Cracks are Beginning to Form in the Green Wall; We’re all victims of the great green swindle

C-VeN-3XcAISvdZ

When I was three my parents moved next to one of the busiest roundabouts in Europe. Hogarth roundabout in west London leads to the M3 and M4 and the smell of car fumes was only overpowered by the aroma of hops from the brewery on the corner. It was the perfect place to grow up. We had a huge green in front where we could stand on the railings and count the number of cars whizzing past. No one in the 1970s worried about the lead pollution, only about being run over. Nor did we care about where our electricity came from unless the lights went out. Green issues were not high on our agenda nor was our health. Our neighbours happily smoked away and we ate tinned spaghetti hoops and Angel Delight without a care for the sugar content.

Read More: A generation who thought they were doing the right thing by buying diesel and clean energy have been taken for a ride.

Is this the new face of “denial?”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Hate to Say I Told You So, But I Told You So

sassy-black-woman-mmm-hmm-i-told-you-so

I’m not a climate scientist, and I view that as a huge positive when analyzing the climate change data and theory. I don’t have a dog in this fight, my funding and income aren’t dependent upon CO2 being the cause of anything.  I haven’t taken endless classes telling me that there is a 98% certainty that this theory is 100% correct. I have the benefit of simply objectively seeking the truth. Because I am not a climate “expert” or climate “scientist” I should never be able to make predictions that are more accurate than the “experts” IF THEIR THEORY IS CORRECT.

Here on CO2isLife we’ve been making a couple of predictions. The first was that the record high temperatures that the climate alarmists were celebrating as proof of their theory, were, in fact, an anomaly caused by a natural phenomenon called an El Nino, and that once that natural event ended, temperatures would plummet. That is in fact what has been happening.

The cooling comes naturally in the wake of the moderate La Nina conditions that have ruled over the past months.

In April surface temperatures 2 meters above the ground plummeted as the following NCEP chart shows:

maueanalyset2mglobalnhshapril2017fallend-e1494058223148

More importantly, if you remove the areas that are impacted by the “urban heat island effect,” the cooling is even greater. That is an approach we’ve been promoting here on CO2isLife. The point being, if you focus the analysis on the data that isolates the impact of CO2 on temperature, the warming is greatly decreased. Most of the warming the alarmists refer to is caused by non-CO2 causes. There is no urban heat island effect over the oceans or Antarctica. Current temperatures over the oceans are below where they were in 1980.

 Foremost the atmosphere above the oceans cooled the most during March, 2017. This is clearly depicted by the UAH: an anomaly of +0.29°K to +0.09°K compared to the WMO 1981-2010 mean.

uahoceansmc3a4rz2017absturz-e1491602308262

The other theory we’ve been promoting on CO2isLife is a theory promoted by Tony Heller over on Real Science, that the arctic sea ice is thinning and thickening due to natural causes. A few years back the climate alarmists were claiming that the rapid thinning of the arctic ice was due to global warming. I always found that explanation suspect because ice doesn’t tend to melt in sub-zero temperatures. Digging into the issue further, I discovered that a hurricane was the true cause of the rapid decline of the arctic sea ice. I found it shocking that none of the articles I read about the rapid sea ice decline mentioned a hurricane, the obvious causative factor. Digging even deeper I discovered that there is a cyclical wind pattern that either blows ice out of the arctic circle (resulting in thinning)  or traps ice in the arctic circle (resulting in thickening). It turns out, that is exactly what is happening, and Tony Heller has been accurately predicting that result.

Massive Arctic ice thickness growth

The growth in so-called multiyear Arctic sea ice has been considerable over the past nine years. The Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea had little thick multiyear ice back in February 2008. But by February 2017 there was a lot. Massive Growth In Thick Arctic Sea Ice:

Arctic-2008-2017.gif

My experience following this climate change issue is that the vast majority of observations climate alarmists blame of CO2 are in fact far better explained by natural phenomenon. Rarely have I encountered an event/observation that didn’t seem to have a better natural explanation than CO2. CO2 has serious problems as the causative agent. First is that its only mechanism to affect climate change is to absorb LWIR between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns. There isn’t a whole lot of energy at those wavelengths, and the relationship between absorption and concentration is a logarithmic relationship, meaning that even large absolute changes mean very little. The second is that CO2 blankets the earth in an even 400 ppm. It is hard to explain regional changes in temperatures with a constant.

