If We Had Listened to Climate Scientists Back in 1979

By Alberto Z. Comendador – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

In two previous articles I made a point that seems inarguable but that advocates of emission cuts seldom acknowledge: the only worthy metric of progress in reducing emissions is the CO2 intensity of GDP, which one could also call CO2 efficiency. Looking at absolute emissions is absurd because absolute emissions depend largely or mostly on GDP and the growth thereof, which are of course unknown (especially if we’re making projections about the year 2100!).

In any case, climate policies aren’t supposed to reduce emissions by reducing GDP; sometimes advocates of emission cuts even brag about the economic benefits of their policies. So they can only work by reducing CO2 intensity, which is to say by increasing CO2 efficiency.

A second point hardly ever acknowledged is that CO2 efficiency isn’t static: it’s growing most of the time, in most places. It would have grown without the COP meetings and it did grow before the Kyoto agreement was signed – at a faster pace than thereafter.

Continue reading

Outwitting Climate Change With a Plant ‘Dimmer’?

By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

From the TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH (TUM) and the “dim and dimmer” department comes this finding that suggests GMO tweaking of plant DNA is the way to “outwit” the apparent nefarious intelligence of climate change.

Molecular mechanism responsible for blooming in spring identified

For many plant species, such as the thale cress, which is often used in research, but also for food crops such as corn, rice and wheat, there are now initiatives currently mapping the genome of many subspecies and varieties. CREDIT Photo: Regnault/ TUM

Outwitting climate change with a plant ‘dimmer’?

Plants possess molecular mechanisms that prevent them from blooming in winter. Once the cold of win-ter has passed, they are deactivated. However, if it is still too cold in spring, plants adapt their blooming behavior accordingly. Scientists from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) have discovered genetic changes for this adaptive behavior. In light of the temperature changes resulting from climate change, this may come in useful for securing the production of food in the future.

Continue reading

Renewable Energy, What is the Cost?

By Andy May – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

A key question to think about, do renewable fuels decrease fossil fuel use, or do they increase it?

What are the costs of using renewable energy? The sun and wind are free, does that make wind and solar power free? Biofuels require power to plant crops, make fertilizer and spread it, harvest the plants, make and transport the ethanol. Solar and wind require power to produce, transport and install the equipment. All renewable energy sources require lots of land per megawatt of electricity produced. We will not be able to determine a cost for renewable power in this essay, but we can discuss the components of the calculation and provide some context.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #262

By Ken Haapala, President,The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

The Climate Establishment Strikes Back: MIT Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences Richard Lindzen had circulated a petition signed by some 300 scientists calling for the US to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). He sent the petition with a letter to President Trump.

In response, twenty-two MIT professors sent a letter to President Trump a stating that they have worked on climate science and disagree with him. This letter cites the claimed future risks from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) including “sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts.”

Continue reading

End the Phony Social Cost of Carbon

By Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

The SCC drives war on fossil fuels but relies on faulty analyses that ignore carbon benefits

The Social Cost of Carbon is the foundation for numerous Obama-era energy policies, regulations and programs. Under complex SCC metrics, agencies calculate the “hidden costs” of carbon dioxide emissions associated with fossil fuel use, assigning a dollar value to each ton of CO2 emitted by power plants, factories, homes, vehicles and other sources.

Originally, in 2010, every ton of U.S. emissions averted would prevent about $25 in global societal costs allegedly resulting from dangerous manmade climate change: less coastal flooding and tropical disease, fewer droughts and extreme weather events, for example.

Within three years, regulators increased the SCC to around $40 per ton, the better to justify the Clean Power Plan, Paris climate agreement, and countless actions on electricity generation, drilling, fracking, methane, pipelines, vehicle mileage and appliance efficiency standards, livestock operations, carbon taxes, and wind, solar and biofuel mandates and subsidies.

Continue reading

Biofuel Madness: Another Disastrous Impact of Global Warming Deception

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

There are many deadly and disastrous stories associated with the deception that human CO2 is causing global warming. Some are more obscure than others, but no less deadly in the unnecessary damage and destruction they caused. One was the myth of what was called “Arab Spring.” It never occurred, but what happened was a result of ‘green’ policies based on non-existence science. Unintended consequences are the inevitable result of actions and must not be used to inhibit action and progress. However, there is a difference if the objective was based on evidence and provides benefits or was based on concocted evidence and was mostly detrimental.

I was on a radio program recently, when a listener called to ask who was responsible for more deaths than anyone in history. The word responsible is important because probably none of those most people identify, including Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong, ever actually killed anyone themselves. Many people now realize that the list includes people society tend to glorify, such as Alfred Nobel, who was so mortified by the death and destruction of his invention that he created prizes for advancing knowledge, understanding, and peace.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #259

By Ken Haapala, President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

Sea Level Rise: One disturbing activity by some government entities is using the highly speculative projections of future sea level rise to frighten the public The purpose appears to be to promote the false belief that humans can stop sea level rise by limiting or controlling carbon dioxide emissions. A common trick is using the widely ranging projections of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These projections are based on global climate models that have not been validated, and use of a few highly questionable studies based on a small sample of occurrences that cannot be generalized, globally.

In his presentation at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9), former NASA meteorologist Thomas Wysmuller highlighted some of the difficulties in arriving at accurate estimate of global sea level rise. Even satellite measurements have significant errors, containing significant noise from wave action near the coast lines.

Wysmuller states that we have three different metrics for estimating sea levels: 1) tidal gages with an average of 1.7 mm per year; 2) TopeX/Poseidon/Jason 1 & 2 satellites with a rise of 3.1 mm per year; and ENVISAT satellite with a rise of 0.5 to 2.5 mm per year. Importantly, all the sources indicate linear trends!

Continue reading