That’s exactly the 17th Century time warp scenario that played out last week on the Senate floor as Chief Inquisitor Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI) and 18 fellow jurists intoned judgments against dozens of organizations for sins of “denial blocking action on climate.” Most of those sinful deniers are nonprofit conservative think tanks, including several that I am sinfully very proud to associate with.
And nope, like most of those other sinful deniers, I don’t get paid to think in any tank.
The purpose of this floor show was to vilify and intimidate a hit list for the Democratic drafting committee’s unanimously adopted platform calling for the Department of Justice to investigate those who disagree with their jihad against climate alarm-driven energy regulatory policies.
That position follows legal actions against ExxonMobil by attorneys general from California, Massachusetts, New York, and the Virgin Islands which demand that the company turn over decades of correspondence with a lengthy fishing trip listing of other suspected climate crisis skeptics.
The drafting committee ordained that all fossil fuel use must be banished by 2050. Its high priests include noted alarmist climate activist and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben and Carol Browner, who directed President Barack Obama’s White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.
Their summary report states: “Moving beyond the ‘all of the above’ energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50% clean electricity within the next 10 years.”
They are already making great strides. Just as the President Obama promised, in the interest of ending billions of years of climate change the coal industry, which has provided 18% of America’s primary fuel, is now bankrupt.
Per a previous analysis of rising seas surrounding Pacific islands, the satellite measurements indicate that seas are rising but at a very meager rate. The current sea rise rate is significantly below what consensus climate science alarmists have predicted.
So, how do the doomsday claims that tropical islands are being lost to “rapidly” rising seas compare to reality?
Scientific peer-reviewed research can answer that question: The claims are bogus.
A new study examined the Jaluit Atoll of the Marshall Islands.
“…the pair of New Zealand researchers set out to examine historical changes in 87 islands found within the Jaluit Atoll…over the period 1945-2010. During this time, the islands were subjected to ongoing sea level rise and the passage of a notable typhoon…which caused severe damage with its >100 knot winds and abnormal wave heights…caused a decrease in total island land area of approximately five percent, yet Ford and Kench write that “despite [this] significant typhoon-driven erosion and a relaxation period coincident with local sea-level rise, [the] islands have persisted and grown.” Between 1976 and 2006, for example, 73 out of the 87 islands increased in size, and by 2010, the total landmass of the islands had exceeded the pre-typhoon area by nearly 4 percent.”
Simply stated, this study again confirms that doomsday prognostications based on climate model simulations have no relation to the actual Pacific island/atoll reality during periods of sea rise.
The tide of money, the vested interests flows
H/t to Eric Worrall at WattsUp.
The current “green” industry is already around $1.5 Trillion a year. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England said he expects this to grow to $5-7 trillion.
Financial Post: Climate change a $7 trillion funding opportunity
He said that given the enormous funding needs for clean infrastructure — he estimates at somewhere between $5 trillion and $7 trillion a year — investment opportunities will rebound.
If clean green energy was efficient, cheap and reliable there would be no “funding need” as the market would leap to exploit that opportunity. Instead most leadinginvestors act like they are skeptics. The fact that central bankers are selling it so aggressively says a lot. Perhaps central bankers want to help the poor and save the world, or could it be that the entire financial industry will profit from a fake, forced market and another fiat currency? What are the brokerage fees on a $7T market…
Again we get this “free market” myth:
[Carbon pricing is the cleanest way for markets to judge the tangible exposure to climate change,” said Carney
Carbon pricing has failed to change the weather all over the world. Free markets don’t work when they aren’t free and when they apply to a ubiquitous molecule involved in almost every life form on the planet. And what does “clean pricing” mean anyway? The cost benefit assessment of using solar panels to reduce your exposure to flood damage in 2100 is as filthy-dirty-a-calculation as anything gets. Calculations don’t get messier, blacker or more pointless than this. Crunch those numbers and then bury them in 6 feet of volcanic ash.
