly the biggest science rejecting organization involved with the climate change debate. They are the ones most heavily involved with disseminating false claims, lies and deception. To their credit, they have been very successful at this and the number of people who repeat their lies is extensive. But, there is a fight coming they are clearly worried about - Pope Francis' encyclical. This document will be released on Thursday and Heartland has already stated they will have a surprise waiting. Maybe they'll post a billboard of the Pope with the caption - "I believe in manmade climate change. Do you?"

Heartland's desperation is drawing attention. Really, guys? If climate change isn't real, what are so worried about?

Odds of Record Warming

I previously posted about a NOAA statement that said "nine of the ten warmest 12-month periods have occurred within the past two years." I then used some probability calculations to find out just how likely this was and came up with the odds being about 1 in 1.6 x 10^17. Very long odds.

But, a complaint was raised concerning my calculations. The calculations were done correctly, but the premise of the calculations was what was called into question. Namely, I used every month as being random when in fact, given one 12-month period, the next 12-month period (and previous one, as well) would have 11 months in common with it. So, it is not a truly random series. This, the objector said, would make a difference. Once it was pointed out, I agreed and went to another source to help me out - Dr. John Grego of the University of South Carolina.

Dr. Grego and his colleagues did a similar study addressing the fact that all 15 years since the year 2000 have been in the top-20 hottest months. They wanted to know what are the chances of that happening on a random basis and came up with the odds of it happening randomly are 1.5 quadrillion to 1.  This study was the actual inspiration for my posting mentioned above, so I thought this would be a good place to check. Dr. Grego was kind enough to take the time to figure the odds and this is his response:

Hello Dr. Keating--it's straightforward enough to write down the correlation structure for 12-month running means, but trying to account for that in an urn-model probability calculation looked formidable to me.  So I simulated the process instead, while still using an underlying assumption that monthly temperatures were independent normal random variables, which I would consider to be a naive, but instructive approach.  I appended R code at the end of this email. Basically, I generated 1632 (136X12) independent normal random variables, computed their 1621 (1632-11) running averages, sorted them from highest to lowest and then tallied how many of the highest 10 (those with rankings from 1612 to 1621) occurred in the last two years (indicated by an index ranging from 1598 to 1621).  I first ran this simulation 1000 times, then 100000, then 1000000.  I thought I might need to run much larger simulations if probabilities of some of the events below turned out to be very small, but that proved unnecessary.

The table lists each of the possible outcomes (0 of the 10 hottest months occurred in the last two years, 1 of the 10 hottest months occurred in the last two years,...,10 of the 10 hottest months occurred in the last two years) and the proportion of simulations for which each outcome occurred for each of the three simulation series I ran—results were surprisingly consistent as I upped the number of runs.  As you can see, the proportion of extreme events is not as small as one might think, apparently driven by the very high autocorrelation in the series of running averages.  Note how even a single value in the top 10 is quite small, but then the distribution is quite heavy-tailed and dies off very slowly--almost linearly!

(Listed proportion for test simulations of 1000, 100000, 1000000)
>  0 .92600, .90819, .90902
>  1 .03900, .03889, .03854
>  2 .01000, .02112, .02051
>  3 .01200, .01241, .01262
>  4 .00700, .00778, .00794
>  5 .00200, .00517, .00488
>  6 .00200, .00295, .00300
>  7 .00200, .00187, .00186
>  8 .00000, .00088, .00090
>  9 .00000, .00051, .00051
> 10 .00000, .00023, .00022
>
>
> --John Grego
>
> #Backward-looking 12-month running average--10000 simulations.
>
> a=filter(x,rep(1/n,n), sides=1)
> return(a)
> }
> tx=1632          #1632=136*12
> nhot=NULL
> for(nrep in 1:10000){
> x=rnorm(tx)
> ax=runavg(x)
> sort_ax=order(ax,na.last=NA)
> nhot[nrep]=sum(order(ax)[1612:1621]>=1598)
> }
> table(nhot)

Essentially, what Dr. Grego did was to run the data and determined just how many times this event actually occurred. The three columns demonstrate the outcome when running it 1000 times, 100,000 times and 1 million times. Comparing the columns, we can see the numbers for each occurrence is converging on some percentage. For the case of nine of the ten warmest months occurring on a random basis in a 24-month period the percentage is converging on .00051. 