Settled-Science-600-LA.jpg

The climate alarmists simply seem to start with the conclusion that CO2 is the cause, and never bother to look for any natural causes. There simply isn’t any money to be made if CO2 isn’t the cause. Following the progress of global temperatures uncorrupted by the urban heat island effect and the thickness of the Arctic sea ice provide evidence that climate science isn’t about explaining the real factors impacting the climate (the results of their models prove they aren’t doing that job well), it is all about generating hype to justify further research funding. If that theory isn’t correct, non-experts like myself and Tony Heller wouldn’t be able to provide better explanations than the experts.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Another Climate Whistleblower is Ignored by the MainStream Media

whistleblower

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.

“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in the decades before that,” he said.

Read the complete story: Mark Levin: Here’s Proof Obama Administration LIED To Us About Climate Change

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Nancy Pelosi Provides the Approach to Winning the Public Debate on Climate Change

200_s (1)

During the last election, voters made it very clear that fighting climate change was near the bottom of the Country’s priorities, and immigration was near the top.

4_2-1

This week, Nancy Pelosi appeared on “This Week” to discuss politics, President Trump’s first 100 days and the future prospects of the Democrats. Why I’m writing about it is because of how she addressed the funding for “the wall.” Even though immigration is near the top of America’s priorities, and arguably the issue that got President Trump elected, she opposes building the wall, and she did so by arguing “opportunity costs.” Nancy Pelosi’s reasoning for defying the will of the American voter is that the money is better spent elsewhere. She didn’t argue the facts of the wall, she did argue the science of the wall, she did argue the existence of the wall, she didn’t “deny” the need for the wall, she didn’t argue the dimensions of the wall, no, Nancy Pelosi pivoted, and argued the economics of the wall. Economics is and almost always is the #1 priority of the American voter.

In the video (around 5:00) Nancy simply argued that:

“did you ever hear him say he was going to charge the American people tens of billions of dollars? The opportunity cost to educating our children, of infrastructure throughout our country, investments in biomedical research that he is cutting so we can have an immoral, ineffective, expensive, unwise wall?”

Nancy’s approach is the exact approach people should use to argue climate change. Argue it in terms of opportunity cost, not so much science. The voters understand building schools, hospitals, roads, and funding biomedical research.  They will never understand that CO2’s logarithmic relationship between concentration and LWIR absorption is highly unlikely to ever cause significant atmospheric warming.

climate-money

This approach is even more relevant to climate change than the wall. To demonstrate how absurd Nancy’s position is, she is upset about “wasting” “tens of billions” of dollars on the wall, yet doesn’t bat an eye regarding the TRILLIONS of dollars wasted on fighting climate change. We could repave all of America for what we are wasting on fighting climate change.

Arguing opportunity cost is also the approach used by now NYT’s writer Bret Stephens when he appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher.” He also argued that scientists aren’t experts in public policy.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Actions Speak Much Louder Than Words

EmilysQuotes.Com-truth-Oscar-Wilde-mask-500x251

I found the quote on this sanctimonious environmentalist’s tent interesting. In this case, actions speak much louder than words. Also, when a liberal puts on a mask, you don’t expect the truth, you expect violence, looting, arson, and vandalism.

frackpic1

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Watermelon Environmentalist Economics; More Waste, Inefficiency, and Incompetence than Conservation

050317Slide1

Ever wonder why Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and any other Marxist Watermelon Environmental organization never produce any “green products” that actually prove the theories they are supporting will actually do any good? The reason is simple, the economics simply aren’t there. Watermelon groups spend most of their money lobbying the government to spend tax dollars to fund their projects.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

They hire lawyers, lobbyists, event coordinators, fundraisers, politicians, judges, journalists and newsletter/donation request editors/graphic designers, not engineers. Their product is propaganda, not commercially viable solutions. If anything they promoted actually worked economically, they wouldn’t need the government to get involved. Steve Jobs didn’t need the government to pass regulations to force people to buy and use the iPhone. The following excerpt from a Washington Examiner pretty much speaks for itself. Other than the observation that modern environmentalism is more associated with waste, inefficiency, and incompetence than conservation, it needs no further commentary.

In an April 25 New York Times article (“Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal”) reporter Nadja Popovich wrote that “Last year, the solar industry employed many more Americans [373,807] than coal [160,119], while wind power topped 100,000 jobs.” Those energy employment figures are based on a Department of Energy report (“U.S. Energy and Employment Report”) released earlier this year that provides the most complete analysis available of employment in the energy economy.

To start, despite a huge workforce of almost 400,000 solar workers (about 20 percent of electric power payrolls in 2016), that sector produced an insignificant share, less than 1 percent, of the electric power generated in the United States last year (EIA data here). And that’s a lot of solar workers: about the same as the combined number of employees working at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company and Procter & Gamble.

Bottom Line: The goal of America’s energy sector isn’t to create as many jobs as possible (as the NYT article would apparently have us believe) especially the politically-favored and heavily-subsidized renewable energy jobs. Rather, the economic goal is to produce as much electric power as possible at the lowest possible cost, and that means we want the fewest number of energy workers!

Maybe the New York Times should hire more free market economists and fewer climate alarmists.

Read more:

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment.

Related Posts:

Bill Nye The Science Guy; Catastrophic Ice-Age Averted, Man-Made CO2 Saved Mankind

March For Pseudoscience and Watermelon Environmentalism

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Should Take the Gloves Off; Turn the Crippling EPA Regs on Wind and Solar

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Should Counter-sue The Climate Loons

Hey, Genius!!! Thick Polar Sea Ice Kills Whales and Polar Bears

With Friends Like Environmentalists, the World Doesn’t Need Enemies

Climate “Science” Gone Mad; The True Face of Envirofascism

Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?

Climate “Science” on Trial; Germany Builds Wind Farms While NATO Burns

Climate “Science” on Trial; Clear-Cutting Forests to Save the Trees

Why the 13 Month Moving Average on Satellite Data?

UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2017_v6

Explanation of the Satellite Data Moving Average:

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

While doing some research I stumbled upon an article on Think Progress that appeared to be mocking Dr. Spencer at the UAH regarding his usage of a 13-month moving average.

If you’re wondering why Spencer plots a 13-month running average when 13 months do not actually correspond to anything relevant to homo sapiens, well, you’ll have to ask him. It is slightly easier to do the math. In any case, here is the more meaningful 12-month running average from Sou at HotWhopper:

What is so funny about this, is that the “more meaningful 12-month running average from Sou at HotWhopper” showed almost the exact same increase, both peaking at essentially 0.50 Degree, and very slightly exceeding the previous peak.

Here is the chart Dr. Spencer produced:

1-BXut8lmkvtnoiifBEkS_HA

Here is the chart “Hot Whopper” produced:

1-DKntA2u3NhG2h7HUgCBxsQ (1)

Dr. Spencer’s graph is a “centered” moving average, and is why Dr. Spencer uses 13-months instead of 12. A “centered moving average” averages data behind and forward in a time series. The problem is, even numbers don’t work well with centered average. Using a 12-month period, the forward calculation includes June, July, August, September, October, November, and December or 7 months, and back calculation includes January, February, March, April, and May, or 5 months. Even numbers create asymmetrical moving averages. To make “Hot Whopper’s” moving average a “centered” moving average and symmetrical, he would have had to apply a 2-period moving average to his 12-period moving average. The article made no mention of “Hot Whopper’s” chart being “centered.” To exaggerate the warming “Hot Whopper” stretched the vertical axis and compacted the horizontal axis relative to the UAH graphic.

The other benefit of a centered moving average is that it “hugs” the data better, and better fits the graph. That is why the moving average ends 6.5 months before the end of the data. Had one used the trailing 12-month average the graph would have been shifted to the right, and the moving average would be leading the data. The opposite would have occurred is you had used a forward 12-month average.

Either way, a moving average is simply a method to “smooth” data, and remove seasonality. One could make the case for using both Dr. Spencer’s and Hot Whopper’s, both give essentially the same result and are appropriate. The difference certainly doesn’t justify an article intended to smear one’s character and integrity.

In truth, none of this is funny. The lies of the professional deniers get repeated by the politicians and right-wing media who oppose action — and all that helps slow our response to the greatest preventable threat to our health and well-being. That is a tragedy we must all fight against.

The one thing “Think Progress” didn’t do however was to write a follow-up article now that temperatures are plunging. They were all eager to celebrate the Satellite data reaching a new high due to non-CO2 related El Nino, but are silent now that temperatures are collapsing. Funny how that works in the progressive world.

Sorry deniers, even satellites confirm record global warming
The planet just had its hottest 12 months on record.

One last note, the person writing the Think Progress article claims to have a Ph.D, and writes as if he is trying to entertain children. Additionally, the article is filled with unethical, unjust and unscientific Ad Hominin attacks. “Deniers” was used 10 times in a single short article.

Now here’s the funny part [not funny ha-ha, but that emoji where you are laughing so hard tears are coming out of your eyes and then you realize those aren’t tears of joys, they are just tears].

It is really an eye opener to see just how childish people of the left address this issue.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment.