Another Global Threat Down The Drain

Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line yesterday about some recent research on deforestation. It seems that it is not happening.

The article reports:

I have noted from time to time the data from the United Nations Global Forest Resource Assessment (UNGFRA) that has found that deforestation stopped at least 25 years ago, and that net reforestation has been taking place.

But the UN data is not as good as one would like. This week, however, Naturemagazine published a major new studywith much more precise measurements and analysis than the UNGFRA based on 35 years’ worth of satellite imagery, and it finds that since 1982 global forest cover has increasedby 7.2 percent, or 2.24 million kilometers.

The article includes information from the study:

Changes in land use and land cover considerably alter the Earth’s energy balance and biogeochemical cycles, which contributes to climate change and—in turn—affects land surface properties and the provision of ecosystem services. However, quantification of global land change is lacking. Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics. Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia. Of all land changes, 60% are associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect drivers such as climate change. Land-use change exhibits regional dominance, including tropical deforestation and agricultural expansion, temperate reforestation or afforestation, cropland intensification and urbanization. Consistently across all climate domains, montane systems have gained tree cover and many arid and semi-arid ecosystems have lost vegetation cover. The mapped land changes and the driver attributions reflect a human-dominated Earth system.

In addition to the reforestation of the earth, global warming has slowed down since 1999.

In 2014, the BBC reported:

Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown.

The researchers says this slow-moving current could continue to divert heat into the deep seas for another decade.

However, they caution that global temperatures are likely to increase rapidly when the cycle flips to a warmer phase.

I guess those who study the earth and its climate have not yet figured out all of the answers.

When We Mean Well, But Just Don’t Get It Right

On Friday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial about recycling. Most American communities have made provisions to recycle items rather than just dump them in the landfill, but evidently things are not always what they seem. China used to take about one third of America’s recycled material, but China has put strict rules on what it will accept–generally refusing most of our recycled material. This has resulted in many recycling companies dumping recyclables into landfills. So all of our sorting efforts are for naught.

The editorial reports:

But this isn’t even the worst of it. As John Tierney explained in an exhaustive analysis of recycling programs, also published by the New York Times, recycling is not only costly, but doesn’t do much to help the environment.

The claim that recycling is essential to avoid running out of landfill space is hogwash, since all the stuff Americans throw away for the next 1,000 years would fit into “one-tenth of 1% of land available for grazing,” Tierney says.

Other environmental benefits, he finds, are negligible, and come at an exceedingly high price. Tierney notes, for example, that washing plastics before recycling them, as is the recommended practice, could end up adding to greenhouse gas emissions. And the extra trucks and processing facilities produce CO2 as well.

Since it costs far more to recycle trash than to bury it, governments are wasting money that could be more effectively spent elsewhere.

We need to find a way to convert waste into energy without pollution. That might be a pipe dream, but it is a worthwhile goal.

 

A Picture Of The Climate Change Fraud

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line today explaining why global warming is a hoax.

Included in the article is the following chart:

The panic over global warming is a thinly disguised attempt to take money away from free nations where people have earned it and give the money to nations that recognize neither freedom or personal property rights. It is the latest form of socialism to be trendy on planet earth.

The article at Power Line concludes:

As discussed in the Climategate emails, this (chart) is how Mann and his fellow alarmists “hi[d] the decline” in Briffa’s data. It is hard to imagine a worse case of scientific fraud, but the history of alarmist “climate science” is rife with this kind of misconduct. In my opinion, the systematic alteration of data by government agencies to make the past look cooler is just as bad. This is what happens when governments offer billions of dollars to scientists, but only if they come up with ever more alarming predictions of what will happen if we don’t give the political class more money and power.

Enhanced by Zemanta

My Nomination For The Understatement Of The Year

Yesterday wattsupwiththat posted an article entitled, “Report from the Office of the Inspector General: Global Climate Change Program Data May Be Unreliable.” No kidding. First of all, climate change has been with us since the early days of earth. Second of all, in 1985 TIME Magazine predicted global cooling (which I think may have actually been right). We have already read the emails showing that the charts used to create panic about global warming were rigged. Now the Inspector General is getting into the act.

