Author: Ron Clutz

August 2018 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Note: MDR refers to the Main Development Region for tropical storms.

Joe D’Aleo provides the explanation (H/T iceagenow) Then the Rains Came

It has been a changeable and at times extreme spring and summer. The cold and snow of March gave way to a cold April and some very chilly days well into the spring. Warmth with some very hot days followed in the early to mid summer. Then the rains came with strong thunderstorms. The wet August spell put an end to a borderline drought spell the last few years. It became very muggy, keeping nighttime temperatures up and air conditioners on.

The changes all have to do with the wind direction. The jet stream brought chilly air masses (and snow) into eastern Canada even into June. The winds around these cool air masses turn to the northeast here in New England coming in off cool land and water. Then increasingly warm air masses built north into the Canadian prairies and came east. The surface winds turned northwesterly. In summer, warm air crossing the Appalachians and sinking down into the Merrimack Valley and coast heats by compression 5F or more. Our hottest days come with these ‘downslope winds’. Historically all the 100F days come with a west to northwest wind.

When late July and August came, our surface winds turned southwesterly.

This change was caused by a sharp cooling of the subtropical Atlantic Ocean waters relative to 2017.

The Atlantic cool subtropical pattern leads to that stronger than normal Atlantic high pressure called the ‘Bermuda High’. In these patterns, this regular feature of our climate expands south and west and acts as a pump for moisture much like we see in the southeastern and eastern Asia monsoon flow. This causes nights to be warm and muggy, and days very warm and showery here in the east.

Uncomfortable yes, unprecedented heat no. You may be surprised that most of the extreme heat records for the region, country and world occurred in the early 20th century or earlier. The 1930s was the record decade in the United States as a whole. For the east, the 1950s was the warmest but extreme heat has occurred even in cold periods.

Summary: Effect on the Hurricane Season

As a general rule, when the subtropical Atlantic is warm, we have more hurricane activity, when it is cool, we have fewer storms.

Pipedreams vs. Pipelines

Posted on by Ron Clutz

 

From Globe and Mail ‘This is a project that would unify all Canadians’: Calls to reconsider Energy East pipeline

A pro-Energy East pipeline rally was met with a counter-protest Friday afternoon in Halifax, with both sides vocal about their position.

“I’m here today because I’m concerned about climate change and the impact that the Energy East pipeline would have on climate change,” said Emma Norton.

The proposed Energy East pipeline was cancelled last fall but some are hoping government will reconsider the project.

Those in favour of the project say Canada has the highest environmental standards of any major oil and gas producer in the world and want to see more Canadian energy.

“Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran are not going to ship one less barrel of oil if Canada shuts down our energy industry so it’s not a choice about oil or no oil, the global economy has a growing global demand for oil and gas,” said Jason Kenney, leader of the United Conservative Party in Alberta.

“The question is whether Canada produces more of that or if we let the Saudis and these other dictatorships monopolize global energy markets. That’s not good for the environment, that’s not good for the globe.”

Susanne Sexton is with the group that organized the pro-Energy East rally and says Canada needs jobs.

“This is a project that would unify all Canadians and when tax dollars and those workers are going to be hired to build this and people that are pulling the resources out of the ground, they’re building schools, they’re building hospitals, they’re providing money to go into social problems to provide to our elderly and our least able to care for themselves. Why are they against that?” she said.

Those against the project say they’re concerned about the potential environmental risks.

“The message is that we cannot build pipelines. We cannot continue to extract fossil fuels from the ground because they contribute to climate change and that’s a very urgent issue that we need to address,” said Norton.

Background: How Climate Pipedreams Killed Energy East

From Financial Post I helped plan Energy East, and I know the government’s excuses are bunk The former head of TransCanada’s pipeline strategy says Canada cannot afford to ignore the lessons of Energy East’s demise by Dennis McConaghy. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

I was a senior officer of TransCanada Pipelines when the Energy East project was conceived and developed commercially, up to the mid-summer of 2014 when I retired (I continue to be a shareholder but obviously I am no longer a company insider).

Two things are clear to me. One: the termination of the Energy East project is a major economic loss for Canada, removing an important option for providing market access for growing production from Canada’s oil sands resource, including direct access to eastern Canadian crude oil markets. Two: The Trudeau government should be stepping up to accept some real culpability for contributing to TransCanada’s decision to abandon the project, instead of resorting to various sophistries and distortions. The real lessons to be learned from the Energy East termination cannot be ignored if this country is to ever have a regulatory and public-policy regime conducive for private capital to take on the risks of major hydrocarbon infrastructure.

The vast majority of the $1 billion in Energy East development costs went to pursuing regulatory approval.

Understand some basic facts about this project. It was conceived and developed as an all-Canadian route-alternative to access not only domestic crude oil markets in eastern Canada but also to gain tidewater access to other global markets for Canadian oil sands production, that would not otherwise be accessible. Moreover, it would convert existing underutilized gas-pipeline capacity between Alberta and eastern Ontario, thereby providing significant competitive advantage. The project successfully gained support from a diverse group of Canadian production interests, even as other pipeline projects such as Keystone XL, Northern Gateway and the Trans Mountain expansion were already in advanced stages of development, including pursuit of regulatory approval.

Since TransCanada first filed with the National Energy Board in late 2014, the project has had to cope with litany of regulatory dysfunctions ranging from protracted information requests beyond the initial filing, recusal of the original NEB panel to be replaced by a panel of limited pertinent regulatory experience, failure to use the existing regulatory record prior to the recusal, inadequate security arrangements for attempted public hearings and, worst of all, the recent decision to “re-scope” the issues to be addressed in the hearing itself.

From when TransCanada first conceived this project internally in late 2011, accumulated development costs have exceeded $1 billion, the vast majority relating to the pursuit of regulatory approval. No private sector entity would ever have expended such a vast amount of capital seeking regulatory approval if it had known the dimension of the regulatory and political risk.

The last straw was the re-scoping decision taken by the current NEB panel, and supported by the Trudeau government. This decision concerned whether carbon emissions generated by the production process of the oil to be moved by Energy East were consistent or not with Ottawa’s carbon policy. To be clear, these are not emissions generated by the Energy East pipeline directly, but are emissions TransCanada is not responsible for. The real issue of course is whether incremental crude oil production in Canada is consistent with national carbon policy. That is not an issue to be dealt with by regulators but rather by democratically elected politicians.

Dennis McConaghy was formerly the executive vice-president of pipeline strategy and development at TransCanada Pipelines.

The French Connection in the Sabotage

There is plenty of evidence that Quebecers, collectively, did everything they could to stand in the way of Energy East, which was to cross Quebec territory.

A campaign by the Montreal Metropolitan Community, a regional organization of municipal politicians representing more than 80 area cities and towns, opposed the project on the ground its risks far outweighed its benefits.

Quebec contributed to the regulatory overkill that ultimately sunk the $15.7 billion project. It piled on with its own list of conditions. As Fournier himself puts it in his letter, the province “adopted seven principles to examine the Energy East project, the same principles Ontario adopted, inspired by those of British Columbia.”

Quebec’s hostility to Energy East came in other ways, too. TransCanada had to cancel plans for a second marine terminal for Energy East at Cacouna, Que., to allay community concerns about impact on beluga whales. The NEB hearings on Energy East were suspended after violent protests in Montreal. Eventually the whole review went back to square one and was beefed up to win back public trust. The inclusion of upstream and downstream climate change impacts this summer ultimately became the regulatory overreach that went too far.

Now the Political Climate is Changing

Quebec’s sabotage of Energy East is not surprising considering the two-term Premier joined the province into California’s cap-and-trade scheme. He was also keen to be photographed with Al Gore at the Paris COP. What is new is a parliamentary election on October 1 with the opposition leading in the polls. Meet the man committed to action rather than pipedreams. Source: Globe and Mail. Excerpts in italics.

François Legault, the man who has a serious chance of becoming the next Quebec premier and arguably the most conservative one in at least 50 years, has spent nearly as much time as a professional politician as he did a business executive.

He seems genuinely surprised at the suggestion “businessman” would take second place to “politician” on his résumé. He starts doing the math out loud on what came after he founded Air Transat.

“I started in politics in 1998. I was 41. So that’s 21 years in business, 18 in politics? Remember, I took two years off in there,” he says in an interview, exhaling in relieved self-affirmation. “For me, I’m still more a businessman. I’m more a pragmatic guy. I like economics and finance. Those are the main reasons I’m in politics.”

Mr. Legault is a bit fussy about labels. He doesn’t like to be called a federalist, even if he believes Quebec’s place is within Canada. He wants to limit spending, cut taxes and immigration levels and seriously improve the business environment in Quebec, but denies he’s all that right-wing.

Now, with 10 months until the next election, the 60-year-old Mr. Legault may be on the cusp of getting his hands on some economic levers. Three polls in a row have showed him in first place.

The PQ is polling a distant third and has set aside the promise of a quick sovereignty vote. “At each and every election, the ballot question ends up being on the sovereignty of Quebec,” Mr. Legault says. “For us, it’s clear. Our project is within Canada. This will be the first election in years that the real issue will be a worn-out, corrupt government, not the sovereignty of Quebec.“

Mr. Legault was raised in the western Montreal suburb of Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue where his father was the postmaster and his mother a part-time cashier at the A&P store. He is married and has two sons in their 20s; he says he can still compete with them on the tennis court but “only for about 20 minutes.”

He studied accounting and worked as an auditor and in finance before borrowing $50,000 in 1986 to help found Air Transat. He cashed out with $10-million when he entered politics 12 years later. “The reason I can be independent today is because of business,” he says.

And now from the Montreal Gazette Let’s revisit Energy East and get Canada off Saudi oil  Our limited  capacity to move oil to the east and west coasts is costing us billions, and transferring large chunks of that cash to despots.

Canada’s spat with Saudi Arabia raises an obvious question. Why is Canada, sitting on the world’s third-largest oil reserves, importing some 87,000 barrels of oil per day from Saudi Arabia, a country with a terrible civil rights record?

Saudi Arabia is some 9,625 kilometres from Quebec, where Saudi oil is imported to Canada. Wouldn’t it be nice if Eastern Canada got its oil from a democratic country with an excellent record on civil rights and environmental protection, like, say, Canada? It wouldn’t be hard. A simple pipeline would completely obviate Canada’s need to import oil from the Middle East.

TransCanada’s proposed (now cancelled) Energy East pipeline would have carried Canadian oil over about 4,500 km, using mostly existing pipeline capacity currently used to transport natural gas from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec. With a capacity to carry 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, the pipeline would have dwarfed what Canada imports from Saudi Arabia (not to mention Algeria’s 85,000 barrels per day and Nigeria’s 74,000 barrels per day). So what happened to it?

In October 2017, TransCanada withdrew its application from the National Energy Board (NEB) for the proposed $15.7-billion Energy East and Eastern Mainline pipeline projects — about five months after the NEB announced the government would consider “upstream” and “downstream” greenhouse gas emissions in the project evaluation process. The new rule targets greenhouse gases emitted during oil production (not transportation) and after the oil leaves the pipeline and is refined and consumed (again, nothing to do with oil transportation).

Two studies by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) document the potential benefits of building Energy East. In 2014, CERI estimated the project would generate an additional $34 billion to the GDP, an additional 321,000 one-year/full-time equivalent jobs across Canada in construction and operation, and an additional $7.6 billion in total tax revenues for Canada. In a 2018 report, CERI models the costs and benefits of displacing imported oil with Canadian oil. This “made in Canada” scenario estimates refinery cost-savings of $23 million per year while displacing 100 per cent of foreign oil. CERI also estimates that using Canadian oil rather than imported oil would lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent per year.

In any sane world, Canada, with oil reserves estimated at 171 billion barrels (10 per cent of the world’s total reserves), would not need to import oil from foreign powers with strong records of religious oppression, gender oppression, international destabilization, public beheadings and other activities Canadians shouldn’t support with their oil and gasoline purchases.

Rather than looking at the failure of Energy East, and simplifying (and clarifying) environmental assessment to invite investment in such projects, the Trudeau government took an already onerous and somewhat arbitrary environmental assessment process and made it even more so. The government’s new criteria for energy projects includes consideration of “gender” impacts and use of the “traditional knowledge” of Aboriginal people. Neither of these requirements lends itself to rigorous definition.

Canada’s limited capacity to move oil to the East and West Coast is costing Canadians billions of dollars per year, and transferring large chunks of that money into the hands of despots. Our governments must do whatever’s needed to break Canada’s oil transport bottlenecks.

Aside:  Loading Upstream and Downstream GHG emissions onto Pipeline Environmental Assessments

The was the argument used by Trudeau government to destroy the Energy East pipeline.  The same gambit is used by US activists attempting to prevent pipeline approvals issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  The article linked below gets into the details, but traditionally a project such as constructing a pipeline was assessed on the environmental impact of its installation and operation.  Climatists have pushed and in instances succeeded in arguing that the fuels flowing through the pipeline cause climate change by emissions generated in the production beforehand and consumption by end users and must be estimated before approving.

During the Obama administration FERC with majority Democratic appointees blocked pipelines on this basis.  But now majority Republican appointees are taking the traditional more narrow scope, leaving out GHG calculations before and after transport along with Social Cost of Carbon (SCC).  In fact, FERC has no jurisdiction to regulate sites producing or burning fossil fuel products  The legal pushback is strenuous as noted in this article from The Legal Intelligencer FERC’s Hard Look at Pipeline Construction and GHG Emissions.

Summary

Winds of energy pragmatism are starting, but whether they can blow down the believers’ house of cards remains to be seen.  “The Force is Strong in Them,”  unfortunately.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna with Justin Trudeau in the choir.

Clear Thinking about Heat Records

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Thinkstock.

Here is an analysis using critical intelligence to interpret media reports about temperature records this summer. Daniel Engber writes in Slate Crazy From the Heat

The subtitle is Climate change is real. Record-high temperatures everywhere are fake.  As we shall see from the excerpts below, The first sentence is a statement of faith, since as Engber demonstrates, the notion does not follow from the temperature evidence. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

It’s been really, really hot this summer. How hot? Last Friday, the Washington Post put out a series of maps and charts to illustrate the “record-crushing heat.” All-time temperature highs have been measured in “scores of locations on every continent north of the equator,” the article said, while the lower 48 states endured the hottest-ever stretch of temperatures from May until July.

These were not the only records to be set in 2018. Historic heat waves have been crashing all around the world, with records getting shattered in Japan, broken on the eastern coast of Canada, smashed in California, and rewritten in the Upper Midwest. A city in Algeria suffered through the highest high temperature ever recorded in Africa. A village in Oman set a new world record for the highest-ever low temperature. At the end of July, the New York Times ran a feature on how this year’s “record heat wreaked havoc on four continents.” USA Today reported that more than 1,900 heat records had been tied or beaten in just the last few days of May.

While the odds that any given record will be broken may be very, very small, the total number of potential records is mind-blowingly enormous.

There were lots of other records, too, lots and lots and lots—but I think it’s best for me to stop right here. In fact, I think it’s best for all of us to stop reporting on these misleading, imbecilic stats. “Record-setting heat,” as it’s presented in news reports, isn’t really scientific, and it’s almost always insignificant. And yet, every summer seems to bring a flood of new superlatives that pump us full of dread about the changing climate. We’d all be better off without this phony grandiosity, which makes it seem like every hot and humid August is unparalleled in human history. It’s not. Reports that tell us otherwise should be banished from the news.

It’s true the Earth is warming overall, and the record-breaking heat that matters most—the kind we’d be crazy to ignore—is measured on a global scale. The average temperature across the surface of the planet in 2017 was 58.51 degrees, one-and-a-half degrees above the mean for the 20th century. These records matter: 17 of the 18 hottest years on planet Earth have occurred since 2001, and the four hottest-ever years were 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. It also matters that this changing climate will result in huge numbers of heat-related deaths. Please pay attention to these terrifying and important facts. Please ignore every other story about record-breaking heat.

You’ll often hear that these two phenomena are related, that local heat records reflect—and therefore illustrate—the global trend. Writing in Slate this past July, Irineo Cabreros explained that climate change does indeed increase the odds of extreme events, making record-breaking heat more likely. News reports often make this point, linking probabilities of rare events to the broader warming pattern. “Scientists say there’s little doubt that the ratcheting up of global greenhouse gases makes heat waves more frequent and more intense,” noted the Times in its piece on record temperatures in Algeria, Hong Kong, Pakistan, and Norway.

Yet this lesson is subtler than it seems. The rash of “record-crushing heat” reports suggest we’re living through a spreading plague of new extremes—that the rate at which we’re reaching highest highs and highest lows is speeding up. When the Post reports that heat records have been set “at scores of locations on every continent,” it makes us think this is unexpected. It suggests that as the Earth gets ever warmer, and the weather less predictable, such records will be broken far more often than they ever have before.

But that’s just not the case. In 2009, climatologist Gerald Meehl and several colleagues published an analysis of records drawn from roughly 2,000 weather stations in the U.S. between 1950 and 2006. There were tens of millions of data points in all—temperature highs and lows from every station, taken every day for more than a half-century. Meehl searched these numbers for the record-setting values—i.e., the days on which a given weather station saw its highest-ever high or lowest-ever low up until that point. When he plotted these by year, they fell along a downward-curving line. Around 50,000 new heat records were being set every year during the 1960s; then that number dropped to roughly 20,000 in the 1980s, and to 15,000 by the turn of the millennium.

From Meehl et al 2009.

This shouldn’t be surprising. As a rule, weather records will be set less frequently as time goes by. The first measurement of temperature that’s ever taken at a given weather station will be its highest (and lowest) of all time, by definition. There’s a good chance that the same station’s reading on Day 2 will be a record, too, since it only needs to beat the temperature recorded on Day 1. But as the weeks and months go by, this record-setting contest gets increasingly competitive: Each new daily temperature must now outdo every single one that came before. If the weather were completely random, we might peg the chances of a record being set at any time as 1/n, where n is the number of days recorded to that point. In other words, one week into your record-keeping, you’d have a 1 in 7 chance of landing on an all-time high. On the 100th day, your odds would have dropped to 1 percent. After 56 years, your chances would be very, very slim.

The weather isn’t random, though; we know it’s warming overall, from one decade to the next. That’s what Meehl et al. were looking at: They figured that a changing climate would tweak those probabilities, goosing the rate of record-breaking highs and tamping down the rate of record-breaking lows. This wouldn’t change the fundamental fact that records get broken much less often as the years go by. (Even though the world is warming, you’d still expect fewer heat records to be set in 2000 than in 1965.) Still, one might guess that climate change would affect the rate, so that more heat records would be set than we’d otherwise expect.

That’s not what Meehl found. Between 1950 and 2006, the rate of record-breaking heat seemed unaffected by large-scale changes to the climate: The number of new records set every year went down from one decade to the next, at a rate that matched up pretty well with what you’d see if the odds were always 1/n. The study did find something more important, though: Record-breaking lows were showing up much less often than expected. From one decade to the next, fewer records of any kind were being set, but the ratio of record lows to record highs was getting smaller over time. By the 2000s, it had fallen to about 0.5, meaning that the U.S. was seeing half as many record-breaking lows as record-breaking highs. (Meehl has since extended this analysis using data going back to 1930 and up through 2015. The results came out the same.)

Source: Intellicast, using raw unadjusted data.

What does all this mean? On one hand, it’s very good evidence that climate change has tweaked the odds for record-breaking weather, at least when it comes to record lows. (Other studies have come to the same conclusion.) On the other hand, it tells us that in the U.S., at least, we’re not hitting record highs more often than we were before, and that the rate isn’t higher than what you’d expect if there weren’t any global warming. In fact, just the opposite is true: As one might expect, heat records are getting broken less often over time, and it’s likely there will be fewer during the 2010s than at any point since people started keeping track.

This may be hard to fathom, given how much coverage has been devoted to the latest bouts of record-setting heat. These extreme events are more unusual, in absolute terms, than they’ve ever been before, yet they’re always in the news. How could that be happening?

While the odds that any given record will be broken may be very, very small, the total number of potential records that could be broken—and then reported in the newspaper—is mind-blowingly enormous. To get a sense of how big this number really is, consider that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration keeps a database of daily records from every U.S. weather station with at least 30 years of data, and that its website lets you search for how many all-time records have been set in any given stretch of time. For instance, the database indicates that during the seven-day period ending on Aug. 17—the date when the Washington Post published its series of “record-crushing heat” infographics—154 heat records were broken.

That may sound like a lot—154 record-high temperatures in the span of just one week. But the NOAA website also indicates how many potential records could have been achieved during that time: 18,953. In actuality, less than one percent of these were broken. You can also pull data on daily maximum temperatures for an entire month: I tried that with August 2017, and then again for months of August at 10-year intervals going back to the 1950s. Each time the query returned at least about 130,000 potential records, of which one or two thousand seemed to be getting broken every year. (There was no apparent trend toward more records being broken over time.)

Now let’s say there are 130,000 high-temperature records to be broken every month in the U.S. That’s only half the pool of heat-related records, since the database also lets you search for all-time highest low temperatures. You can also check whether any given highest high or highest low happens to be a record for the entire month in that location, or whether it’s a record when compared across all the weather stations everywhere on that particular day.

Add all of these together and the pool of potential heat records tracked by NOAA appears to number in the millions annually, of which tens of thousands may be broken. Even this vastly underestimates the number of potential records available for media concern. As they’re reported in the news, all-time weather records aren’t limited to just the highest highs or highest lows for a given day in one location. Take, for example, the first heat record mentioned in this column, reported in the Post: The U.S. has just endured the hottest May, June, and July of all time. The existence of that record presupposes many others: What about the hottest April, May and June, or the hottest March, April, and May? What about all the other ways that one might subdivide the calendar?

Geography provides another endless well of flexibility. Remember that the all-time record for the hottest May, June, and July applied only to the lower 48 states. Might a different set of records have been broken if we’d considered Hawaii and Alaska? And what about the records spanning smaller portions of the country, like the Midwest, or the Upper Midwest, or just the state of Minnesota, or just the Twin Cities? And what about the all-time records overseas, describing unprecedented heat in other countries or on other continents?

Even if we did limit ourselves to weather records from a single place measured over a common timescale, it would still be possible to parse out record-breaking heat in a thousand different ways. News reports give separate records, as we’ve seen, for the highest daily high and the highest daily low, but they also tell us when we’ve hit the highest average temperature over several days or several weeks or several months. The Post describes a recent record-breaking streak of days in San Diego with highs of at least 83 degrees. (You’ll find stories touting streaks of daily highs above almost any arbitrary threshold: 90 degrees, 77 degrees, 60 degrees, et cetera.) Records also needn’t focus on the temperature at all: There’s been lots of news in recent weeks about the fact that the U.K. has just endured its driest-ever early summer.

“Record-breaking” summer weather, then, can apply to pretty much any geographical location, over pretty much any span of time. It doesn’t even have to be a record—there’s an endless stream of stories on “near-record heat” in one place or another, or the “fifth-hottest” whatever to happen in wherever, or the fact that it’s been “one of the hottest” yadda-yaddas that yadda-yadda has ever seen. In the most perverse, insane extension of this genre, news outlets sometimes even highlight when a given record isn’t being set.

Loose reports of “record-breaking heat” only serve to puff up muggy weather and make it seem important. (The sham inflations of the wind chill factor do the same for winter months.) So don’t be fooled or flattered by this record-setting hype. Your summer misery is nothing special.

Summary

This article helps people not to confuse weather events with climate.  My disappointment is with the phrase, “Climate Change is Real,” since it is subject to misdirection.  Engber uses that phrase referring to rising average world temperatures, without explaining that such estimates are computer processed reconstructions since the earth has no “average temperature.”  More importantly the undefined “climate change” is a blank slate to which a number of meanings can be attached.

Some take it to mean: It is real that rising CO2 concentrations cause rising global warming.  Yet that is not supported by temperature records.
Others think it means: It is real that using fossil fuels causes global warming.  This too lacks persuasive evidence.
WFFC and Hadcrut 2018Over the last five decades the increase in fossil fuel consumption is dramatic and monotonic, steadily increasing by 234% from 3.5B to 11.7B oil equivalent tons. Meanwhile the GMT record from Hadcrut shows multiple ups and downs with an accumulated rise of 0.74C over 53 years, 5% of the starting value.

Others know that Global Mean Temperature is a slippery calculation subject to the selection of stations.

Graph showing the correlation between Global Mean Temperature (Average T) and the number of stations included in the global database. Source: Ross McKitrick, U of Guelph

Global warming estimates combine results from adjusted records.
Conclusion

The pattern of high and low records discussed above is consistent with natural variability rather than rising CO2 or fossil fuel consumption. Those of us not alarmed about the reported warming understand that “climate change” is something nature does all the time, and that the future is likely to include periods both cooler and warmer than now.

Background Reading:

The Climate Story (Illustrated)

2018 Update: Fossil Fuels ≠ Global Warming

Man Made Warming from Adjusting Data

What is Global Temperature? Is it warming or cooling?