That means, the odds of this happening on a random basis are about 51 out of 100,000 (about 1 in 2000).

Those odds are certainly not as bad as the 1 in 1.6 x 10^17 I previously calculated, but they are sufficient to demonstrate this record could not possibly be random.

New England Breaks Heat Records

With all of the heavy snow the Northeast saw this winter, there were all sorts of pundits mocking global warming and climate change. This really demonstrated their ignorance and its easy to see why by asking a pretty simple question: How did all of the water get high in the atmosphere?

Have you ever shoveled snow? If you haven't, I can tell you it is incredibly hard work. Snow is heavy. Now, imagine square mile after square mile covered in feet of snow and you have the job of shoveling it all. In fact, you have to shovel it to a height of a few miles. No one would disagree this would take a lot of energy. So, where did all of that energy come from? (Think about it. That was not a rhetorical question.)

Of course, facts and science are not the strong points of global warming deniers. Now, the facts are biting them again and they have all run for cover. The temperatures in the Northeast (yes, the SAME Northeast) have set records for May. Take a look:

Source: NCDC

Just for the fun of it, let's do a count.

Maryland had the fourth hottest May ever recorded.

Delaware, New Jersey, and Maine all had the third hottest Mays ever recorded.

New York and Vermont had the second hottest Mays ever recorded.

Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire all set records with the hottest Mays ever recorded.

All total, 15 states in the East were much warmer than average.

That's a lot of heat.

So, where are all of those pundits now? Oh, yeah. I forgot.

Deniers melt in the heat.

Guest Submission: Reduction in UK GHG Emissions

2015 Shows a Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the UK

A step closer towards the Kyoto Protocol

By 2020, the United Kingdom needs to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions if it wants to respect the Kyoto Protocol Treaty. As a reminder, the greenhouse gas emissions effect concerns the fact that certain gases trap the heat in the atmosphere, which affects the global water and air temperature. Those main gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride.

Nowadays, recent statistics have proven that the UK is currently meeting its target, according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). As an example, in 2013 the emissions of greenhouse gases have decreased by 23.6% compared to 1990. 

This was mainly caused by a 15% carbon dioxide emissions reduction in the energy sector. It could be explained as the energy sector changed its electricity generation sources from fossil fuels - coal and natural gas combustion- towards more renewable sources such as wind energy or renewable fuels combustion - i.e. wood.

In 2014, this general tendency was confirmed, accounting an additional decrease of 8.4% of greenhouse gas emissions, due to a 9.2% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Those results represent a big success for the government, when it was known that in 2013, 82% of the UK greenhouse gas emissions concerned carbon dioxide.

2014 has also been a good year for the residential sector that accounted a decrease of up to 16.6% of natural gas consumption- mainly oil and propane- for space heating and cooking. Thus, British households showed a preference in investing in clean and renewable resources such as wood-pellets boilers, biomass boilers, solar panels, heat pumps and so on. Those investments are nevertheless highly incentivized by the UK government through the Feed-in Tariff, the Green Deal and other green grants allowing UK citizens to receive some financial help in investing in green resources.

Except 2010 and 2012 when the weather was particularly cold in the UK, there has been since 2004 a downward trend in greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, we can forecast positive expectations for the upcoming years trend. The Kyoto Protocol would thus be honored if it stops as planned in 2020.

From July 2015 on, statistics will be available on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) website comparing the first half of 2015 with the past 25 years (starting in 1990).

Find out more information about green energy sources on www.greenmatch.co.uk

Republicans vs. Pope Francis

The Republicans and their fossil fuel allies have already shown they fear the encyclical Pope Francis is preparing to release on climate change and have gone so far as to send a contingent to Rome to try and talk him out of it. Now, they are demonstrating they are in near panic mode by picking a fight they never should have picked and are directly attacking the Pope.

Rick Santorum started this most recent bout by telling the Pope to butt out on the subject of climate change. Referring to the Church, he stated, “We probably are better off leaving science to the scientists, and focusing on what we’re really good at, which is theology and morality.”

Let's be perfectly clear, Rick Santorum is one of the Republicans that loves to spout, "I'm not a scientists, but..." before proceeding to prove he really isn't a scientist. So, he thinks he's qualified to talk about climate change and dispute the 97% of climate scientists who say manmade climate change is real, but the Pope, who has a degree in chemistry, isn't. Chris Wallace called him out on this very question, to which Santorum replied,

“But the point is that politicians, whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decision with regard to public policy that affects American workers.”

Santorum really talked himself into a corner with this one. If, as a politician, he has to make decisions with regard to public policy, why is it he continually fails to make sound decisions? And, apparently, he really thinks he is qualified to be President of the U.S., even though he routinely rejects any science he doesn't like. Take a look a these other Santorum gems:

• He wants creationism taught in schools;
• Calls climate scientists 'climate change's Pharisees';
• Refers to other people that accept the reality of manmade climate change as 'flat earthers;'
• Believes human life begins at inception;
• Called climate science 'speculative science' and 'political science'

He even stated, “Any time you hear a scientist say science is settled, that’s political science, not real science.”

Really? Tell me, Senator, if I say it is settled the Earth revolves around the Sun, is that political science? Once again, you are demonstrating you really aren't a scientist. You are also demonstrating you don't understand enough about science to be talking about it in public. By the way, Senator, the Pentagon considers climate change to be a matter of national security. Wouldn't that be something of a concern for the President of the U.S.? This all means you are demonstrating you are not qualified to be President. So, don't go around claiming you are more qualified to speak on the subject than the Pope, or anyone else, for that matter.

And, maybe the public is taking note. Santorum recently made a campaign stop in Iowa that attracted only four people. That was right after another stop that attracted only 10 people. Maybe it's a good sign for the country.

Now, James Inhofe has waded into the fight and said, “Everyone is going to ride the pope now. Isn’t that wonderful. The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours.” This is the same James Inhofe who threw the snowball on the Senate floor this past winter. This is the same James Inhofe who has taken over $2 million from the fossil fuel industry over his career. This is the same James Inhofe who stated climate change was the "biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public". This is the same James Inhofe who stated climate change isn't real because it costs too much and that it isn't a problem because God won't let it be one. This is the same James Inhofe who has repeatedly stated he isn't a scientist, then proceeded to prove what a jackass he really is.

Now, this man is saying the Pope should butt out? And, he's saying he has a job to do? Well, yes, he really does have a job to do, he isn't doing it. Global warming and climate change are very serious concerns for the well-being of the people of America, including his constituents in Oklahoma. So, why isn't he taking care of them?

The Republicans are showing what hypocrites and science deniers they really are. And, they are demonstrating they are firmly in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. But, don't blame them for being afraid of the Pope's encyclical. It is going to hit home with a lot of people and will change things in this country.

Guest Submission: Is Obama Knowledgeable About Climate Change?

Hello Chuck, and to whom it may concern, at the Duluth News Tribune,

RE: A free AND responsible press;

Here is a link to FactCheck.org's science site. It affirms that Obama has been correct or nearly correct about recent claims he has made about 2014 being the warmest year, as well as the fact that 14 of the 15 years since the turn of the century have been among the hottest years on record:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/flackcheck-video-warmest-year/

I sent you this link so that you can at least understand what is accurate, even if you are not willing to edit, or reject entirely, letters about climate change that do NOT contain (accurate) information about global warming. In fact, some of the letters and articles in the Tribune from deniers, contain almost NO accurate information at all, and it can be proven that they don't!