The article reports:

Lack of oversight, non-compliance and a lax review process for the State Department’s global climate change programs have led the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to conclude that program data “cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers” and it cannot be ensured “that Federal funds were being spent in an appropriate manner.”

…OIG’s original report found that “OES did not fully implement the guidance for conducting [Data Quality Assessments] to help ensure that the data used in reporting programmatic results were complete, accurate, consistent, and supportable.”

Unfortunately climate science has become a vehicle for poorer countries to shake down richer countries by holding the richer countries responsible for global warming. It is almost impossible to trust any of the data that has been released on climate change. Until the link between politics and science is broken, we really don’t know what the truth is. There are some of us, however, who at this point would not object to a small amount of global warming.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Panic–Here’s The Picture

As a major snowstorm bears down on the northeastern United States and a bunch of scientists and tourists are stuck in unusually thick ice in Antarctica, the U.K. Telegraph proclaims that the earth is warming faster than ever.

The rebuttal can be found at wattsupwiththat in an article entitled, “IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in the ARS final draft.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its Assessment Reports on Science (ARS).

The article at wattsupwiththat reports:

In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.

A graph in the article explains the problem with the old model on global warming:

clip_image020

Unfortunately, global warming science has become more about obtaining funds for studies and about redistribution of wealth. I think when we finally look at global warming objectively (if we ever do), we will be amazed at how easily we were deceived.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

As 2013 Draws To A Close

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line today that included the following graph:

screenhunter_437-dec-19-17-16

The graph is from a website called Real Science. The article at Real Science states that 2013 will go down as one of the coldest years in history since 1895. The graph shows the average temperatures recorded at all NOAA USHCN stations from 1895 to the present.

The article at Real Science mentions the following:

NOAA will reporting something very different, because they subtract up to 1.7 degrees from older temperatures. Essentially all reported US warming is due to a hockey stick of temperature adjustments, which makes the past appear to be much colder than what the thermometers measured at the time. (They of course do not mention this in their press releases.)

I don’t know if the earth is warming or cooling. What I do know is that man is not important enough in the grand scheme of things to significantly impact the earth’s climate. Those who are shrieking that we are all going to die unless we give money to dictators in underdeveloped countries are really not primarily concerned about the planet. They have other priorities. I would like to  mention that most of the civilized countries in the world  have taken steps to curb pollution of all kinds. The idea of penalizing countries for being civilized is someone’s very bad idea for redistributing wealth worldwide. The way to prosper poorer countries is to give them freedom and property rights, but somehow that never gets mentioned by the global warming crowd.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Happens A Lot

Some conservatives call it the “Al Gore Effect.” Almost every time global warming groups plan a big meeting in Washington, they get snowed out (you’d think they would get smart and move their meetings to Florida). Well, it happened again.

Western Journalism reported yesterday that this week the White House hosted the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience. The group headed to Washington, D.C. to discuss a plan of action against the perceived threat of global warming just as a massive winter storm struck the nation’s capital.

The article reports:

One of the participants, Gov. Pat Quinn of Obama’s beloved Illinois, made the trip Tuesday after Chicago experienced its coldest night in nearly 20 years. Everyone on the task force got a taste of reality as D.C. was largely shut down due to inclement weather.

Though government offices were closed, the global warming summit continued as planned. This delicious irony was apparently lost on these cult-like adherents to a flawed climatological hypothesis.

There is a school of meteorology that has been warming of global cooling due to the slow down in the number of solar flares (rightwinggranny.com). These scientists believe that the sun has a very large impact on the earth’s climate.

Meanwhile, global warming meetings keep encountering unexpected snow storms.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Did Your Child Learn In School Today?

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article about a quiz given to a ninth-grade Health Class in New Canaan, Connecticut. The quiz is entitled, “How WELLthy Are You?”

Some of the statements in the quiz:

“I vote for pro-environmental candidates in elections” is one of the statements.

“I write my elected leaders about environmental concerns” is another one.