States Cracking Down on Energy Disrupters

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Anti-fossil fuel activists and pipeline protesters are dismayed as the penalties for obstructing lawful commerce are getting serious in the case of energy infrastructure. The story of developments in several US states is reported in the pro-protester website truthout Under Louisiana Bill, Peaceful Protesters Could Face 20 Years in Prison Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

On April 12, 2018, in the chambers of the Louisiana State House of Representatives, Rep. Major Thibaut Jr. stepped up to the microphone before the Speaker to introduce seemingly benign House Bill 727. According to his testimony, the bill was humble — almost technical — in scope and aimed primarily to add “pipelines” to the list of what the state considers “critical infrastructure.” It had faced no opposition in committee, Thibaut added, and had “over sixty-something authors.”

“It’s a good bill,” he said, then motioned for favorable passage. Ninety-seven legislators voted yay, three voted nay, and just like that, all 4.6 million residents of Louisiana took a step toward losing their First Amendment rights. Should the bill become law, it would impose severe penalties on peaceful protesters engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience actions at sites considered “critical infrastructure” by Thibaut’s bill. In fact, simply planning to take such an action, considered “conspiracy” by HB 727, could be punishable by fees of up to $10,000 and prison sentences as long as 20 years.

With the crack of a gavel, Louisiana joined the growing number of states across the nation with similar “critical infrastructure” bills moving swiftly through the courts and onto governors’ desks.

The first appeared in Oklahoma in May 2017. According to the bill’s author, Rep. Mark McBride, it was an attempt to keep Oklahoma from paying costs related to any Diamond Pipeline protests. The law beefed up penalties for protesters who trespassed on property containing a “critical infrastructure facility.” The definition of such facilities varies by state but tends to include energy-industry sites like pipelines, refineries and electrical power facilities.

Shortly after Oklahoma signed the bill into law, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate-funded group that holds annual meetings with state legislators and lobbyists to vote on “model” legislation, took the measure up itself at its summit in Nashville, Tennessee, in December 2017. ALEC calls its model bill “The Critical Infrastructure Protection Act,” claiming the bill drew its “inspiration” from laws enacted in 2017 by the State of Oklahoma.

Since the ALEC Summit, bills like Louisiana’s HB 727 have cropped up all over the country. In Ohio, where construction on the Rover pipeline resulted in repeated spills of toxic drilling material, Senate Bill 250 suddenly appeared. Its language reflects the ALEC-inspired bill, aiming to “prohibit criminal mischief … on a critical infrastructure facility.” It would also impose fines on organizations “complicit” with said activity.

In Iowa, Senate Study Bill 3062 penalizes those who’d commit “sabotage” of critical infrastructure facilities with fines of up to $100,000 and 25 years in jail.

In March 2018, lawmakers in Minnesota introduced HF 3693, which would, among other things, criminalize anyone who “recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with” a trespasser at an infrastructure site. Minnesota courts could use the law to punish these “conspirator” groups or individuals with a full year in jail and/or a $3,000 fine.

Louisiana House Bill 727, introduced in late March, is even more severe than the original ALEC-inspired legislation. If enacted, the law could potentially penalize people who never even set foot on one of its protected sites. Under the bill as written, simply discussing a possible trespass action could result in prison sentences of five years and fines up to $10,000. Actually damaging pipeline infrastructure could lead to 15 years in jail, and it could lead to 20 years if the damage interrupts construction site operations or endangers human life.

It remains unclear how the conspiracy clause of this bill would be enforced in Louisiana, should the measure become law. In a phone interview with Truthout, Alicia Cooke of the volunteer climate activist group 350 New Orleans wondered aloud, “How do you prove that someone is conspiring to trespass on property? Versus conspiring to gather near property?”

Now that the Louisiana bill has passed through the House, it will travel to the Senate for debate. Meanwhile, in Ohio, Iowa and Minnesota, state lawmakers are pushing their versions of the ALEC-inspired bill through committees and legislative chambers.

Protester Alicia Cooke is arrested at a Bayou Bridge Pipeline construction site in St. James Parish on Thursday, May 24. (Louisiana Bucket Brigade)

“It’s the ultimate irony,” said Cooke. “We’re considering critical infrastructure to be pipelines, oil refineries, and oil wells. But we’re not considering our own water, our own forests, our own wetlands to be critical infrastructure.”

Cooke, who continues to organize with 350 New Orleans against the bill, said she felt sad about it all, adding, “It just shows what we’ve chosen to prioritize in Louisiana.”

Rolfes, however, sees reason for hope. “Resistance to fossil fuels in general and oil specifically is growing,” she said. “Although it’s disheartening to see these bills, it shows you the status of their industry. Their future is on shaky footing.”

August 22, 2018  First Felony Arrests Near Bayou Bridge Construction Made Under New Louisiana Law Penalizing Pipeline Trespass  Source: DeSmogBlog

Comment

Protesters intend to stop fossil fuel usage because of their belief in global warming/climate change.  Acts of civil disobedience are by definition legal transgressions and incur penalties.  Energy infrastructure is essential to our civilized society, and everyone is at risk if supply of fuels and power are restricted or blocked.

The problem here is people disrupting others’ lives due to their fears of the future (unfounded IMO). There are rules  and places for legal protests to attempt to convince others of your concerns.  The First Amendment does not permit trespassing on property where access is prohibited, and penalties are appropriate since the possibility of vandalism is involved. States are wise to prepare against eco-terrorism until CO2 hysteria loses its grip on impassioned believers.

See also: Upping the Stakes for Ecoterrorists

Highlights of EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE)

Posted on by Ron Clutz

With 60 days for public comment before the rule goes into force, expect a lot of howling from those who wanted the Clean Power Plan despite its illegality (why the Supremes stopped it). Here are some excerpts from the overview in Powermag intended to inform energy providers. Trump Emissions Plan Aims to Boost Coal-Fired Power

What Coal Generators Should Know About the EPA’s Proposed ACE Rule

The EPA, in an impact analysis of the Trump plan reviewed by The Washington Post, said the plan would affect more than 300 U.S. power plants and provide operators with incentives to keep coal plants operating rather than replacing them with natural gas or renewable energy projects.

The agency also has acknowledged the rule likely will lead to an increase in airborne pollutants that could contribute to health issues, although EPA officials have said other regulations are in place to handle those.

Mandy Gunasekara, principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said the new rule would require states to submit their plans to the EPA for regulating power plants over a three-year period after the proposal is finalized, which is expected next year. It specifically asks for “patterns of performance” for existing coal plants. The EPA would then have one year to determine whether a state’s plan is sufficient. If the EPA determines it is not, the agency would then design a plan for that state, according to Gunasekara.

“Instead of [the federal government] putting out a strict standard of performance, we’re allowing the states to determine that strict standard of performance,” Gunasekara told the MEGA audience, including POWER. “No two coal plants are the same. It should be up to the states to ensure that everyone has access to reliable and affordable energy in that state.”

Source: 2017 EIA statistics.

‘Ensure Coal Has a Place on the Grid’

Replacing the CPP has been one of Trump’s priorities. “The president has constantly recognized the importance of coal,” said Steven Winberg, assistant secretary of fossil energy for the DOE, who also spoke Tuesday morning at MEGA. “We need to ensure that coal has a place on the grid.”

Said Winberg: “We need to get moving on the next generation of coal plants that are cleaner, more efficient, and have a small footprint. We’re looking at 50-to-350-MW plants that are much more efficient. And they need to be able to ‘load follow’ due to the increased amount of intermittent power [mostly wind and solar] coming onto the grid. Coal plants have traditionally [provided] baseload power, and new plants need to be able to load follow.”

Gunasekara said the ACE rule is really “presenting guidelines for states to address CO2 from coal plants. States can determine the best system for emissions reduction.” She said the plan is designed to encourage coal plant operators to focus on “heat rate efficiency improvements,” and decide “whether a technology works, or whether it doesn’t.”

EPA Sticking to Endangerment Finding

EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Bill Wehrum told reporters in a press briefing on August 21 that the ACE rule “is a regulation of GHGs, no doubt about it.” But the rule seeks to bring the EPA back to its “core function” of regulating emissions from “things that emit—in this case power plants—and not regulate other aspects of the industry like the electricity grid.” He added: “So we are not regulating dispatch of power plants, we are not trying to impose a requirement to implement renewable energy resources. Those are things the Clean Power Plan did.”

