Climate Change News 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the recurrent themes of climate alarmists is the concept of a “tipping point”, that point of no return when the Earth warms on its own and nothing can stop it. Some scientists at MIT have now come up with a temperature at which they predict this could actually happen: if the global temperature reaches 152 F we may be doomed. We’re at about 53 F today so we do have a bit of time left.

www.climatedepot.com

MIT Scientists Defuse Fear Of Climate Tipping Point

MIT Scientists Defuse Fear Of Climate Tipping Point A runaway warming effect wouldn’t kick in until global average temperatures reach about 67°C, new study finds. Global warming alone is insufficie…
www.climatedepot.com
 
Latest information:

http://www.sepp.org


excerpt:

Thirty Years of Error? In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the UN under the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) from a resolution by the UN General Assembly to address possible future, human-induced, climate change. The reports of the IPCC support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The objective of the UNFCCC is “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” [Boldface added.]

The US Senate ratified the treaty becoming a party of the UNFCCC in 1992.

As readers of TWTW realize, the IPCC estimate future “anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” by using complex mathematical models prepared by others. As discussed in past TWTWs, the mathematical models fail basic testing – they fail to describe what is occurring in the atmosphere with changing greenhouse gases.

More particularly, as discussed in the September 15 and September 22 TWTWs, the publicly archived model runs from the 20 modeling groups participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) of the IPCC, as a group, greatly overestimate the warming trend occurring in the atmosphere. When specifically tested against the warming of a layer of the tropical troposphere, at 200 to 300 millibar, about 30,000 to 40,000 feet (9100 to 12,200m), they greatly overestimate the warming trends compared with three different datasets from weather balloons taken over the past 60 years. The test can be referred to as the McKitrick- Christy Hypothesis Test.

This failure prompts the question why? Given the extent of modeling expertise, the number of modeling groups involved, and the years of investigation, one must assume that this overestimate is not from a mathematical error in the models. Rather, it may be a systematic error in the thinking that goes into the formulation of these models.

The history of the IPCC by its first chairman, Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin, gives a clue. Writing a chapter in the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems after he left the IPCC, he states:

“The realization that human activities might change the global climate was not new. Already at the end of the nineteenth century Svante Arrhenius, professor of chemistry at Stockholm’s Högskola (University), deduced that the global mean temperature might increase by 5°C–6°C if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were doubled.”


This claim is not correct. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, in his 1895 paper Arrhenius wrote:
 
Last edited:
Almost A TRILLION DOLLARS … WITH NO NOTICEABLE RESULT!!

Germany has spent $780 billion in recent decades, Bloomberg reported, and it’s not enough to get them toward their national goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions 40 percent by 2020.

However, average Germans are feeling the pain. Electricity costs are about three times higher than in the U.S., driven mostly by increases in energy taxes to pay for green energy. Heat is so expensive it’s called “the second rent.”

German industry, on the other hand, is expempt from green energy laws out of fear they would no longer be competitive. That’s shifted more of the cost onto residents and smaller businesses.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
German industry, on the other hand, is expempt from green energy laws out of fear they would no longer be competitive. That’s shifted more of the cost onto residents and smaller businesses.
Click to expand...
We should hope for an unusually cold winter over there. Not because we wish the Germans ill, but on the contrary, to wake them to the futile idiocy of the current governmental policies. At some point sanity needs to return, and a really harsh winter might do exactly that. Even Germany cannot afford the cost of green energy.
 
Ender said:
We should hope for an unusually cold winter over there. Not because we wish the Germans ill, but on the contrary, to wake them to the futile idiocy of the current governmental policies. At some point sanity needs to return, and a really harsh winter might do exactly that. Even Germany cannot afford the cost of green energy.
Click to expand...
Germany is committed to buying natural gas from RUSSIA !!!

[What a terrible outcome.]

[If they would merely drill around for shale natural gas!!!]

[Same for England … which “believes” home-grown natural gas is icky. Norway is drilling like crazy … but not England!]
 
Last edited:
Norway has the ideal situation, they get their power from Hydro and they get their cash exporting oil and natural gas.

Though they are very pro climate change, I notice they haven’t regulated their fossil fuel production out of business.
 
Ender said:
We should hope for an unusually cold winter over there. Not because we wish the Germans ill, but on the contrary, to wake them to the futile idiocy of the current governmental policies. At some point sanity needs to return, and a really harsh winter might do exactly that. Even Germany cannot afford the cost of green energy.
Click to expand...
And this is why I made that comment - at some point the German public is going to revolt against this charade.

 
Theo520 said:
WUWT: Greens are worried Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court will impede their efforts to stretch Congressional mandates beyond their original intent.
Click to expand...
Imagine that: concern that the court might actually take a dim view of stretching Congressional mandates beyond their original intent. What could be worse than having a court that interprets words as meaning what they meant when they were written?
 
Ender said:
Imagine that: concern that the court might actually take a dim view of stretching Congressional mandates beyond their original intent. What could be worse than having a court that interprets words as meaning what they meant when they were written?
Click to expand...
That’s one of the things I really like about him, that he expects agencies to work within the mandates given by congress instead of making it up. He recognizes Congress is in the driving seat, for good or bad.
 
cei.org

Coal Plant Developers Still Building, Investing Despite Paris Agreement - Competitive Enterprise Institute

“Since the Paris Climate Agreement was negotiated in December 2015, the world’s installed coal-fired capacity grew by 92,000 MW—an increase equal to the combined operating coal fleets of Russia and Japan,” according to a report released Thursday by a coalition of non-governmental organizations...
cei.org cei.org
  • Currently, 1,380 new coal plants or units are planned or under development in 59 countries. If built, these plants would add 672,124 MW to the global coal plant fleet—an increase of 33 percent.
  • The top 120 developers account for 68 percent of all coal power plants in the construction “pipeline.”
  • The world’s largest coal plant developer is China’s National Energy Investment Group (NEI), which aims to build 37,837 MW of new coal plants.
  • The number 2 and 3 worldwide are the China Huadian Corporation with 25,097 MW and India’s National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) with 25,056 MW of new coal capacity in the pipeline.
  • The world’s top 120 coal plant developers are headquartered in 42 countries, but almost 1/5 of the companies on the list have their headquarters in China.
  • Out of the 59 countries where new coal plants are planned, 11 countries have only 600 MW or less of installed coal capacity and 16 have no coal-fired capacity whatsoever.
  • How many of the planned, announced, or permitted new coal projects actually move forward, is almost always a question of financing—hence the report “is aimed at the finance industry.”
And from Japan:

Tokai unit #2 satisfies its nuclear safety requirements for restart. The Nuclear Regulation Authority laid down its decision on Wednesday. The approval was unanimous. Tokai #2 is now the 15th unit to clear the safety requirements for operation, and the third Boiling Water Reactor system. It is the first nuke that was operationally-affected by the March 1, 2011, earthquake.

source: Fukushima News | Fukushima Nuclear Disaster | Fukushima Accident
 
Last edited:
Hysterical warnings like this are probably a good thing; this one especially given the short time frame. In light of everything we know, like the comment just made about the proliferation of coal plants, Germany’s failure to approach their CO2 reduction objectives despite the enormous costs they have assumed, and even this warning itself pointing out that (1) countries aren’t making their Paris Accord targets and (2) even if they did it wouldn’t be enough, there is no possibility of us reaching the 2030 target the warning alludes to .

So, in 2030, when none of the warnings have materialized, there is even less likelihood of believing the next “terrifying” alarm. “Wolf! Wolf!”
 
Ender said:
…So, in 2030, when none of the warnings have materialized, there is even less likelihood of believing the next “terrifying” alarm. “Wolf! Wolf!”
Click to expand...
So you have a fairly short time span in which climate change theory can be disproved. But there is no corresponding short time span and prediction that has been put forth by those skeptical of these claims. I think in fairness, those people should proclaim an analogous deadline for their view too. Something like this:

“If global temperatures rise XXX degrees by 2030, or the sea level rises by ZZZ, I will admit that climate change is a much more serious concern that I was previously admitting.”

Any takers? Theo? Ender? Anyone? Of course I will not be impressed if you say something like 20 degrees by 2030 or the sea level rises by 30 feet. A statement like that just shows you need lots of cover because you are not very confident of your position.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Any takers? Theo? Ender? Anyone? Of course I will not be impressed if you say something like 20 degrees by 2030 or the sea level rises by 30 feet. A statement like that just shows you need lots of cover because you are not very confident of your position.
Click to expand...
I predict that the graphs for temperature, sea level, storm intensity, storm frequency, etc will show no appreciable change in their slopes over the next 20 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top