Still other statements in the section include “I report people who intentionally hurt the environment” and “I try not to leave the faucet running too long when I brush my teeth, shave, or bathe.”

For example, the “Spiritual Health” section contains this hopelessly confused religious statement: “I have faith in greater power, be it a God-like force, nature, or the connectedness of all living things.”

The article further reports:

A score of 35-40 points in each category allegedly indicates that New Canaan ninth-graders are “practicing good health habits” and “setting an example” for “family and friends to follow.” It is mathematically impossible for ninth-graders to achieve this score in the “Environmental Health” section if they “rarely, if ever” vote for “pro-environmental candidates” or write to “elected leaders about environmental concerns.”

I have no problem with encouraging high school freshmen to protect the environment and to be politically aware. I do, however, have a problem with telling them what their criteria should be when they vote. The article points out that the students are told that they do not have to answer all of the questions. I would like to suggest that they not be asked to answer any of the questions, and we go back to spending health class encouraging good individual health habits. This quiz sounds more like brainwashing than a quiz.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Greetings From The Flat Earth Society

On June 25, President Obama gave a speech on the subject of climate change. He also detailed his plan (which incidentally does not include Congress) to structure America’s energy policies in order to avoid climate change.

In the process of that speech, President Obama declared, “But I don’t have much patience for anybody who argues the problem is not real. We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.” I guess at some time I joined the flat earth society.

On Sunday, the Boston Herald posted an article about the President’s speech.

The article reminds us:

However, most international and national agencies have found no increase in storm activity. Warming? The alarmist British Meteorological Office finds no warming since 1998 while the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 7.4 percent.

Doomsday scenarios depend largely on unreliable computer models whose builders have no explanation for such conflicts.

The bottom line here is simple. As much as our over-inflated egos would like to think that we totally understand changes in the earth’s climate and that we can control them–we don’t. And we probably won’t for a long time. I am not against doing what is possible to control pollution. I am against using unproven science to cripple America’s energy production and economy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Coming Ice Age

On Friday, Anthony Watts posted the graph below on his WattsUpWithThat website.

“Data adapted from ‘The Laurentide and Innuitian ice sheets during the Last Glacial Maximum’ by A.S. Dyke et. al., which was way better than the sequels ‘The Laurentide and Innuitian ice sheets during the Last Glacial Maximum: The Meltdown’ and ‘The Laurentide and Innuitian ice sheets during the Last Glacial Maximum: Continental Drift’.”

The bottom line here is simple–we are more at risk from global cooling than from global warming. Before we panic, we might also consider that as of yet we haven’t come up with an accurate computer model that correctly predicts long term trends in weather. Weather is the result of all sorts of things–carbon levels, sun spots, ocean temperatures, etc. Even at that, we really don’t know which of these things exerts the greatest influence or how they interact. Generally speaking, we need to do everything we can to keep the planet clean, but we need to balance that effort against the needs of the people who live on earth.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Remember The Promise Congress Made To Read The Bills Before They Vote On Them?

CNS News posted a story yesterday about the immigration bill hearing which is scheduled for Friday. The bill was actually introduced Wednesday morning. The bill is 844 pages long. Does anyone actually believe that this bill will be read before the hearing occurs and before it is voted on? Does anyone believe that the public will have a chance to take a really good at this bill?

The article states:

So, will anyone actually read the entire immigration bill prior to the hearing – or even before voting on it?

History says “no,” if you look at some of the previous long, important bills congressmen have admitted they didn’t read before voting on them:

Here we go again.Enhanced by Zemanta

About That Global Warming Thing…

Again, the best site on the Internet for climate change information is wattsupwiththat.com. I strongly recommend that you visit that site any time you hear alarming news about global warming. It will give you the real information.

Meanwhile, UpNorthLive is reporting that a new ice island has formed in Lake Michigan.

The article reports:

An island has sprung up off the coast of Lake Michigan and this one isn’t made of dirt.

It was just a bunch of blocks piled on top of each other and they were welded together with the wind and snow,” Outdoor enthusiast Josh Baker explained.