However, with the ACE rule, the EPA also isn’t proposing to rescind the “endangerment finding,” in which the Obama-era EPA found GHGs are a danger to public health and welfare, Wehrum said. “We’re not proposing to find that power plants do not contribute to come to that endangerment. We are proposing, though, to revise [the Clean Power Plan] to bring it back within the legal authority that we have under the Clean Air Act,” Wehrum said.

Asked whether combating climate change is a priority for the EPA, Wehrum said that Congress “made the decision for us under this part of the Clean Air Act.” But Congress also said that states have primary authority for regulating their emissions. “So we have a responsibility to set up a framework; states have a responsibility to regulate, and Congress gave states a lot of latitude to decide what it is they’re going to do. And so we are faithfully implementing the law this way.”

Coal groups have been vocal in their support of the administration’s effort. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a trade group representing coal producers, earlier this year said, “The CPP is illegal because the rule greatly exceeds EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fueled power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Even if the CPP were determined to be lawful (which it is not), it would establish bad environmental policy that would have substantial adverse energy and economic impacts.”

Michelle Bloodworth, who was named the new president and CEO of the ACCCE in July, told the Times: “I certainly think we are supportive of what the administration is doing and we applaud their efforts.”

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, also applauded the president’s plan, saying in a statement: “The Clean Power Plan (CPP) grew EPA power in unprecedented and harmful ways, marking a clear deviation from the agency’s traditional role by grossly misapplying the Clean Air Act. The ‘Affordable Clean Energy Rule’ proposed by the Trump Administration corrects some of the CPP’s worst flaws. By reining in the EPA, the ‘Affordable Clean Energy’ rule limits the negative economic impacts a back door federal renewable mandate would have on American families. However, we still maintain that only a full repeal of the Obama era regulation will fully protect ratepayers.”

Environmentalists attacked the new proposal from all sides. Lissa Lynch, staff attorney for federal policy in the Climate & Clean Energy Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: “The Clean Power Plan replacement proposed today by Acting EPA Administrator [Andrew] Wheeler demonstrates the Trump EPA’s unflagging commitment to propping up polluters. The proposal is designed to require power plants to do nothing to reduce their carbon pollution, and it could even result in greater climate-polluting emissions – a worse than do-nothing replacement for the Clean Power Plan.

Winberg, though, countered that argument, saying coal remains important to the U.S. He said the nation must focus on “upgrading the coal fleet, transforming technology, and reducing the cost of CO2.” He acknowledged the nation “has an aging coal fleet, and we need to do something about that. Coal is going to be part of the U.S. energy mix for decades to come. Boosting U.S. energy production is important for national security, and we are seeing a new focus on policies that level the playing field for coal.”

Footnote:

The ACE plan was well received by CAGW (Citizens Against Government Waste)

Citizens Against Government Waste Applauds EPA Affordable Clean Energy Plan  August 22, 2018

WASHINGTON: Today, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) applauded the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for proposing the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. The rule would reverse the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, which was blocked by the Supreme Court in 2016 due to regulatory overreach.

Full text of proposed EPA rule:  Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units

See also the world context regarding coal power Climate Change Battle Report

The Dog That Didn’t Bark

Posted on by Ron Clutz

This post gets into political territory, but continues a theme on the importance of evidence in attesting whether a claim is true or false.  The topic of course is the investigation into election collusion (itself not a crime) between Russia and Trump.  Here is a status report following convictions yesterday.  George Neumayr writes in American Spectator Ignore the Noise, Mueller Still Has Nothing  Excerpts below with my bolds.

For all of the media’s oohing and ahhing over Robert Mueller’s legal victories on Tuesday, his impeachment case remains hopelessly threadbare. In terms of his Department of Justice mandate, he has made no progress whatsoever. He is presiding over a “collusion” probe that has absolutely nothing to do with collusion.

Let him keep indicting and convicting ham sandwiches. Most Americans won’t care. It just underscores the superfluous and abusive character of his probe. He is not compiling an air-tight legal case for impeachment; he is simply using abusive prosecutorial tactics to foment an anti-Trump political firestorm.

Rod Rosenstein is the Dr. Frankenstein in this political horror show. He birthed a monster in Mueller, who is now rampaging through the streets of Manhattan in search of pre-presidential dirt. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that all of his claims about Trump-Cohen corruption are true. Is that impeachable material? No, it is not. The American people voted for Trump knowing full well that his pre-presidential record was checkered. Does anybody really think the American people are going to rise up and demand that not only the House but most of the Senate expel Trump from the presidency over an alleged campaign finance violation that doesn’t bear in the slightest upon the collusion question?

Mueller is expert at finding flaky witnesses. Cohen is his latest. His memories of conversations and meetings with Trump are no more reliable than Jim Comey’s. Cohen has given baldly contradictory accounts of his payments to Stormy Daniels. The notion that Trump could lose the presidency owing to the testimony of a sleazy casino lawyer strains all plausibility.

Mueller’s report will culminate in nothing more than an epic political food fight — a mode of combat Trump has perfected. Through his relentless tweeting, Trump has thoroughly educated the American people on the raw politics of Mueller’s probe — that he inherited a hopelessly tainted investigation from Trump haters ensconced in the Obama administration, that Mueller assembled a team of Hillary supporters to continue the probe, and that he has abandoned his DOJ mandate for a partisan fishing expedition of staggering proportions. The unfairness of it all has not been lost on the American people.

The media routinely calls Trump a “bully” even as it forms a mob encircling him, bellowing about this or that utterly trivial offense. None of it adds up to anything even close to impeachable material. From the fulminating, one would think that a foreign occupier had invaded Washington. Trump’s great crime was colluding not with Russians but with neglected American voters, with whom he ended the Clinton dynasty. While Hillary was waiting with bated breath for dirt from Russians conveyed to her British spy, Trump plunged into the American heartland, winning the election the old-fashioned way, by simply outhustling Hillary in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

I just got back from the latter state. Not a single mechanic, trucker, or waitress I met in Pennsylvania ever showed the slightest bit of interest in Mueller’s probe. Most of them probably don’t even know who Mueller is. That the media is staking its demolition of Trump on this gray, little-known ruling-class darling is a measure of its alienation from the American people. They simply don’t care about Trump’s pre-presidential sins, political screw-ups, and minor law-bending, if that even occurred.

Mueller is desperately trying to stitch together an impeachment case based on these thin threads. He struck out on collusion, then turned to obstruction of justice, only to realize that his star witness, Comey, is himself under investigation. So he resorted to a search for pre-presidential dirt and papered over the nothingness of his probe with indictments and convictions on matters far afield. Only members of the ruling class and media, who devote every waking moment to studying all things Trump at the granular level, could portray this probe as “momentous.” To most Americans, it remains a giant bore — an inside-the-Beltway parlor game of no particular interest to them or relevance to their lives.

Trump on Tuesday night resumed his mockery of the probe, asking at a rally in West Virginia, “Where is the collusion? You know, they’re still looking for collusion! Where is the collusion? Find some collusion. We want to find the collusion.” Mueller called off that search a long time ago, shifting to a Cohen, rather than collusion, probe, to which the America people will ask upon the release of his report: Why are we supposed to care?

Summary

Neumeyr is probably right forecasting that the long-awaited Mueller report will throw the kitchen sink garbage against POTUS hoping something will stick, thereby starting yet another food fight.  It seems too much for Team Mueller to come out exonerating Trump on the original issue.  But they have turned over every rock in vain to find damning evidence against the null hypothesis:  Trump campaign did not collaborate with the Russians.

Footnote:

“Silver Blaze” is the story of the disappearance of the titular race horse. It is believed that a stranger stole the horse, but Sherlock Holmes is able to pin the horse’s disappearance on the horse’s late trainer, John Straker, because a dog at the horse’s stable did not bark on the night of his disappearance. The following exchange takes place in the short story:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

 

Attesting Environmental Scares

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Attesting refers to a process evaluating the truth of a claim. In metallurgy, a laboratory will perform attestation procedures to measure the purity and quality of an ore sample or an alloy material. In legal terms, a witness provides evidence or proof attesting to a version of events.

Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian, raises an important question in his recent post How to Approach a Scientific Issue in the Public Arena.

So how can you, as a reasonably informed citizen, hope to come to a rational view as to which scary scientific claims to credit and which to dismiss? Unfortunately, most people’s default approach to dealing with scientific issues as to which they have no personal expertise is to defer to the asserted authority of a “consensus” of experts.