Surely your role as a trusted news outlet, involves reporting real information and actual facts pertaining to the stories and issues that the Tribune covers? So, how about really editing the letters of denial that are sent to Readers' Views for their accuracy--as you claim is your right to do under the Readers' Views, opinion page guidelines?

I found an article affirming Obama's climate claims in about two minutes by simply going to the FactCheck.org website, and consulting its science section. So, why can't the Tribune do the same? You have often needed to verify or correct some information in my letters, so that means you have actually bothered to check the sites I referenced by using the Internet. I can virtually guarantee you that some day the American Press, and the press worldwide, will wonder why it didn't recognize the importance of AGW (man-made global warming), and actually bother to check some of the supposed facts in countless letters of denial that are published in newspapers like the Tribune. So, many news outlets like the Tribune will eventually NEED to begin vetting deniers sooner or later. By not doing so, members of the press are inadvertently allowing downright false pieces of misinformation, as well as blatant lies, to be given a free but false pass! Would you publish a letter, or article, which claimed GW Bush is really a transsexual, or that President Obama is an avowed necrophiliac? With the possible exception of President Obama—of course you wouldn't!—at least not until you were damn sure that you were really reporting factual and verifiable information!

Global warming may not entirely eradicate the human race, but it will very likely expose our children and their children, to a hostile and perhaps even deadly, environment. So, If we don't become extinct, as up to a million other species may (by the end of this century), we will need to view our global climate as part of a delicately balanced web. For that reason the extinction of many other species would very likely, adversely affect the human race and damage our worldwide environment as well!

I am not trying to attack your integrity or coerce you into heeding the songs of canaries in coal mines—environmental ignorance is (although not always deliberate), typical of the press around the world—not just in Duluth Minnesota. However, I am asking you to seriously consider the things I and many others have mentioned in letters which have been sent to the Tribune.

I consider the role of the press to be just as critical as the role of climate scientists in spreading factual information about AGW. So, it's my hope that increasing numbers of informed people will frequently send letters containing truthful information about man's role in global warming to their local news outlets. Even if such letters are sent to the editors WITHOUT the express purpose of being published in various opinion page sections, such letters can also serve the purpose of keeping the journalists, who work at those outlets knowledgeable about the many types of misinformation and downright lies that are distorting actual facts about climate change. So after those in the press are provided with truthful information, the ball will then be in their court, and they will have the responsibility to act with honesty and accuracy concerning the facts about global warming—ignorance really should not provide anyone with a free license to lie! So the press will eventually have NO excuse to enable deniers! And, the press really does need to play a paramount role in educating the public--that's why it needs to be educated itself!

What is the rationale behind the claim that outlets like the Tribune reserve the right to edit for accuracy, if so much inaccurate and misleading information is continually printed in your pages anyway? You needn't ALWAYS vet the letters of denier for facts, but just as you examine my links—and rightly so—can't you also occasionally attempt to verify the claims of deniers by spending just a few extra minutes on the Internet, or simply going to links like the one I provided at FactCheck.org? What is your excuse as a professional news outlet when, like so many others, you deliberately look the other way, and thus legitimize the lies and misinformation provided by deniers without first verifying the truth behind what they say for yourself?

Sincerely,

Peter W. Johnson

Climate Change Deniers Validate 'No Hiatus' Paper

The term 'hiatus' is something I really dislike because it has been seized by climate change deniers who reject science as 'proof' global warming is not real without bothering to discuss what was meant by a hiatus. Global warming clearly continued with 9 of the top 10 and 15 of the top 20 hottest years ever recorded occurring since the year 2000. It is impossible for this to have occurred randomly. It has had to occur for a reason. Also, the data being discussed was the surface temperature and did not include the 93% of the warming, which takes place in the oceans. So, no, global warming didn't stop. However, it is true the data showed a slowing of the surface temperature rise. This has been the subject of a lot of research. The Pacific Ocean has been believed to be the place where most of this warming was going but it was difficult to identify exactly where. Recent research has indicated it has been moving from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. As the Pacific Ocean warmed, currents and easterly winds pushed the warm water to the west and into the Indian Ocean. Seventy percent of the heat absorbed by the oceans over the last decade appears to be stored in the Indian Ocean.