Over the weekend, Baker and his family stumbled across this giant island floating in Lake Michigan outside of the small town of Good Hart.

Sunday, he decided to climb the jagged, 15foot ice mountain. Once he made it to the top, he noticed the structure was different on the other side.

The side facing the lake was almost sheer, it was pretty neat. So the side I was on was all jumbled and the opposite side was just sheer down to the water,” Baker said.

That has to be an amazing sight! I guess we will have to wait another year for some serious global warming on Lake Michigan.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes You Just Wonder…

On Saturday the New Zealand Herald reported that Leonardo DiCaprio is taking a break from acting for a while.

The article reports:

In an interview with Germany’s mass circulation daily Bild, the 38-year-old American actor said: “I am a bit drained. I’m now going to take a long, long break. I’ve done three films in two years and I’m just worn out.”

“I would like to improve the world a bit. I will fly around the world doing good for the environment,” added DiCaprio, in comments published in German.

The article goes on to explain that the actor’s house has solar panels and that he drives an electric car. That’s nice. Has it occurred to him that flying around the world to help the environment is somewhat counter-productive? Is he flying commercial or in a private plane? Has he considered the carbon footprint of his trip around the world to help the environment?Enhanced by Zemanta

One Way To Deal With A Shakedown By Extreme Environmentalists

Reuters is reporting today that China is banning its airlines from the European Union (EU) policy that charges a carbon fee for flights in and out of Europe. The carbon fee is essentially an additional tax and China has said that it simply will not pay the tax.

The article reports:

The EU plan is intended to curb rising greenhouse gas pollution from aviation and fight climate change. Globally, emissions from aviation comprise about two percent of mankind’s greenhouse gas pollution and this share is expected to grow.

“China hopes Europe will act in the light of the broader issues of responding to global climate change, the sustainable development of international aviation and Sino-European ties, strengthening communication and coordination to find an appropriate solution acceptable to both sides,” an unnamed official from China’s civil aviation authority said, according to the announcement.

The interesting fact in this little dust up is that China is included in the EU plan to reduce air pollution. One of the problems with the Kyoto Protocol of 2006 was that the restrictions on greenhouse gases were not extended to India and China.

The National Geographic Magazine reported in July of 2007:

Damaging air pollutants include sulfur dioxide, particulate matter—a mixture of extremely small particles and water droplets—ozone, and nitrogen dioxide. China accounts for roughly one-third of the global total for these pollutants, according to Krzyzanowski (Michal Krzyzanowski, an air quality adviser at the WHO Regional Office for Europe).

China is not willing to play the global warming game. As I have stated before, I do not support dirty air. However, I think we need to make sure that any climate change is man-caused before we cripple the major free economies of the world in the name of saving the planet. The current ‘solutions’ to global warming are nothing more than a global redistribution of wealth–the major polluters are not included in the restrictions. Evidently China does not like being included in the efforts to save the planet.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Money In Climate Science

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story about James Hansen, one of the leaders in the fight to convince the world that global warming is real and man-made.

The article reports:

It recently came out that James Hansen, one of the two or three most prominent global warming alarmists on whose work the IPCC reports rest, “forgot” to report $1.6 million in outside income, as required by his government contracts. Is that significant? Well, yes: A handful of scientists, including Hansen, have gotten wealthy on climate alarmism. They have an enormous financial interest in the faux science they have done so much to perpetrate.

Mr. Hinderaker points out that being a global-warming alarmist can be very profitable. The federal grants go to the people who claim that we are in serious danger, and the exotic speaking engagements go to the more radical proponents of global warming.

There is another aspect of this that I find extremely interesting. There is a website called surfacestations.org that shows some of the locations of the temperature gauges the global warming people are using to monitor temperature changes.

This is a sensor in Marysville, California.

This sensor is in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Note that it is very close to both the house and the air conditioning unit.

There are more pictures available at surfacestations.org.

I am probably one of the least scientific people on the planet, but even I have figured out that when you stand near an air conditioning unit, the air next to that unit tends to be a bit warmer than the air farther away.

We need to understand that there are climate cycles that occur naturally. We are not in control of the climate–either in a positive or negative way.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Yes, It Really Is Cold Outside

Route 3 southbound in Crofton, MD during a lat...

Image via Wikipedia

On Saturday, November 5, my favorite scientific site, wattsupwiththat, posted a story stating that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) data shows that the United States has experienced cooler summers and colder winters in the past 10 years.

The article featured the chart below.

As anyone who regularly reads this blog knows, I hate cold weather. Now I know that the fact that I am convinced that I am freezing most of the time in New England is not just my imagination.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. There are all kinds of charts showing changes in temperature in America over the past century. The bottom line is very simple–global warming is a myth. We don’t need to cripple the American economy due to junk science!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Global Regulations Don’t Work

Theoretically the idea of all countries working together to make the world a better place is a really good idea. Unfortunately, it loses something when you put it into practice. My current case in point–the debate over greenhouse gas emissions.

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that Brazil, South Africa, India and China have asked industrialized nations to step up their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a key UN climate summit later this year. China’s climate change minister Xie Zhenua called for greater cooperation from industrialized countries. Well, wait a minute. This is ridiculous. This is like having a race with someone who when you take the lead says, “Stop, I need a chance to pass you so I can win.” Why are China and India not considered industrialized countries?

The article reports:

Former president George W. Bush said Kyoto was fatally flawed because it does not require developing giants, already major polluters, to take on similar constraints.

European countries are generally on track for their emissions reductions, but Canada is poised to miss its target by a wide margin.

At the same time, emissions by China, India, Indonesia and Brazil have rocketed — nations bound by Kyoto account for less than 30 percent of global CO2 emissions, which hit record levels in 2010.

Japan, Canada and Russia have said they will not sign up for a new round of carbon-cutting vows.

The European Union (EU) says it will only do so if other nations — including emerging giants such as China and India, which do not have binding targets — beef up efforts in a parallel negotiating arena.

Developing countries, though, insist the Protocol be renewed in its current form. 

Of course the developing countries want the Protocol renewed in its current form–it puts no restrictions on them, just on everyone else.

In September of 2010, a website called Alttransport.com reported:

For the first time this decade global CO2 emissions decreased 1.3 percent in 2009, according to a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. But that drop was offseted by a significant rise in emissions in China and India by 9 and 6 percent.

While the drop is a reason to celebrate, the decrease in emissions is linked to the slow global economy. China and India, on the other hand, have had two of the fastest growing economies — with India’s growth rate at about 8.6 percent and China’s at 10.3 percent.

I don’t wish any harm on the ‘developing’ counties–I just want to know at what point they cease to be ‘developing’ and become developed. It seems to me that with the amount of jobs outsourced from America to India, that maybe America should be seen as de-developing and India should be seen as developed. Considering the trade deficit between America and China, are we sure China is ‘developing,’ or is it developed? The debate over carbon emissions is another way to penalize countries that have achieved commercial success in an attempt to let other countries achieve that success. I have a better idea. If ‘developing’ countries truly want to become commercially successful, they need to look to the model of America at its founding–give everyone an equal chance to own property and to be successful. You’d be surprised what equal opportunity does to the growth of a country’s economy!
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Cost Of ‘Green’ For The Consumer

Yesterday CNS News reported that the Center for Automotive Research has released a study stating that the Obama Administration’s new fuel economy standards will result in a retail price increase for the average car of $11,000.

The article reports:

Zoe Lipman, the National Wildlife Federation’s Senior Manager for Transportation and Global Warming Solutions argued on a conference call held Thursday that the estimated fuel savings due to these standards will outweigh the “modest” motor vehicle price increases for consumers.

I pointed out in a story Tuesday that there are some valid questions as to whether or not these new fuel standards are being legally implemented. CAFE standards have been set by Congress–not by the executive branch. There are also some valid questions as to whether or not global warming is man-made. I support the idea of fuel efficient cars, but I also support the idea of America developing her natural resources and technology to make cleaner running cars.

Enhanced by Zemanta