I have a proposed framework for you to apply. It’s a little more complicated than either the “follow the consensus” or “reject them all” approaches. But the good news is that it’s not all that much more complicated. And the even better news is that I think you will get the right answer in nearly every case; with, however, the proviso that that “right” answer may be ambiguity in many cases.

The Manhattan Contrarian Guide To Evaluating Environmental Scares can be summarized in four words: Follow The Scientific Method. Unfortunately, almost no journalist knows the basics of the Scientific Method (even though probably all of them were exposed to it somewhere in high school or even junior high school); and therefore, almost everything you read about environmental scares claiming the mantle of science is at the minimum misleading, if not downright wrong. Following the Scientific Method really directs you to looking at only three key questions to lead you to the right answer: 

1. What is the falsifiable hypothesis? The Scientific Method requires a falsifiable hypothesis. A falsifiable hypothesis requires a statement of the proposition at issue that by its nature can be falsified and thereby invalidated by some evidence that it is possible to acquire, and also a recognition by the proponents of the hypothesis as to what evidence, if it emerged, would be sufficient to falsify and invalidate the hypothesis. Without a statement of a falsifiable hypothesis, it is not science, no matter what the proponents may say, and therefore any claims of “scientific” consensus or “scientific” validity are an obvious fallacy.

2.What is the most damning adverse evidence against the falsifiable hypothesis? The Scientific Method provides that no hypothesis can ever be definitively proved, although accumulation of evidence consistent with the hypothesis can give increasing confidence over time of its correctness. However, one piece of adverse evidence can disprove a scientific hypothesis; and indeed, if an advocate of a scientific hypothesis does not concede that proposition, then you know that this is not real science. In any event, it is always much more important to look to adverse evidence challenging a hypothesis, no matter how little of it there may be, than to whatever reams and reams of evidence there may be allegedly consistent with the hypothesis. That stuff can regularly be used by advocates to mislead and misdirect you.

3.How do advocates of the hypothesis respond to the most damning adverse evidence? If they have an answer to it, let’s see it! It is particularly telling if advocates just refuse to address the best points of their opponents. If that is going on, you are completely justified in concluding that they have no answers, and that their proposition is false.

Now, let us apply these three questions to the cases of glyphosate and climate change.

Glyphosate.

What is the falsifiable hypothesis? I would say that it is this: “High levels of exposure to glyphosate are associated with increased risk of developing blood cancers, particularly non-Hodgkins lymphoma.” It’s easy and clear. And clearly falsifiable.

What is the most damning adverse evidence against the falsifiable hypothesis? Well, there is this from the statement of Monsanto VP Scott Partridge after the jury verdict: “More than 800 scientific studies and reviews—and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world—support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer.” That’s a start. To pick just one of the 800, in my November 2017 post I cited the U.S. Agricultural Health Study, which followed 89,000 farmers and their wives for 23 years from 1993 to 2016, and found “no association between glyphosate exposure and all cancer incidence or most of the specific cancer subtypes we evaluated, including NHL [non-Hodgkins lymphoma]. . . .”

How do the advocates respond to the most damning evidence? In this case, the answer is, basically, they have little in response. My understanding is that, rather than addressing the mountain of adverse studies (mostly done by people having no association with Monsanto), they principally relied on one outlier UN report, produced by a guy who promptly became a consultant to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit industry, and which reached its ambiguous conclusion in significant part by altering the conclusions of the underlying work that it cited. For more details, read my November 2017 post. But the most significant point is that, under the Scientific Method, the adverse evidence is far more important than any evidence that might be cited as consistent with the hypothesis, even if extensive. In this case, a falsifiable hypothesis has been quite definitively invalidated.

As you can see, if you just follow the Scientific Method, you quickly find that those on the side that glyphosate does not cause cancer have far the better side of the argument. Perhaps it is not 100% definitive, but it is close.

Climate Change

What is the falsifiable hypothesis? There isn’t one! And good luck trying to find a statement of the official falsifiable hypothesis from any advocate of climate alarmism. I have previously invited readers and commenters on this blog to give me a statement of the falsifiable hypothesis on which climate alarmists claim there is a “consensus,” and I have never gotten even an attempt of any kind. I hereby make the invitation again. To get an idea of the shell game you are dealing with, try going to this NASA web page titled “Global Climate Change/Facts.” (What is that page still doing there over a year and a half into a Trump presidency??!!) Here’s the leading headline: “Scientific Consensus: Earth’s climate is warming.” Is that a falsifiable hypothesis? Absolutely not! It’s a trivial non-falsifiable statement whose result can be manipulated by whoever gets to pick the start date of the analysis. See my post of August 9 here. And then they provide a list of some dozens of pooh-bah “scientific” organizations that supposedly subscribe to this non-falsifiable non-scientific proposition, everything from AAAS, to ACS, to AGU, to AMA, to AMS, to APS, to NAS, and on and on and on. It’s embarrassing! How stupid do they think you are? (Another question is, how stupid are they? Do our scientific leaders even understand what the Scientific Method is?) Any other candidates for the falsifiable hypothesis? Now this is me trying to help these guys out, rather than them speaking for themselves, but how about “the climate is warming and we are the cause”? Or maybe, “accumulating greenhouse gases from human sources are causing catastrophic warming of the atmosphere”? OK then, what is the evidence that, if it emerged, would be conceded to invalidate whichever of these hypothesis (or some other one) that you pick? You will never get that out of them.

What is the most damning adverse evidence against the falsifiable hypothesis? This is a little tough to deal with when no one will tell you the falsifiable hypothesis, but let’s assume it is the last one there (“accumulating greenhouse gases from human sources are causing catastrophic warming of the atmosphere”). Well, there is the clear demonstration that natural factors such as solar effects, ocean currents (El Niño/La Niña), and volcanoes are more than sufficient to explain all global temperature variations since reasonably accurate data are available (the 1950s) without the need to take into account any effects from human greenhouse gas emission. And then there is the demonstration that the so-called “tropical hot spot” (decreased lapse rate of temperatures with increasing altitude in the tropics that would necessarily accompany any hypothesized greenhouse warming caused by human emissions) does not exist in the data. And then there is the demonstration that the earth’s temperatures were warmer in early years (Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Holocene Climate Optimum, etc.) — when human greenhouse gas influences could not have played a part — than they are today. And then there is the demonstration of alteration of the global temperature record by the advocates of alarmism to remove the peak of temperatures that previously existed in the early 1940s. I could go on.

How do the advocates respond to the most damning evidence against the hypothesis? And here the answer is, they don’t and they won’t. Go to anything resembling an official defense of the “global warming consensus” and see if you can find any kind of answer to any of these damning points. For example, try NASA’s Global Climate Change site, under the heading “Evidence.” You will just find point after point of evidence supposedly consistent with the hypothesis (stated here as “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” — again, obviously non-falsifiable). Temperatures have risen! The oceans have warmed! Ice sheets have shrunk! Less snow! Sea levels have risen! OK, guys, but how do you know that slightly higher temperatures underlying all of these things have not been caused by something natural like increasing solar activity, shifting ocean currents, or temporarily low volcanic activity? They just won’t address these things! Why not? Really, it’s embarrassing.

If you arm your brain with the basics of the Scientific Method, it is immediately obvious that this whole thing is a charade.

Comment

Menton’s approach resembles “evidence-based” medicine and law, as I have discussed in the article Objection: Asserting Facts Not in Evidence! There as here, the deliberation starts with an “answerable question”, meaning a conclusion of yes or no, based upon all relevant evidence.

With respect to global warming/climate change, I have posed the question this way: Are rising fossil fuel emissions causing rising global temperatures? When a claim involves correlation between two variables, asserting that one causes the other, the legal profession applies the Bradford Hill protocol to assess causation factors. The deliberation requires evidence concerning the strength and certainty of the correlation. That discussion is in the article Claim: Fossil Fuels Cause Global Warming

For the history of environmental scares see Progressively Scaring the World (Lewin book synopsis)

Taxing Carbon More Dangerous Than Not

Posted on by Ron Clutz

A new study has fossil fuel activists twisting in the wind. The paper is Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy

The paper is behind a paywall, but some detail is available from carbonbrief Global carbon tax in isolation could ‘exacerbate food insecurity by 2050’ Excerpts in italics with my bolds and some comments.

The research finds that using a blanket “carbon tax” to restrict global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels – which is the limit set by the Paris Agreement – would put an additional 45 million people at risk of hunger by 2050.

The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, zooms in on how implementing a uniform tax on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and other types of land use, in particular, could impact food security worldwide.

The introduction of a carbon tax could threaten food security in three main ways, the researchers say.

First, the tax would raise the cost of food production, especially for carbon-intensive products such as meat.

Second, the tax would raise the costs associated with agriculture expansion, which would lead to higher land rents.

Third, the tax would incentivise the production of biofuels – which would compete with food crops for space, further driving up land rates.

All three of these consequences could drive up food prices, which would be costly for the world’s lowest earners – who spend up to 60-80% of their income on food.

The new study compares how levels of hunger would differ in a world with climate change alone to a world with climate mitigation, including a uniform carbon tax.

The results show that a blanket carbon tax “would have a greater negative impact on global hunger and food consumption than the direct impacts of climate change”, the scientists say in their research paper.

Instead, policies that can help slash emissions from agriculture while aiding development should be prioritised, says lead author Dr Tomoko Hasegawa, a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and Japan’s National Institute for Environment Studies. In a statement, she said:

“Carbon pricing schemes will not bring any viable options for developing countries where there are highly vulnerable populations. Mitigation in agriculture should instead be integrated with development policies.”

To understand the impacts of mitigation efforts, the researchers compared a world where warming is limited to 2C to a world where no efforts to tackle climate change are made before 2050.

The former scenario assumes that the world shifts from a reliance on fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy, and that a uniform carbon price is rapidly introduced “across all sectors and regions” and is steadily increased in the coming decades.

(The scenarios use three different “socio-economic pathways” to make assumptions about how factors, such as population growth, are likely to change by 2050.)

The results show that, by 2050, the risk of hunger in some of the world’s least developed countries could be higher in the scenarios with mitigation than in the scenarios without mitigation – despite the fact that these scenarios expect greater declines in crop yields.

In the scenarios without mitigation, the number of people at risk of hunger by 2050 is expected to increase by 5-56 million.

In the scenarios with mitigation, an additional 13-170 million people could face hunger. The increase in those at risk is expected to be largest in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia, including India and Bangladesh.

The charts below show the expected changes in the number of people at risk of hunger (left) and the number of calories consumed per person per day (right) by 2050 under the mitigation (RCP2.6) and “no-mitigation” (RCP6.0) scenarios.

The expected changes in the number of people at risk of hunger (left) and the number of calories consumed per person per day (right) by 2050 under a mitigation (RCP2.6) and “no-mitigation” (RCP6.0) scenario. The average impacts of climate change (green) and mitigation via the introduction of a carbon tax (orange) are shown. Symbols show the results from different models Source: Hasegawa et al. (2018).

Comment Regarding Climate Direct Effects upon Food Security

The impacts shown in green are hypothetical, though assumed as baselline truth by the researchers. The supposition is: Climate change could threaten global food security by increasing the chance of staple crop failures in many parts of the world, such as across Africa and the US.

The fact is, staple crops are booming with increasing CO2 and the warm temperatures enjoyed by plants and humans alike. Some researchers have been working frantically to claim CO2 damages plant productivity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. One line of attack claims CO2 doesn’t make plants grow larger in the face of other limiting conditions like moisture or soil nutrients. True enough, but reducing CO2 is not the cause or the answer when that happens.  See Researchers Against CO2 for the details

Another line of attack is claiming the plants are larger but are not as nutritious. Studies showed that plants can have lower concentrations of some nutrients owing to their large size from CO2 enrichment, but the take up of soil nutrients was not diminished by more CO2 or warmth. See CO2 Destroys Food Nutrition! Not.

Summary

In their research paper, the scientists say the findings “should not be interpreted to downplay the importance of future GHG emissions mitigation efforts, or to suggest that climate policy will cause more harm than good”.

Nothing could be farther from the obvious implications of this analysis.  The supposed crop failures are nowhere to be seen with every year setting new records for productivity.  So the future negative effects from rising CO2 are totally speculation.  While the economic impacts from taxing carbon pose a real and present danger to food security.

H/T GWPF BENEFITS OF GLOBAL WARMING: RECORD HARVESTS REPORTED IN NUMEROUS COUNTRIES

 

Autumn Will Save Us from Climate Change

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Hot, Hot, Hot.  You will have noticed that the term “climate change” is now synonymous with “summer”.  Since the northern hemisphere is where most of the world’s land, people and media are located, two typical summer months (June was not so hot) have been depicted as the fires of hell awaiting any and all who benefit from fossil fuels. If you were wondering what the media would do in the absence of hurricanes to heap upon our heads, you are getting the answer.

Fortunately, Autumn is on the way and already bringing cooler evenings in Montreal where I live. Once again open windows provide fresh air for sleeping, and mornings are starting to show condensation. This year’s period of “climate change” is winding down.  Unless of course, we get some hurricanes the next two months.  Below is a repost of seasonal changes in temperature and climate for those who may have been misled by the media reports of a forever hotter future.

geese-in-v-formation

Autumnal Climate Change

Seeing a lot more of this lately, along with hearing the geese  honking. And in the next month or so, we expect that trees around here will lose their leaves. It definitely is climate change of the seasonal variety.

Interestingly, the science on this is settled: It is all due to reduction of solar energy because of the shorter length of days (LOD). The trees drop their leaves and go dormant because of less sunlight, not because of lower temperatures. The latter is an effect, not the cause.

Of course, the farther north you go, the more remarkable the seasonal climate change. St. Petersburg, Russia has their balmy “White Nights” in June when twilight is as dark as it gets, followed by the cold, dark winter and a chance to see the Northern Lights.

And as we have been monitoring, the Arctic ice has been melting from sunlight in recent months, but will soon begin to build again in the darkness to its maximum in March.

We can also expect in January and February for another migration of millions of Canadians (nicknamed “snowbirds”) to fly south in search of a summer-like climate to renew their memories and hopes. As was said to me by one man in Saskatchewan (part of the Canadian wheat breadbasket region): “Around here we have Triple-A farmers: April to August, and then Arizona.” Here’s what he was talking about: Quartzsite Arizona annually hosts 1.5M visitors, mostly between November and March.

Of course, this is just North America. Similar migrations occur in Europe, and in the Southern Hemisphere, the climates are changing in the opposite direction, Springtime currently. Since it is so obviously the sun causing this seasonal change, the question arises: Does the sunlight vary on longer than annual timescales?

The Solar-Climate Debate

And therein lies a great, enduring controversy between those (like the IPCC) who dismiss the sun as a driver of multi-Decadal climate change, and those who see a connection between solar cycles and Earth’s climate history. One side can be accused of ignoring the sun because of a prior commitment to CO2 as the climate “control knob”.

The other side is repeatedly denounced as “cyclomaniacs” in search of curve-fitting patterns to prove one or another thesis. It is also argued that a claim of 60-year cycles can not be validated with only 150 years or so of reliable data. That point has weight, but it is usually made by those on the CO2 bandwagon despite temperature and CO2 trends correlating for only 2 decades during the last century.

One scientist in this field is Nicola Scafetta, who presents the basic concept this way:

“The theory is very simple in words. The solar system is characterized by a set of specific gravitational oscillations due to the fact that the planets are moving around the sun. Everything in the solar system tends to synchronize to these frequencies beginning with the sun itself. The oscillating sun then causes equivalent cycles in the climate system. Also the moon acts on the climate system with its own harmonics. In conclusion we have a climate system that is mostly made of a set of complex cycles that mirror astronomical cycles. Consequently it is possible to use these harmonics to both approximately hindcast and forecast the harmonic component of the climate, at least on a global scale. This theory is supported by strong empirical evidences using the available solar and climatic data.”

He goes on to say:

“The global surface temperature record appears to be made of natural specific oscillations with a likely solar/astronomical origin plus a noncyclical anthropogenic contribution during the last decades. Indeed, because the boundary condition of the climate system is regulated also by astronomical harmonic forcings, the astronomical frequencies need to be part of the climate signal in the same way the tidal oscillations are regulated by soli-lunar harmonics.”

He has concluded that “at least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system.” For the near future he predicts a stabilization of global temperature and cooling until 2030-2040.

For more see Scafetta vs. IPCC: Dueling Climate Theories

A Deeper, but Accessible Presentation of Solar-Climate Theory

I have found this presentation by Ian Wilson to be persuasive while honestly considering all of the complexities involved.

The author raises the question: What if there is a third factor that not only drives the variations in solar activity that we see on the Sun but also drives the changes that we see in climate here on the Earth?

The linked article is quite readable by a general audience, and comes to a similar conclusion as Scafetta above: There is a connection, but it is not simple cause and effect. And yes, length of day (LOD) is a factor beyond the annual cycle.

Click to access IanwilsonForum2008.pdf

It is fair to say that we are still at the theorizing stage of understanding a solar connection to earth’s climate. And at this stage, investigators look for correlations in the data and propose theories (explanations) for what mechanisms are at work. Interestingly, despite the lack of interest from the IPCC, solar and climate variability is a very active research field these days.

For example Svensmark has now a Cosmosclimatology theory supported by empirical studies described in more detail in the red link.

A summary of recent studies is provided at NoTricksZone: Since 2014, 400 Scientific Papers Affirm A Strong Sun-Climate Link

Ian Wilson has much more to say at his blog: http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/

Once again, it appears that the world is more complicated than a simple cause and effect model suggests.

Fluctuations in observed global temperatures can be explained by a combination of oceanic and solar cycles.  See engineering analysis from first principles Quantifying Natural Climate Change.

For everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
(Ecclesiastes 3:1 and 1:9)

Footnote:

marching-orders

 

 

Climate Change Battle Report

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Anyone paying attention knows this summer the media has assaulted the public with many climate scares, both old and new. Each week we see new ones like “marine heat waves” added to threats that 2018 summer temperatures will be repeated and increased until 2022. All sorts of dire consequences are proclaimed, and for what purpose? It can only be the intent to recruit us to join the “fight against climate change.”

Curious as to what jurisdictions might be doing, I went searching for news about actions to strike blows against the climate change nemesis. Media headlines frequently announce that this or that nation, province or city is stepping up to “Fight Climate Change.”  The results are informative.

What Actions Count as Fighting Climate Change

For example a report Ireland will raise carbon tax to tackle climate change. In the text it is announced the nation is not reducing emissions on schedule, and is taking three actions: Setting and raising a tax on carbon, spending more on fuel efficiencies, renewables and climate adaptation projects, and divesting from fossil fuel companies.

Then there is an article Mexico and Canada Join Growing Under2 Climate Coalition  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The growing Under2 Coalition is a global pact of cities, states and countries pledging to limit the increase in global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius, the level of potentially catastrophic consequences.

With Canada and Mexico’s endorsements, the Under2 Coalition now includes 170 jurisdictions on six continents that collectively represent more than 1.18 billion people and $27.5 trillion GDP – equivalent to 16 percent of the global population and 37 percent of the global economy.

“The governments in the Under2 coalition, like California, are leading the fight against climate change. They know that investing in clean growth will help all members reach their ambitious climate change goals and grow their countries’ economies. I applaud their leadership in reducing emissions and supporting clean innovation. Canada is proud to endorse their actions today,” said Minister McKenna.

Coalition members pledge to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 2 tons per capita or 80-95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

This action builds on landmark legislation Governor Brown signed in October 2015 to generate half of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and double the rate of energy efficiency savings in California buildings. Governor Brown has also committed to reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent within the next 15 years; make heating fuels cleaner; and manage farm and rangelands, forests and wetlands so they can store carbon.

What is the Climate Battleground

Some of these actions are purely symbolic virtue signaling and will have no effect on either CO2 emissions or global warming. Divestment for example is a transfer of shares to other investors with no impact upon the value of the target companies. The virtue is not free, in that the portfolio loses diversity (energy being counter cyclical to other businesses), and other industries often generate lower returns. And if the reinvestment is into renewables, those companies’ performance depends on government subsidies that are presently being withdrawn. Another sham is purchasing carbon free electricity credits from a grid mostly supplied by coal and gas plants.

In short there seem actually to be Three Lines of Attack
1.Adaptation and Resilience
2.Improving Energy Efficiencies
3.Transition to Zero Carbon Energy

The first two are worthy initiatives. History proves that future periods are likely to be both colder and warmer than the present, and cold times are the greater threat to human life and prosperity. Prudent public officials should invest in robust infrastructure and reliable, affordable energy. The rub is powering a modern society with windmills and solar panels.

How Goes the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels

The first objective in the Great Green Transition is to stop the use of Coal, Climate Enemy #1. An update report on that front comes from Vijay Jayaraj, Aug 18, 2018, at Townhall The Dawn of Climate Realism: Coal Surges Amid Climate Rhetoric  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Many countries have been at the crisscross of warfare between anti-coal establishments and the traditional coal industry. Despite the elite-empowered and politically motivated worldwide campaign to phase out coal, demand for coal is on the rise!

Coal has been “enemy No. 1” for the climate establishment. In fact, it would seem that the entire global warming movement is hinged upon the singular aim to eliminate coal from use.

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is a notion that cites a popular scientific hypothesis and concludes that the global temperatures have risen, or will soon rise, to dangerous levels in the post-industrialized era due to human activity.

The proponents of CAGW believe that the primary contributor to this increase in temperature is the combustion of coal and the subsequent release of carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere.

However, peer-reviewed scientific journals by hundreds of scientists render many of these claims dubious at best. Here are just three of them.

Firstly, contrary to the claim that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of global warming, global temperatures have not risen proportionately to carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. In other words, an increase in carbon dioxide emission has not resulted in an increase in temperature.

Secondly, most of the current “consensus” on climate change is based on forecasts from computer climate models. But the wide divergence between observed temperature and model predictions makes it apparent that the models were programmed incorrectly to be over-dependent on carbon dioxide concentration to predict temperature changes.

In what was a major embarrassment to United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), top climate scientists admitted these flaws in the climate models when they failed to reflect real-world temperatures during the last 19 years. The same was widely publicized and even testified to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology.

Thirdly, contrary to the claim that recent warming is historically unprecedented, today’s temperature levels are similar to the temperatures the earth experienced in the first and eleventh centuries. Also known as Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period, these were times when, though as warm as today or warmer, the earth’s ecosystems flourished. The notion that “today’s temperature levels are at unprecedented levels” is completely false.

Despite these (and many more) straight-forward evidences against the CAGW hypothesis, the climate establishment continues to advocate for the ban of coal and coal-fired power plants. Global climate treaties like the Paris Agreement were set out to target and close down coal plants in developing countries.

But to their surprise, coal use is rising.

This financial year, Coal India—India’s largest state-controlled coal mining company—saw its first-quarter profits jump 61 percent and its coal production rise 15.23 percent. India has a long-term vision to increase its coal output and has been vocal about “carbon imperialism”—a term it uses to define the attitude of the anti-coal climate establishment.

In 2017, coal accounted for 60.4 percent of total energy consumption in China. The country’s coal production outputs for the first seven months of 2018 was 1.98 billion tons, 3.4 percent higher than the same period last year. China’s coal imports surged this July and hit a record high (29 million tons), beating the previous highest recorded monthly volume import (January 2014).

But the surge in coal is not just limited to Asia.

Russia’s coal production of 410 million tons was its highest since the Soviet era and is expected to reach 420 million tons this year. The coal industry is set to expand in the coming years with massive infrastructure upgrades.

U.S. coal output reached a 16-year high in 2017 (701 million tons), after a change in leadership that saw the lifting of heavy restrictions on coal from the previous administration. Coal output in 2017 was 40.8 million tons higher than in 2016, and India was the top importer of U.S. coal in Asia (13 million tons).

The trend continued in 2018, and the month of April recorded the highest coal export in five years. U.S exports to India reached 6.2 million tons in just the first half of 2018, which is nearly the entire export (6.8m tons) to India in 2017! And coal is expected to do fairly well in the U.S. despite the disruption from the natural gas boom.

The situations for coal in India, China, and the U.S. are prime examples of the coal industry’s strength. It can also be said that the climate rhetoric has failed to break the world’s dependence on coal. And for good reason. Coal remains among the cheapest, and technically simplest, sources of the abundant, affordable, reliable electricity indispensable to the modern industry and technology that are indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies out of poverty.

Leaders across the globe understand the indispensable role of coal in their economies. They are also beginning to understand the exaggerated nature of climate-change dangers promoted heavily in the mainstream media.

The climate establishment’s doomsday prophecies failed to come true in the last 20 years, which saw global temperature remain largely stable. Arctic ice remained stable, global agricultural outputs increased, more people rose out of poverty, and the forests in Europe grew instead of shrinking.

Clearly, there is no reason why the coal industry should slow down, and it won’t. Overblown climate-change rhetoric is leading rapidly to the downfall of the climate establishment, and nations are moving past it at a rapid pace.

Postscript: