Phoenix… dust storm:
The Daily Mail has more…
Glad I don’t live in a dry dusty desert town… oops!
This is what I woke up to this morning…. a front porch covered with snow:
and I needed a push broom to clear the vehicles off:
If this keeps up, I may move to Texas for more than just their low tax/business friendly nature.
And… here it is 2PM later that day, and the icky white stuff is still HERE!
To Climate Scientists:
I’m writing to offer my town, St. George, for your next summer time conference. Temperatures run well past 100 here in the summer, and frankly, we could use your cooling influence.
You’ll note from this table:
that we could really use your help in July.
Thanks & Regards,
St. George, UT
Not unexpected. Enough peer pressure will get to anyone. Now the “skeptic” wants to declare global warming a “a challenge humanity must confront” and, here is the unshocking shocker, tax YOU to confront it.
In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.
Yeah, like that would a) help and b) not be raised infinitely, c) not hurt way more people than imaginary global warming ever would. Dumb move Lomborg, but alas, not surprising.
Anyway, Bjorn… I’m sorry, but not surprised, to see you become just another shill spreading fear of global warming to pump up and fund policies you prefer.
May your Danish winters be colder than normal now.
Keith Hennesey lays out how easy it is to waive the Jones Act (he organized it twice during the Bush Administration) and let whatever ships want to help us with the oil spill help.
Jones Act waivers are in the news because of the Gulf oil spill. I would like to contribute to that discussion by sharing my experiences coordinating the Jones Act waivers for President Bush in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In 2005 I served as the Deputy at the White House National Economic Council.
Read it and this will make more sense.
At the heart of the issue with Obama’s administration is that he, and those he has placed in power, fundamentally don’t care about Americans. Obama cares about himself. And his staff and appointees care about precise causes or economic interests, and they just can’t seem to do anything well that isn’t in their area of focus. They are activists with agendas not managers with competence.
What incentive would an eco-kook who hates oil drilling have to stop this mess? And what skills would they bring to the table? Yet that is the sort of person the Administration put in charge of monitoring oil drilling. BP made a boo-boo, but in doing so they are highlighting just how foolish our government is.
The ocean acts as a sink for C02 and holds 36,000 billion tons of C02. The atmosphere holds 720 billion tons of C02. A warmer ocean holds less C02, a 1 degree change would release about 1440 billion tons into the atmosphere. BTW: Humans emit about 26 tons of CO2 per year, with about 40% absorbed by natural sinks (trees, ocean, etc…).
An enterprising researcher in Hawaii has flipped global warming science on its head and formulated a simple model, backed by actual unmodified data, that shows that warming causes C02 rise, not the other way around.
With data from present back to 1960, he strongly correlated the rate of change in CO2 (derivative) levels with ocean temperature increases preceding. Prior to 1960, he correlated it to El Nino events (warmer water, although not precisely measured) preceding the C02 rise.
Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around. This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly.
We offer no explanation for why global temperatures are changing now or have changed in the past, but it seems abundantly clear that the recent temperature rise is not caused by the rise in CO2 levels.
Read the article here – it can get a bit “technical” but is worth reading.
There are other researchers finding similar results – but you can bet those researchers won’t be getting their grants renewed…
Sarah Palin, correctly, says that radical environmentalists are hurting the environment they claim to love.
“Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country’s energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It’s catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it.”
It would help, Sarah, to think of them not as caring about the environment, but as radical socialists concerned more with economic distribution and outcomes than with whales or other “natural” things.
In this way, btw, radical environmentalists are like radical ACLU types. Radical enviro kooks threaten the environment, just as radical ACLU kooks are a large threat to liberty.
Little is actually what it is claimed to be in liberal la la land.
Some solar advocates put up a map of the small areas needed to be covered with solar panels to “power the world”:
I note with some dissatisfaction that my house is covered by a solar shield. Their assumptions mysteriously are missing. I’m assuming, for instance, this is peak output. Does it include night time? Does it include cloudy days? Should all of the US suffer because St. George has thunderstorms for a few days?
Solar fanatics just don’t think things through. I want nuclear plants that can be all over, generate lots of power, and ARE ALWAYS TURNED ON!
As I’ve predicted here… we are more likely to get cold than warm.
Reasons… volcanoes, El Nino, and lower sun activity. And BTW… these are things actually measured and KNOWN to make it cold. No simulations here. Simulations don’t shut down air travel!
This is not alarmist fantasy or 2012 babble — several natural forces that are known to cause cooling are awakening simultaneously, raising speculation of a “perfect storm” of downward pressures on global temperature. These forces let loose one at a time can cause the Earth to cool and can bring about harsh winter conditions. If they all break free at once, the effects could be felt not just in the coming winter, but year-round, and for several years to come.
Our spring in St. George has been awesome. I wouldn’t mind a little summer cooling here. But… in the interest of humanity, I’ll accept that global warming is probably better for us as an aggregate.
Nature has a new paper with another “angle” attempting to prove global warming.
Geologists led by Brown University have determined the east African rift lake has experienced unprecedented warming during the last century, and its surface waters are the warmest on record.
Willis Eschenbach, who had done some research on the same lake, grew concerned about the report because he knew there were no temperature records for the lake.
I was puzzled by the claims in the new article regarding the changes in Lake Tanganyika surface temperatures, because I knew that there was almost no historical data on lake surface temperature. I wondered how they determined the surface temperature of the lake over the past 1,500 years. So I sprung the $18 to purchase the Nature paper and find out …
It soon turned out to be tree ring data methods. The researchers used a “proxy” that they can correlate to lake temperatures. They then proceeded to toss out parts of the proxy data that didn’t help their goal of showing warming, used fancy axis and other graphing techniques to minimize visible anomalies that put holes in their theory, and although claiming to know lake temperatures for 1500 years, they only actually had three (3!!!) actual measurements, all from 2003. How can you proxy 1500 years, with just 3 actual samples to correlate to?
He sums up the “science”:
My point is, the Tierney 2010 report is a study of the change in Lake Tanganyika surface temperature over time, which contains no measurements of the change in LST over time, and which has exactly three actual surface temperature measurements, which are poorly cited, are from different parts of the lake, and are all from 2003 …
I don’t know the reason these ‘scientists’ did such shoddy research – whether incompetence, grant seeking, or political motivations, or all of the above– I don’t know. All I do know is that we can’t trust this branch of science to perform quality science. I see no reason to further fund their activities, nor to make decisions based on their work.
In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.
Dr. Richard Lindzen
in this presentation on the current state of global warming “science”
John Droz Jr. has an interesting presentation debunking renewable energy’s potential.
Although he is a PhD the presentation is geared towards non-scientific average citizens.
Read the whole thing… it is loaded with useful comparisons like this one:
I don’t recall liberals bitching, like they do now about Arizona’s immigration law, when California and other states took on federal roles regarding global warming and C02 emissions. These are actions that clearly affect outside state lines.
I know it’s too much to ask for no hypocrisy, but could you at least make it less obvious?
The ONLY common factor in what liberals bitch about is if the law in question is good for America. It’s almost like they hate us and want us to fail.