The idea of slapping a market onto a product that is mostly produced and consumed by nature is bizarre in the extreme. Almost none of players in a global carbon market will respond to the incentives on offer. The Pacific Ocean won’t buy a credit, and nor will phytoplankton, cows, sheep or yeast. Even in the 4% of the market controlled by humans, demand is “inelastic”, meaning the costs of energy already force most of the market to be efficient. The gains that are left are minor, pathetic creeping improvements. So sweeping, economy wide measures are inefficient, even if the IPCC models weren’t broken.
Though it’s not 100% clear whether Carney meant “annually” or …
New Paper: China temperatures warmer during the 1700s, linked to solar, volcanic, and AMO/PDO forcing
By Kenneth Richard
A new 368-year tree ring temperature reconstruction has established that regional (China) summer temperatures were warmer than they are now (2012) during the mid-1600s and early 1700s, and that the temperature variations can be linked to variations in solar activity, volcanic forcing (cooling), and natural oceanic-atmospheric oscillations (AMO/PDO).
The authors are intent on pointing out that it is “noteworthy that 20th century warming was not very obvious in our reconstruction.” This “noteworthy” finding is mentioned four different times in the paper.
The lack of a conspicuous 20th century warming — and the warmer periods during the 1600s and 1700s — are clearly shown in the summer temperature graph below:
Annual and 11-year smoothed regional July–August mean maximum temperature reconstruction (blue and red lines, respectively); superimposed is the 11-year smoothed instrumental record (pink line).
Zhu and co-authors also do not mention CO2 as a “possible forcing mechanism” in their extensive discussion of the causes of temperature variations for the last 368 years, probably because there is little to no correlation between the decadal-scale temperature variations (warming and cooling periods) and the precipitous rise in atmospheric CO2 during the 20th and 21st centuries.
Below is a summary of the key points from the paper Zhu et al., 2016:
A 368-year maximum temperature reconstruction
During the period 1875–1955, late summer temperature fluctuated less strongly than before or thereafter. In general, the average length of cold periods was shorter than that of warm periods. The cold period of 1869–1877 was the longest and coldest cool period had a mean of 17.63°C. The longest warm period extended from 1655 to 1668, and the warmest period in AD 1719–1730 had a mean of 20.37°C. However, we should point out that the rapid warming during the 20th century was not especially obvious in our reconstructed RLST.
[S]even cold periods and three warm periods were identified during the past 368 years (Fig. 4d). All the cold periods were during the Maunder (1708–1711) or Dalton (1818– 1821, 1824–1828, 1832–1836, and 1839–1842) solar minima periods, except for the cold periods of 1765–1769 and 1869–1877 (Eddy, 1976; Shindell et al., 1999), which indicated that RLST [mean maximum temperature] variations in the NWSP [northwestern Sichuan Plateau, China ] might be driven
India’s environmental minister said Monday that an American weapons system, which is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, is behind global warming.
“The US has developed a type of weapon called High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP). It strikes the upper atmosphere with a focussed and steerable electromagnetic beam,” Anil Madhav Dave, India’s Environmental Minister, told Business Standard Monday. “HAARP is an advanced model of a super powerful ionospheric heater which may cause the globe to warm and have global warming effect.”
HAARP is a regular target of conspiracy theorists, who claim that it was capable of modifying weather, disable satellites and control people’s brains. Conspiracy theorists have blamed HAARP for causing earthquakes, droughts, floods, the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 the 2003 destruction of the space shuttle Columbia and Hurricane Sandy.
In reality, HAARP is a research station currently owned by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The system was used to study the upper atmosphere and investigate its potential for monitoring radio communications. Scientific research done with HAARP has been routinely published in major peer-reviewed journals.
India is the world’s fastest growing, and third largest, emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2). In 2014, India got 59 percent of its electricity from coal, and Indian leaders are ramping up the country’s coal production by opening a new mine every month. The country appears set to literally double down on coal by doubling production and building 87,122 megawatts of new coal power capacity. Even with that level of coal use, it is estimated that 400 million Indians, 31 percent of the population, lack access to electricity.