Now, as has been widely reported, scientists at NOAA have examined the historical data and have determined the so-called hiatus never occurred.Their paper, appearing in the journal Science, states "There is no discernible ... decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century."

The problem has been biases in the data.You don't just collect data from some instrument and run with it. You have to calibrate an instrument to determine exactly what it is measuring. Then the data must be examined to ensure the instrument continues to work the same over time. Additionally, you have to take into account where you have data and where you don't. In the case of climate science, you want to take into account the fact we have lots of data from the land surfaces, but not the oceans. These are just a few of the issues with data. The NOAA scientists have discovered when you take all of this into account the 'hiatus' disappears. Surface warming has continued at the rate of about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade (about .1 degree C per decade) since the 1950s.  Take a look:

Source: NOAA

It is encouraging the source for the perceived slowdown has been determined - it apparently never happened. However, we need to keep in mind this is the first report and it has to be validated by other scientists. Strangely enough, the paid fossil fuel shills are the first to provide validation of these results. Who, but the most-biased new organization of all, Fox News, would be in a rush to report that the results are being questioned by "climate scientists." Just take a look at who they quote as questioning these results - Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy - all former scientists that have rejected science in favor of taking money from the fossil fuel industry. Some of these people have been caught falsifying data on multiple occasions and producing fraudulent results that had to be retracted.

So, how does this qualify as validating the results? Very simple. It will take real scientists months to years to examine this paper and attempt to duplicate the results. All of these former scientists rushed out and criticized the results after a mere week. But, there is no possible way for them to have determined if the results are valid or not. The only explanation for their rushed criticisms is that the denier lobby is concerned with this paper. And, if they are concerned, that indicates the results are very persuasive.This is a true indicator the results are valid.

You have to wonder, why are the deniers in such a rush to try and discredit the paper? Probably because they know it proves their denier claims are not valid.  So, they have no choice but to rush to the attack, even though it is not possible for them to have examined the results.

New Analysis Does Not Support a Warming “Hiatus”

The “Hiatus”.  Annual results for the global average temperature show a break from an earlier high rate of increase, beginning about 1998.  Compared with the preceding three decades, recently recorded global average temperatures have shown only a slight increase.  The reduction in the rate of warming of the globe may be termed a pause, and is generally referred to as a "hiatus".  This difference in warming trends was noted in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5; Summary for Policymakers and Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis Ch. 2, Observations) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  This break has been seized upon by those doubting or denying the reality of global warming as evidence that warming has effectively ceased since about 1998.

A new analysis of global temperature data extending from 1880 to the present was published by Thomas Karl and coworkers, from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Centers for Environmental Information, and LMI (McLean, VA), on June 4, 2015.  Climate scientists recognized problems in the ways temperature data have been collected.  Karl and coworkers sought to reevaluate historical data to account for these problems (see Details section at the end of this post).  The scientists conclude “based on our new analysis, the IPCC’s … statement of two years ago – that the global surface temperature ‘has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ – is no longer valid.”  Rather, the rate of warming of the world's atmosphere during 1998 to 2014, averaged over its entire surface, has continued unabated compared to the warming experienced in earlier decades (see Details).

Warming Skeptics.  Almost immediately upon the publication of this report organizations known to be skeptical about global warming, or to deny that it is occurring and/or that humanity is causing it, issued statements questioning the validity of the report.  However it is essentially impossible for these groups to draw such conclusions without actually taking the time to review the data and methods used in the reanalysis.  After all, the authors devoted many months or more to analyze the information available.  The data sets themselves are available to the public, and the report sets out in detail how the analysis was done.  Detractors can only question the validity of the conclusions reached by Karl and coworkers after critically reviewing this information and objectively pointing to any perceived faults in the analysis.  Anything short of such assessment is mere speculation.

Ocean Heat Content.  The reanalysis conducted by Karl and coworkers importantly shows that air temperatures averaged over the surface of the entire globe have continued to increase without any pause from about 1950 to the present.  In addition, the oceans absorb about 90% of the excess heat accumulated by the complete earth system.  Measurements collected over the past decades show that the heat content contained in the oceans has continued increasing without cease during this period.

Melting of Glacial Ice.  The excess heat added to the earth system, both air-based and ocean-based, has resulted in increased rates of loss of land-based ice in both the Arctic and Antarctica in recent years.  This is but one example of the effects of global warming on the Earth.  Ice masses will suffer net melting  if the temperature, averaged over the full year, is higher than the melting point and the water lost to melting is not replaced by new precipitation frozen into place. 

 

New reports published in April and May 2015 exemplify this.  Whereas melting of the Antarctic ice shelves was very low between 1994 and 2003, the rate of loss increased more than 12-fold over 2003-2012, especially in West Antarctica.  Loss of ice mass from glaciers in the Southern Antarctic Peninsula that end in ocean-floating ice shelves has rapidly increased from near none in the 2000s to high rates since 2009.  Adding this ice or its melted equivalent as liquid water to the oceans contributes significantly to rising sea levels around the world.  It is important that both these reports describe increased melting only in the recent years that coincide with the continued increase in global temperatures characterized by Karl and coworkers.

Since warming will continue for decades to come, land-based ice at the poles and in mountain glaciers will continue melting, indeed will do so at increasing rates.  So sea level will continue rising into the indefinite future.  This threatens coastal regions around the world, including many of the world’s cities.  Defensive measures needed to avert the damage wrought by flooding and ocean storm surges will require large investments of money, derived from public sources.

Global agreement is needed.  This post reports that global warming has continued unabated for at least the last fifty years, raising average temperatures of the atmosphere and the ocean.  Since this is truly a global problem it is necessary that all the nations of the world come together to implement meaningful reductions in annual rates of emission of greenhouse gases.  The United Nations-sponsored negotiations involving all nations of the world are under way now, with the goal of reaching agreement on the way forward at a meeting to be held at the end of 2015.  The harms from global warming already underway will only grow worse by 2100 and beyond if an agreement is not reached.  All nations need to agree on limiting emissions, with the goal of transitioning to a decarbonized energy economy by about 2050.  Major efforts by all nations will be needed to reach this goal.

Details

Karl and coworkers examined three sources by which temperature averages could have provided erroneous results in AR5.  An important feature of this reassessment is the use of new data sets for temperatures that were not available when AR5 was prepared.  First, by far the largest number of observation stations in the world is land-based.  But over the last one and one-half centuries their number has grown, and the physical settings of older stations have changed.  Karl and coworkers reassessed land-based measurements accordingly, including incorporating new data sets not previously used.  This process roughly doubled the number of reporting stations.  An important feature of this improvement is far more authoritative reporting from the Arctic, which has in fact undergone a high extent of warming that was not fully accounted for in AR5.

Additionally, the ways of gathering sea surface temperature have changed.  A second factor recognized that historically these data were obtained primarily by ocean-going vessels.  Their numbers likewise have grown, but more importantly, the way in which they routinely measured ocean temperature has changed.  A third factor has been that, over the last 15-20 years, buoys have been deployed across the ocean, one of whose capabilities is real time measurement of air temperature.  Karl and coworkers harmonized the old and new ship-based measurements, and applied a correction to all those values to make them consistent with the buoy-based observations.

The earlier data, such as those presented in AR5 as given by Karl and coworkers in their Supplementary Materials appendix, show a reduction in the rate of increase in global average temperature between 1950-1999 and the interval 1998-2012, from 0.101 ± 0.026 ºC/decade, to 0.039 ± 0.082 ºC/decade.  It is important to note, as climate scientists have recognized, that the single temperature value recorded for 1998 was exceptionally high (see second graphic below) because it was affected by an unusually intense El Nino event.  This has the effect of artificially elevating the starting point for the 1998-2012 data range, thus lowering the steepness of the trend line for this period.

The reevaluation of Karl and coworkers shows that these two temperature rates are now very similar, namely 0.113 ± 0.027 ºC/decade and 0.086 ± 0.075 ºC/decade, respectively.  Thus their reevaluation shows that for the recent interval thought to experience the “hiatus”, the rate of increase of global temperature is more than double than that found earlier in AR5. 

When temperature data extending to the most recent period, up to 2014, are considered, the rate of increase in temperature, instead of decreasing from 1950-1999 to 2000-2014 as AR5 shows up to 2012, actually increases slightly between these two time periods.  This is illustrated in the following graphic:

 

Comparison of the warming trends in ºF/decade for the old analysis (methods as used in AR5) but including data up to 2014, and the new analysis (data and methods used by Karl and coworkers).

Source: Los Angeles Times based on the report by Karl and coworkers;

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-no-global-warming-hiatus-noaa-20150603-story.html#page=1&lightbox=83703423

 

 

The near identity of temperature change rates before and after 1998 is seen in the following graphic showing annual temperatures from 1880 to 2014, with a single statistics-derived line drawn based on analysis of data from 1950 to 2014.

Global average temperature difference in ºF from 1880 to 2014, with the orange Trend line evaluated by Karl and coworkers.  The base line representing 0ºF is the average temperature over 1961 to 1990.

Source: Los Angeles Times based on the report by Karl and coworkers;

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-no-global-warming-hiatus-noaa-20150603-story.html#page=1&lightbox=83703423

  

These two graphics make clear that there has been no “hiatus” in warming after 1998.

 

 

© 2015 Henry Auer

 

The Global Warming Scam and the Climate Change Superscam

Introduction

Chapter I:The Climate.

Chapter 2: The Environmental Religion and Science.

Chapter 3: Environmental Scams.

Chapter 4: The IPCC Superscam.

Chapter 5: The Greenhouse Effect.

Chapter 6: The Models Scam.

Chapter 7: The Global Warming Scam.

Chapter 8: Carbon Dioxide.

Chapter 9: Climategate e-mails.

Chapter 10: The End Game.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

The Global Warming Scam and the Climate Change Superscam 

has now been published by

LINK to Stairway Press

CHAPTER 10: THE END GAME

The Environmentalist religious dogma that humans are destroying the earth has spawned many scams.  Its most ambitious project, veritably a Superscam has been the claim that the climate is controlled by human emissions of so-called greenhouse gases.  These cause global warming which will ultimately destroy us unless we cease using fossil fuels.

The  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up  in 1988 in order to supply scientific evidence to support this scam.

It was realised from the start that the task was impossible.

The earth does not have a temperature and there is no way that a scientifically acceptable average temperature can currently be derived. It is not possible to know whether the earth is warming or cooling.

Then, the climate is constantly changing. No part is ever in equilibrium. The trace gases in the atmosphere are not well mixed and their concentrations change constantly in every place. It is not possible to derive an average concentration for any of them.

The genuine science of the study of the climate, built up over many centuries as the discipline of meteorology, has officially established weather forecasting services in most countries.

These services now measure many climate properties with a variety of instruments, including satellites. The measurements are used in the most up to date computer models based on currently accepted physics, thermodynamics and statistics, adjusted for local conditions. They provide the only scientifically valid daily forecasts of future weather for every part of the earth. Atmospheric carbon dioxide  has not proved to be useful  and they do not even bother to measure it. 

It is simply not possible to overcome these difficulties with honest science, It has therefore been necessary to employ fraud, dishonesty, distortion fabrication, massive public relations, and enormous sums of money in order to claim that they have solved them.

Jim Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, New York, provided a pseudo global temperature technique that has proved useful to the scammers. He admits that there is no such thing as an absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT) which he calls  elusive.

Meteorologists know it is impossible to measure a plausible average surface air temperature. Instead they record the daily maximum and minimum in a protected screen at their weather stations. Today they often also measure at different intervals as well. These are a useful guide to temperature conditions and are plotted in their weather maps.

Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 ignored what Hansen had said was impossible. They assigned a constant temperature to each weather station for a whole month and assumed that this temperature applies also to a radius of 1200 km around each weather station.

The chosen temperature was the total average maximum and minimum temperatures measured at that station for a each month, the sum of the statistically unacceptable maximum/minimum averages.

They considered that could correlate each station figure with the next weather station. But their correlation coefficient was only 0.5 or lower. By subtracting the average from stations in all latitude/longitude boxes from the average in each box they got an annual global temperature anomaly record. There is no mention of the very large inaccuracy figures that should accompany this exercise, or of the varying number and quality of the global weather stations, both currently and over time.

The IPCC has used the supposed trend of a measly few decimals of a degree of this concoction to provethat global warming is happening and will inevitably rise dangerously.

Now it has broken down. This trend has hardly changed for 18 years while greenhouse gases have supposedly increased. The IPCC has resorted to desperate measures. Instead of annual warming we now have to worry about decadal warming. Efforts are escalated to fudge the figures and publicise a slight rise of  hundredths of a degree as evidence of permanent warming.

The required treatment of atmospheric carbon dioxide was made by Charles Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla California. The grossly oversimplified climate models demand that atmospheric carbon dioxide is globally constant, only increasing from more human emissions.

This was a problem because there exist some 40,000 previous measurements going back to the early 19^th century, published in famous peer reviewed journals, sometimes by Nobel Prize-winners. These measurements showed that surface concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are never constant and vary from one place to another, time of day, season, and wind direction.

Keeling suppressed this early information. He gave the excuse that he had a slightly different measurement method and he had discovered that there was a background concentration which was almost constant and increased steadily with increased emissions.

Keeling based his figures on sites at the Mauna Loa volcano on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, and a site in Antarctica. In order to come close to a globally constant value it was required that most other measurements were made from coastal sites on winds from the ocean where any figures that did not comply with the supposed background are rejected as noise.

A difficulty was that the steadily increasing figures over the years did not easily agree with the rather sporadic behaviour of the approved global temperature record.

Now, this carbon dioxide scam has broken down. The NASA satellite AIRS system now provides frequent global maps of carbon dioxide concentration showing that it is not well mixed, is highly variable, and tends to be higher in regions of high emissions. The officially sponsored background is no longer relevant. The fact that the supposed warming effect of carbon dioxide is logarithmic with concentration means that increases have little effect in high concentration areas and are most effective over forests and pastures where they are beneficial.

The IPCC climate models defy all of the accumulated knowledge of climate science currently practised by meteorologists and replace it with a system of absurdities which has been amazingly successful.

Instead of the ever changing climate we know, it is now assumed to be static.

All heat exchanges are by radiation. Admittedly the input and output are radiation but everything else in the climate combines all methods of heat exchange, predominantly conduction, convection and latent heat change.

The sun is assumed to shine all day and night with equal intensity. The earth is flat and dead where living creatures are impossible except they emit greenhouse gases.

All the past climate effects known to meteorology are parameterized and assumed to be constant.

There is no hope that such a model could possibly forecast future climate and the IPCC  even admits this. They say the models provide projections, never predictions. At the beginning they avoided being proved wrong by projecting only so far ahead that they could be sure nobody living would survive to check. 

The IPCC has now been running for 25 years and the early reports had to  show that the models fitted their temperature record. Now it doesn’t. Also the models could be used to calculate present upper troposphere temperatures, and that does not work either.

They are therefore in deep trouble. All they can do is prevent people from telling the truth. Every news bulletin, every newspaper must have a daily reference to global warming or carbon footprint or endure protests from climate activists who must all write letters to the press and organise rent-a-crowd gatherings of environmental devotees to picket any discussion venues. There must be constant lectures by those most financially dependent on the scam.

With luck the downfall of Valhalla will take place at the Paris Climate meeting in December where the attempts to impose a global climate dictatorship will either fail miserably or fizzle slowly.

What a relief!