American Elephants


Dr. Roy Spencer’s Keynote Address to Ninth International Conference on Climate Change by The Elephant's Child

Dr. Roy Spencer  is the climatologist who runs, with Dr.  John Christie, the only real measures of earthly temperatures by satellite from the University of Alabama at Huntsville. He gave the keynote address to the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas on July 9, 2014.

I’ve managed to make this sound dull—”keynote address”—but it isn’t at all. He’s funny! Non technical, and even though he shows a few graphs, you will come away duly enlightened and better informed, and you will have enjoyed it. If you don’t, let me know.

Dr. Spencer clearly explains the state of Climate Science, and why nothing much has changed in the past three years. He is a delightful speaker, funny, entertaining and will clear up more than a few misconceptions about the state of the climate.



Ivar Glaever, Noble Prizewinner for Physics trashes the Global Warming psuedoscience. by The Elephant's Child

Dr. Ivar Glaever, Norwegian-American physicist and Nobel prizewinner says that global warming is basically a non-problem, and resigned from the American Physical Society. Here he carefully explains why, as Climate Depot reported:

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group’s belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: “In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

Naturally the true-believers and those who are deeply invested in the usefulness of a panic about a climate crisis, have tried to discredit every word. The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is equally bogus. Please note that we are concerned about a potential increase of 0.8º C — not a full degree, but 8/10ths of a degree.  Run for the hills!

 



President Trump Was Right to Withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords by The Elephant's Child

CXaeNM4UwAELrMU

The Climate narrative insists that the globe (the whole earth) is warming (not just regional warming), and the warming that has occurred sine 1950 is remarkable, frightening, unnatural and unprecedented. It is the people’s fault—human impact. We did it with our reluctance to shut down all pipelines and rely on gentle wind and soft, warm solar rays, instead of something that would actually power a vast economy.

In 2016 a search of the peer-reviewed scientific literature has found dozens of paleoclimate reconstructions that show that modern “global” warming hasn’t been global in scale at all, for there are many regions on Earth where the climate has been cooling for decades. And even if the warming was on a global scale—the evidence shows that the modern warming is not unusual or even much different than it has been in the past.

Today’s warm temperatures don’t even come close to the maximum temperatures achieved earlier in the Holocene, or as recently as the Medieval Warm Period, 1000 years ago, when there weren’t effluents from modern transportation, factories, dreaded fossil fuels. The warming in recent decades is not even unusual within the context of the last 80 years. The warmth in the 1930s and 1940s matched or exceeded the warmth of the late 20th and 21st centuries in many of the world’s regions. There was even a widely publicized period in the 1960s and 1970s when there was substantial cooling – 0.5º C in the Northern Hemisphere and -1.5º C in the Arctic. Back then they were calling it “Nuclear Winter” and the Club of Rome got all excited about it.

Scientists have kept on publishing their work, and it has been peer-reviewed. The thing is that ordinary people don’t dig into the evidence, and a great many ordinary people just accept what they have been told by Al Gore (who is not a scientist) and others without even trying to understand the reality themselves.

You surely would not be surprised to learn that not everyone’s motives are pure, and that the aim of the Global Warming Panic crowd is political and not scientific at all. The aim has been a vast redistribution of wealth from the rich nations to the poor nations, and the destruction of Capitalism as the engine of growth and wealth on the planet that has helped to raise the poor people of the world out of hunger and poverty. (They are still, in spite of all evidence, just sure that socialism will make everybody equal and get rid of all those nasty bankers.)

Here is a collection of 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers  published within the last year that undermine the “consensus” position that modern warming is unusual, global in extent, or that today’s slight warming is unusual or unprecedented. (There is, by the way no 97% consensus. That’s a talking point, not reality.)

Also, I just ran into a June 9 post from Climate Depot headlined “Unusually Thick Arctic ice pack traps boats, triggers rescue operation off Newfoundland” If you follow this link, there’s a dandy picture of boats trapped in heavy ice off La Scie, Newfoundland, and the rescue operation to save them.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, California’s endless winter still has 8 feet of snow on the ground in the central Sierra — rivaling the massive winter of 1982-83. Mammoth Mountain will still be open daily for skiers into August.

You might consider the possibility that President Trump knew what he was doing when he withdrew (to screams of agony from the Left) from the unratified Paris Climate Accords.



If It Weren’t So Serious, It Would Be Funny! by The Elephant's Child

The progressive temper-tantrum is getting really tiresome, but all that kicking and screaming is devolving into some kind of weird suicide pact.  When President Trump rejected the Paris Climate Treaty, which had never been ratified by the Senate, “the states of California, New York and Washington have announced that they will unilaterally and illegally enter into a foreign treaty rejected by the President of the United States.”

The Constitution is very clear about this. “No state shall enter into any treaty.” Governor Cuomo of New York has been equally clear. “New York State is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington’s irresponsible actions.”

Cuomo’s statement conveniently comes in French, Chinese and Russian translations.

“It is a little bold to talk about the China-California partnership as though we were a separate nation, but we are a separate nation,” Governor Brown of California announced.

That’s Daniel Greenfield. He added:

The Climate Alliance of California, New York, Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Virginia and Rhode Island looks a lot like the Confederacy’s Montgomery Convention. Both serve as meeting points for a secessionist alliance of states to air their grievances against the Federal government over an issue in which they are out of step with the nation.

That’s as effective as the media’s vast confidence that the Comey hearings today would provide the necessary evidence to impeach the President. Or these states’ confidence that offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants would prove that they really are good people who welcome immigrants of all kinds from all places. The scientific evidence shows clearly that by 2100, the Paris Climate Accords would have made no observable difference in the climate. But feeling good about yourself is the important thing. That’s why events like Ariana Grande’s concert in Manchester resulted in a vast outpouring of a mountain of flowers and lots and lots of candles, which makes no observable difference in the safety of British citizens. Heather MacDonald explained:

The candlelight vigils didn’t work. After the Manchester Arena suicide bombing in England last month, liberal pundits suggested “mass vigils” and “community solidarity” as a counterterrorism response. The most important imperative, according to the media intelligentsia, was to signal that the West’s commitment to “diversity” and “inclusion” was intact.

Unfortunately, the three Islamic terrorists who used a van and knives to kill another seven civilians and critically injure dozens more in London on Saturday night were unmoved by the “diversity” message. Witnesses described the killers frantically stabbing anyone they could reach, while shouting “This is for Allah”; one witness said that a girl was stabbed up to 15 times.

The “candlelight vigil” counsel has been more muted after this latest attack, though the New York Times has predictably advised the candidates in Britain’s upcoming elections not to succumb to “draconian measures” or to do “just what the terrorists want” by undermining democratic values.

In a second article from City Journal, Heather MacDonald writes of “The Left’s Unilateral Suicide Pact: After the Manchester bombing, liberals once again avoid the obvious—that Islamic terror in the West is an immigration problem.”

A rethinking of immigration policies is off the table. Nothing that an Islamic terrorist can do will ever shake the left-wing commitment to open borders—not mass sexual assaults, not the deliberate slaughter of gays, and not, as in Manchester last week, the killing of young girls. The real threat that radical Islam poses to feminism and gay rights must be disregarded in order to transform the West by Third World immigration. Defenders of the open-borders status quo inevitably claim that if a terrorist is a second-generation immigrant, like Abedi, immigration policy has nothing to do with his attack. (Abedi’s parents emigrated to Britain from Libya; his immediate family in Manchester lived in the world’s largest Libyan enclave outside Africa itself.) …

The fact that second-generation immigrants are not assimilating into Western culture makes immigration policy more, not less, of a pressing matter. It is absurd to suggest that Abedi picked up his terrorist leanings from reading William Shakespeare and William Wordsworth, rather than from the ideology of radical Islam that has been imported into Britain by mass immigration.

Myron Magnet echoes Heather MacDonald’s concerns.” Governments, he reminds us, exist to keep citizens safe in their streets and cities from foreign or domestic violence”

Start by naming the enemy, as Donald Trump and Theresa May finally have done, after eight years of Barack Obama’s dereliction of duty for refusing to utter the simple words, “Islamist terrorism.” As numerous pundits—notably Andrew C. McCarthy, successful prosecutor of the 1993 Islamist World Trade Center bombers—have explained, Islamism, a large subcategory of Islam, is not only a religion but also a political ideology that aims at world domination, so that treating it as if, like Christianity or Judaism, it preaches only individual salvation or virtue is mistaken at best, willfully blind at worst.

You have perhaps noticed that there are only two positions regarding immigration. You are expected to favor all immigration because “we are all immigrants”, and if you don’t, it’s Islamophobia, Nativism, Fascism of course, and Nationalism. Other epithets when they seem to fit. We have a million and a half people who wish to become Americans who have applied properly, paid their fees and are patiently waiting for their turn to immigrate. I fail to understand why illegals, who are breaking the law, should take precedence over those who are following the law. We are a sovereign nation, we have immigration laws, and there is no reason why they should be suspended because Democrats want more immigrants who might vote for them.

The Leftist states are not just attempting to secede, but unfortunately they’re not very good at economics either. They are furious that the new administration is attempting to get rid of ObamaCare, and plan to adopt single-payer or completely socialized medical care on their own.

Vermont, Colorado , New York and California have so-called “single payer” health care proposals far enough along to have some serious numbers  about incremental costs above and beyond the existing state government expenses for things like Medicaid. In every case the incremental costs came in at more than all the revenue from all existing state taxes, so enacting single-payer would require more than doubling existing state taxes.

There are lots of people who believe that there is lots of “government money” without realizing that the government has no money of it’s own, only what it collects in taxes.

Connecticut is close to bankruptcy. California cannot afford her useless high-speed train to nowhere, and attempting to add single-payer health care, is going to add California to the list. The sunshine state is already over $1 trillion in the hole for employee pension underfunding. They don’t call Jerry Brown “Governor Moonbeam” for no reason. Illinois, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Jersey  are not far behind with underfunded pensions.

Temper tantrums  are one thing, but secession, thwarting the law, bankruptcy, and attempts to illegally enter into a foreign treaty and to promote violence simply because you lost an election is going too far.

 



Yes, The Climate Is Changing, Just as It Has Done for Millions of Years. by The Elephant's Child

After President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords, many lefties seem to be asking “But don’t you believe the climate is changing?” Of course the climate is changing. That is what climate does. You have perhaps heard of the Ice Age when much of America was covered with an ice sheet? Or the Little Ice Age from which  we have been recovering? Here is a simple graph showing the natural climate variability of the past 2,000 years showing the average of 18 non-tree ring proxies that coincide with known events in human  history. Note the decimal points. Water freezes at 32º Fahrenheit or at 0º Celsius. The chart shows temperature anomaly.

The Medieval Warm Period (900 to 1300 AD) was the finest weather known to man. Ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice contracted enabling sea exploration and settlements at higher latitudes. Villages and farms were established on Greenland and grain crops were sown and cattle and sheep were raised.   Cathedrals were built in Europe, and monasteries and universities. Population increased, food was more plentiful. The warming was global. The Little Ice Age began in the late 13th Century with a decrease in solar activity. There was crop failure, famine, disease, war and depopulation. The Little Ice Age ended around 1850 and it has been warming a little ever since.

A little increased Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, a fertilizer for plants, makes progress in human well-being. The greening of the Earth feeds hungry people. Louis Pasteur’s germ theory and the principles of vaccination, pasteurization, and the cause of disease was a monumental advance. Then there’s Jenner( smallpox vaccine) and Lister( antiseptics) and Fleming(penicillin). Then there’s our own Norman Borlaug, father of the green revolution who is referred to as the man who saved a billion lives, with the development of high yielding crops. May I suggest that Liberal angst over President Trump’s exit from the misleading Paris Climate Accords is a wee bit misplaced?



President Trump Withdraws From the Paris Climate Accords by The Elephant's Child

Hollywood is having the vapors, Chuckie Schumer released a statement:

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement is a devastating failure of historic proportions,” Schumer said. “Future generations will look back on President Trump’s decision as one of the worst policy moves made in the 21st century because of the huge damage to our economy, our environment and our geopolitical standing.

At a news conference in Brussels in early February, 2015, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity—but to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Socialists, intent on the wonders of social justice and the ‘better world’ of their dreams, never, never seem to pay any attention to the monumental failures of socialism everywhere it has been tried. The  past 25 years have witnessed the greatest reduction in global poverty  in the history of the world. An 80 % reduction in world poverty in only 36 years. Globalization, Free markets, free trade, international entrepreneurship. The free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world. This is not the first time some greenie has blurted out the truth behind their campaign to protect the world from the horrors of the carbon dioxide we exhale every time we breathe. Go figure.

President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, without authorization from Congress, about 30% of the $100 billion demanded from the United States to be shifted to trying to help poor nations deal with non-existent climate warming. They only got 1 billion before Obama left office and the U.S. was expected to come up with the other $2 billion promptly. According to researchers at MIT, if all nations met their targets for reducing carbon emissions, the impact on the climate at best would be likely to reduce global temperature rise by 0.2 degrees by the year 2100. That ‘s 2/10 of one degree C.  Under the accord, China gets to continue building coal-fired plants and increasing emissions until 2030. The Climate Accords were a very bad deal for everyone but China.

CO2 represents only the smallest portion of atmospheric gasses. The most important atmospheric gas is water vapor — clouds. Carbon dioxide (what we exhale) is a fertilizer for plants and the slight increase has meant a greening world which has helped to feed the world’s hungry nations.

The terms of the Accord required countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020, leading to an eventual 80 percent cut. If everybody met their commitments, the effect on the climate would be almost undetectable.

The Left is big on income redistribution, not theirs, of course, but other people’s. But as Margaret Thatcher said “Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.” Their goal is not helping the poor— it is power. They just can’t get it through their pretty heads that socialism doesn’t work, and has never worked, everywhere it has been tried. But they are fixated on the idea of fixing annoying human nature, eliminating wars and other annoyances and in general concentrating all power in an educated elite like themselves in Washington D.C. ruling the world in perpetual wonderfulness.

Here’s President Trump’s statement.

* That’s Christiana Figueres in the light slate blue on the left.

ADDENDUM: I said above ‘helping poor nations to deal with “non-existent global warming”. That’s not correct. The Earth is always warming or cooling as it has done for millions of years. The British once skated on the Thames, and at another time grew wine grapes. If you have time, you might visit drroyspencer.com. He has posted “Good Climate Hunting (DJ. Trump, writer, director)” which is priceless, and then scroll down a little to “People’s Climate March on Saturday…through Snow” where he points out the differences in climate across the U.S. as greenies are marching. (Dr. Spencer runs the only accurate measurements of warming and cooling by satellite at University of Alabama at Huntsville.)



Misconceptions About Wind: Basic Arithmetic by The Elephant's Child

Here’s the headline from an article in the Spectator, dated May 13: “Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy” with the subhead “We urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclear.” The post is from Matt Ridley.

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.

Basic math. World energy demand has been growing about two percent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2012 and 2014 it grew, according to International Energy agency data, just under 2,000 terawatt-hours. If all that had to be supplied by wind turbines—just that and no more—how many new turbines would have to be built? Nearly 350,000. A two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s 1½ times as many as have been built in the world since governments first started subsidizing them with taxpayer money.

Wind farms typically have a density of about 50 acres per megawatt, at that density, that many turbines would need a land area larger than the entire British Isles. In 50 years, if we kept this up, we would have covered a land area the size of Russia. But there’s more, hidden pollution, rare earths, the materials required, how turbines are made. Do read the whole article.  Matt Ridley is always worth our attention.

It just turns out to be that wind and solar are essentially very costly and extremely useless pursuits. Aside from the intermittency problem, the arithmetic just doesn’t work. Lot of people  have made some big money on the subsidies though.




%d bloggers like this: