Climate change is on balance good! A Limerick and explanation.

The Epoch named Anthropocene:

Man’s fire appeared on the scene.

CO2, it is good

makes it green, grows more food.

To call it THE threat, that’s obscene.

We live in a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, where Earth faces the immediate danger of runaway heat catastrophe. So says Science Advances  09 Nov. 2016: Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming.  The paper claims that as temperature increases due to increased CO2 levels the climate sensitivity also increases leading to global heating runaway. To prove the point it provides the following graph:

globaltemperatureIt was timed for the day after the U.S. election to highlight the necessity of complete adherence to the Paris accord. This accord is one of  the accomplishments of the Obama administration, as President Barack Obama said April 22, 2016: “Today is Earth Day — the last one I’ll celebrate as President. Looking back over the past seven years, I’m hopeful that the work we’ve done will allow my daughters and all of our children to inherit a cleaner, healthier, and safer planet. But I know there is still work to do.

Can this really be true that implementing the Paris agreement is our only chance to avert this disaster?

I still remember well the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970, the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s birth. It was in Philadelphia, and Ira Einhorn,Earthday1070IraEinhorn later known as the Unicorn killer was master of ceremonies. At that time the great fear was that we are heading for another ice age because of all the acid rain the coal burning electricity plants spewed out, and having just visited Pittsburgh, I totally agreed and was ready to jump in and help. The acid rain was said to wipe out the trouts in the Northern, acidic lakes, and pollution was seen everywhere. Being from Sweden and having just 6a00d83451580669e2019b01ece999970bimmigrated I was appalled at the lack of concern for the environment, and the imminent threat of the coming ice age. Even Time Magazine jumped into the fray and wrote about the rapid increase of the Arctic Ice cover and other signs of the onset of a new Ice age. Average temperatures was to be maybe up to seven degrees colder by the year 2000, so prepare!

Having been raised in Sweden, born in a town on the granite covered shores of lysekil-swedenSkagerrak there were signs of the last ice age everywhere. Sweden is still recovering from it and is rising out of the ocean at a rate of up to three feet per century and has been doing so since the inland ice began to melt. Of course this contributes to sea levels rising in the rest of the world.  The Ice Age left evidence of cataclysmic events as the climate switched from cold to warm. I still remember when as a lad my father took me to a place in Western Sweden, called “Brobacka” where there are  around 40 “jattegrytor” (giant kettles),  including the biggest giant kettle in the Nordic countries, measuring 59 feet  wide. They were formed when large rivers formed under the rapidly melting icepack. We learned in school about ice ages, and that we are at the end of the interglacial period, and we narrowly avoided a new ice age in the 1600’s and are thankful it didn’t happen then.

The normal climate for the earth is that we are in an ice age, which is a very stable period, but for  some reason an imbalance occurs and the climate switches abruptly to an interglacial period. After a few thousand years we go back into an ice age and stay there for around 100000 years and the cycle repeats. The question is, what mechanism is ruling ice ages and interglacial periods?

antarctic_icecoreTDoes CO2 concentration drive climate change? From the chart above it seems so. Properly plotted there seems to be a near perfect alignment.  But to find what is cause and effect we need to expand the time scale as is seen in the figure below:

end-of-ice-age-edWe can see from these charts that CO2 concentrations and temperature follow each other closely, but, and this is important:  Air Temperature rises first, then comes the increase in CO2 and finally the rise in ocean temperature. As ice melts and the ocean temperature increases it releases CO2, and this leads to a further temperature rise.  But at some time the temperature stops rising while CO2 levels still rise.  Since about 10000 years ago the temperature has been slowly decreasing and so has the CO2 levels. The Coral reefs make carbonates, the bogs make cellulose, the oceans revert to cooling and start to absorb CO2 again.

Give thanks for “the pause” and clouds. A Limerick.

What is the reason for the cooling? Could it be volcanic eruptions?

Maybe, but volcanic eruptions are temporary and does not cool the climate for more than a few years. Meanwhile enjoy the vegetation during this interglacial warm period.leaf-areaIt is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,  second only to water vapor in importance.It is responsible for about 9 degree Celsius rise in global temperature, and if CO2 increases, so does its greenhouse effect. The increased temperature leads to more water vapor in the air, and water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, so there is a risk of reaching a “tipping point” when we could experience a thermal runaway of the planet. All of this is true, so U.N. and many governments around the world have sponsored studies to model  climate change, over a hundred models have been constructed, they all come up with rather gloomy forecasts. The research is so intense that over 3 billion dollars of government monies are spent yearly on climate change research.

All models show a similar pattern, a fairly steep and more or less linear rise in temperature as CO2 increases. There is only one major thing wrong with them. They do not agree with what is happening to the global temperature. We have now had 224 months (Sep 2015) without any global warming. Since then there has been a rather strong el nino, much like the one in 1998 and global temperatures have been at new record temperatures after adjustment of old temperatures.

Back to the climate models chart

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1What is wrong with the models? They all assume a passive earth, where there is no negative feedback to the changing environment. It turns out, the earth has a “governor”, and it can be expressed in one word, albedo, which means “whiteness” or how much of the incoming sunlight that gets reflected back into space. The major albedo changes of the earth are the appearance of clouds. How do the models do on clouds?

CloudmodelsNone of the models agree with reality when it comes to clouds. It also matters what type of clouds there are, and when they occur. Night clouds keep the warm in and increases the greenhouse effect. Daytime clouds reflects the incoming sunlight and the result is a net cooing effect.

Other albedo changers are the amount of ice around the poles, but even land use changes such as forests cut down and replaced by agriculture and urbanization.

When there is snow or ice on the ground, more sunlight gets reflected and it gets colder still. Urban heat islands are warmer than the surroundings, airports are warmer than its surroundings. Interestingly, that is where we are placing our new weather stations. (This is great for pilots that have to evaluate take-off and landing conditions, but is less than ideal for climate research. But then again, climate research has moved from the realm of physical science to political science, where different rules do apply.)

The most important albedo changers of the earth are clouds. Without them no land based life would be possible since clouds serve both as rain makers and temperature stabilizers. If there were no clouds the equilibrium temperature at the equator would be around 140 degrees F.

Over the oceans, in the so called “doldrums” where there are no trade winds, the mornings start with a warm-up, and when the conditions are right a shower or thunderstorm occurs. The ambient temperature is usually between 84 and 88 degrees when this happens. As CO2 concentrations increase thunderstorms occur a few minutes earlier and last a little bit longer, but they are no more severe and as a result the average temperature stays the same.

See the following chart. It is divided into five regions, Arctic, North temperate, tropical, South temperate and Antarctic.uah-lower-troposphere-temperatureThe next region is the North temperate. This includes the desert areas. In desert areas of the world this temperature regulator doesn’t work well, so deserts will receive the full force of temperature increase which is 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit per doubling of CO2 levels.

In the temperate region the temperature increase will be somewhere in between. Dry days will be warmer, cloudy and rainy days will have the same temperature as before, since the cloud regulator starts to function.

The Arctic and Antarctic regions are a special case. None of the models have done a good job at modeling the clouds at the poles, especially the South Pole. (See the cloud chart above.) The Arctic will warm up more than 2 degrees F, how much is a question. In the South average temperatures will rise from – 70 degrees F in the interior all the way to maybe – 63 degrees F, and come closer to freezing in the summer at the northern edges. There may be added snowfall that will expand the ice sheet. The Antarctic ice sheet has set new records since record keeping began, and war 2 years ago bottoming out at 30% more ice than the 30 year average. Recently even the Antarctic ice sheet been receding.

The North Pole region is even more complicated since it is partially land, partially ocean. The oceanic ice cap has been shrinking  at a fairly constant rate the last 30 years, but since 2012 it broke the trend and grew back to break the trend line. The winter snow cap has remained at about the same level year to year with a slightly positive trend line, this year being no exception.  So, why is the snow cover growing slightly, but ice cover shrinking? The common explanation has been global warming, but the ice cover kept shrinking even as the temperature increase leveled off. There are two possible explanations: Warming oceans and changes in pollution. The North Atlantic Oscillation has been mostly positive (warmer) since 1970 and has only recently turned negative, so that is certainly part of the cause of the shrinking of the icecap, but another candidate is even more likely: Carbon Pollution. With that I do not mean CO2, but good old soot, spewing out from the smokestacks of  power plants in China. 45% of all coal burned is burned in China, often low grade lignite with no scrubbers. The air in Beijing is toxic to humans more days than not. Some of that soot finds its way to the arctic and settles on the ice, changing its albedo, and the sun has a chance to melt the ice more efficiently. This occurs mostly in the months of August and September when the Sun is at a low angle anyway, so the changing of the albedo has very little effect on temperature. The net result of all this is that the temperature in the North Pole region will rise about 4 degrees Fahrenheit for a doubling of the CO2. This will have a very minor effect on the Greenland ice cap since they are nearly always way below freezing anyway (-28 degree C average). The largest effect will happen in August and September in the years when all new snow has melted and the soot from years past is exposed. This happened two years ago with a sudden drop in albedo for the Greenland ice. It will also lead to an increase in the precipitation in the form of snow, so the net result is the glaciers may start growing again if the amount of soot can be reduced.

An interesting fact is that the sunlight reflection is larger over water than over ice in August and September in the Arctic, co melting the Arctic ice reduces the greenhouse effect.

The conclusion is: The temperature regulator of the earth is working quite well, and the increase in temperature at the poles is welcome as it lessens the temperature gradient between the tropics and the polar regions, which in turn reduces the severity of storms, and tornadoes, since they are mostly generated by temperature differences and the different density of warm, humid and dry, cold air.

 

hurricaneshurricanesmajor

 

tornadoes

 

tornadosvsco2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Polar Bears will do quite well, their numbers have more than doubled in the last 50 years.

Will droughts increase? The data does not indicate so:

sdata20141-f51

What about ocean acidification? As CO2 increases, a lot of it will be absorbed in the oceans, thereby making the oceans more acid. This is true, but CO2 is a very mild acid and has a minor acidic influence. Of much more importance is acid rain. At one time in the 70’s some lakes in Norway had a Ph. of about 4.5, enough to kill most trout fishes. In Sweden it was said they fertilized their rivers and lakes four times as much as tilled soil, leading to significant acidification of both the Baltic and the North Sea. The Baltic Sea is still in danger of total oxygen depletion. By comparison to these dangers CO2 in the ocean is only a very minor disturbance. Clean the rivers and lakes first!

ph-feb-ocean-800

Oh, and one more thing. The sea level rise is a natural phenomenon of tectonic plate movements, the Atlantic Ridge is rising and the Eastern Seaboard is sinking.  These movements will continue to occur regardless of the climate.

John Kerry said in Indonesia the other day: “The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.  And in a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.

The opposite is true, increased levels of CO2 is a major vehicle of wealth distribution. (Green is increased plant growth, red is decreased,  1982 – 2010)

increaseThe increase in temperature is manageable and even desirable in most regions of the world, desert areas and areas prone to flooding being the exception.

In conclusion:

CO2 is a clean gas, necessary for life, and an increase in the amount of CO2 is highly desirable.

The very minor increase in temperature is on balance beneficial, since it leads to a less violent climate, with fewer storms, hurricanes and tornadoes.

The increase in CO2 makes us able to feed another 2 billion people on earth, not to mention additional wildlife.

Ocean acidification is a problem, not so much from CO2, but from sulfuric acid, nitrates and other pollutants. The major offender: China.

The increase in precipitation is beneficial, except in areas already prone to flooding. It is especially welcome in arid areas. The chart below show no increase in heavy rains as CO2 increases.

heavyrainfallvsco2

On the other hand the great conservationist SARAH PALIN once said: “We’ve got to remind Americans that the effort has got to be even greater today toward conservation because these finite resources that we’re dealing with obviously – once oil is gone it’s gone, once gas is gone, it’s gone. And I think our nation has really become kind of spoiled in that arena.”[Fox News, Hannity’s America, 10/12/08]

Coal, oil, peat, wood  and natural gas are our best raw material to sustain life as we know it, and are far to valuable to waste on electricity production, so let us switch electricity production to thorium based nuclear energy

. https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/nuclear-power-and-earthquakes-how-to-make-it-safer-and-better/

https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/eleven-reasons-to-switch-to-thorium-based-nuclear-power-generation/

https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/eleven-more-reasons-to-switch-to-thorium-as-nuclear-fuel/

https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/nuclear-power-why-we-chose-uranium-over-thorium-and-ended-up-in-this-mess-time-to-clean-up/

https://lenbilen.com/2012/01/31/energy-from-thorium-save-500-million-from-the-budget-now/

Coal can be converted to jet fuel and gasoline, air planes have no alternative fuels.

I welcome constructive comments. Tell me where I am going wrong. I have done my very best to look at what is really happening to the earth and from there draw conclusions, rather than rely on climate models.

 

 

 

New record for the fewest tornadoes Nov 14 thanks to increasing CO2! A Limerick.

The fewest tornadoes this year

No cause for alarmists to cheer

For the CO2 rise

makes for more peaceful skies

the climate change blessings are here.

A new absolute low for tornadoes as of Nov 14 was set:

tornadoesThe most interesting plot is showing

tornadosvsco2

Obama in Laos: We are lazy. A Limerick

 

Obama twice called Americans “lazy” Wednesday during a Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) town hall at Souphanouvong University in Laos during his ongoing visit to Asia. The comments are sure to irk conservatives who have previously claimed Obama is being unpatriotic when he criticizes Americans while overseas or at home.

“You know I believe that the United States is and can be a great force for good in the world but because we are such a big country we haven’t always had to know about other parts of the world,” Obama said. “If you are in Laos you need to know about Thailand and China and Cambodia because you are a small country and they are right next door and you need to know who they are. If you are in the United States, sometimes you can feel lazy and think, ‘You know we are so big we don’t have to really know anything about other people.'”

The president again threw out the “lazy” label when describing an overall lack of urgency in Americans’ attitudes toward climate change and the environment.

“Usually, if you see the environment destroyed, it’s not because that’s necessary for development,” Obama said. “It’s usually because we are being lazy, and we’re not being as creative as we could be about how to do it in the smarter, sustainable way.”

Obama in Laos: We’re lazy.

Destroy the environment: Crazy.

His pet peeve: CO2.

Ban all coal, that will do.

Just look at the sky: It is hazy.

(Just for the record: CO2 is totally transparent in visual light, it is water vapor, a much more efficient greenhouse gas that makes it hazy. Plus of course real pollution)

p.s. Here is one more

CO2, the life-giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.

What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?

A sinister, evil collusion?

CO2, it is clean,

Makes for growth, makes it green,

A transfer of wealth, a solution.  The explanation: https://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/

verse 96 of the Obama impeachment song: Sign the Paris Climate 2015 “treaty”.

By Myron Ebell :  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/26/china-and-us-to-ratify-landmark-paris-climate-deal-ahead-of-g20-summit-sources-reveal/

The South China Morning Post reported on Thursday that U. S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping “are set to jointly announce their ratification” of the Paris Climate Treaty when they meet on 2nd September before the G-20 Summit.  This is curious because ratifying treaties in the United States requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

Here is the language from Article Two, Section Two, Clause Two of the U. S. Constitution: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

The article by Li Jing references this curious requirement: “There are still some uncertainties from the US side due to the complicated US system in ratifying such a treaty, but the announcement is still quite likely to be ready by Sept 2,” said a source, who declined to be named.

In China’s Communist Party dictatorship, ratification merely requires their Maximum Leader to say, “So be it.”

Later in the article, Li Jing again tries to explain the inscrutable U. S. methods for ratifying a treaty: “US law allows the nation to join international agreements in a number of ways, including through the authority of the president.”

Lo and behold, the President of the United States can ratify a treaty in the same way as China’s Maximum Leader.  He merely has to say the magic words, “So be it.”  And it is so.  Who knew that President Barack Obama has become our Maximum Leader, or perhaps I should say our dear Maximum Leader?

http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/08/26/china-and-us-to-ratify-paris-climate-treaty/

This leads to verse 96 of the Obama impeachment song (as if sung by President Barack Hussein Obama to the tune of “Please release me, let me go”)

I will sign the climate deal,

The Senate won’t dare to repeal!

Though they will both squirm and squeal

They will fold as soon as I say: Heel!

Here is the complete impeachment song: https://lenbilen.com/2015/02/25/the-complete-obama-impeachment-song/

Hillary Clinton rejects the Keystone XL pipeline. Warren Buffett endorses Hillary Clinton. Crony Capitalism at its best.

Hillary Clinton has decided against building the Keystone XL pipeline, thus satisfying the environmentalists that want to wean us off our dependency on carbon based products, such as fuel, food and fertilizer. The arguments for denying the decision are nearly exclusively political, while the arguments to build the pipeline are concerns for our national security and economy.

Here is the deal:

Canada has the tar-sands and is extracting the oil. This was not our decision. If we don’t buy the oil, China will.

We are importing crude oil from the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.), Nigeria, Venezuela and other volatile places, leaving us exposed to supply and price disruptions.

We export refined products to the Caribbean islands, which by the way have a larger carbon footprint per person than the U.S. This is good business, since the islands are too small for a refinery.

It takes more energy to run a refinery up north in a cold climate than in hot, humid Baytown, Texas.

The last time a major oil refinery was built in the U.S was 1976. A small refinery was built in 1993, in Valdez, Alaska. The  US. regulatory climate is hostile to refineries. Colombia, O.K, U.S. No.

Warren Buffett bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad in February 2010 and paid 44 Billion dollars for it. The railroad paid Berkshire Hathaway 2.25 Billion in dividends during the first 13 months. Warren Buffet bought the railroad after President Obama took office.

Right now the crude oil is transported from the Athabasca tar sands to Houston mostly by Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC railroad. It is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.
https://lenbilen.com/2012/01/25/warren-buffet-profiting-from-working-on-the-railroad/
The cost of transporting the oil is about #14 dollars per barrel, much of it the cost of energy (CO2). The pipe-line can do the job for about seven dollars per barrel, much of it capital costs.
We can see what happens when transporting crude oil: https://lenbilen.com/2013/07/07/ttain-derailment-in-quebec-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-a-limerick/

Warren Buffet is a major player in the Obama Administration; he has frequent access to the White House and is a major contributor to Obama and the Democrats’ campaign. It is therefore in his self interest to endorse Hillary Clinton.

Sarah Palin succinctly coined the phrase: “This is Crony Capitalism.”

By not importing oil from Canada the total carbon footprint will increase. We lose, and Canada loses. (I am not concerned that the CO2 is increasing, but that a valuable natural resource is excessively depleted.) Now it turns out that Canada has left the Kyoto Protocol, thereby being free to burn as much of its carbon as they want. Was that really what the environmentalists wanted?

So why is Hillary Clinton against the Keystone XL pipeline? Here are seven possibilities:

1. Like Obama, Hillary is a true believer that ”this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”. As a politically correct environmentalist her role can not be overestimated .

2. Hillary is deliberately wrecking our economy to create a more fair society of shared sacrifices, refuses to have an energy policy that will create jobs, but will support protest movements and foment unrest.

3. Hillary is acting on orders from Global Governance people that do want U.S. to be totally dependent on international law and U.N. mandates.

4. Hillary wants to show leadership in implementing the Paris Climate Conference 2015, and its associated treaty.

5. Hillary and Obama want to show leadership on something, like touting the “breakthrough” agreement with China, where China is allowed to emit six times as much CO2 by the year 2030 as the U.S.

6. The real reason? Like Obama, Hillary is fully bought and paid for. https://lenbilen.com/2014/02/14/the-real-reason-obama-wont-approve-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/

7. Hillary is half insane and surrounded by bad advisers.

This is the best I can do to explain the reasons for this decision.

Verse 91 of the Obama impeachment song: Executive order fireworks finale.

It is now less than one hundred days left of Obama’s reign.

He will finish with a barrage of executive orders: Regulation frenzy like the finale of a fireworks display.

The thing with regulations is that they can be undone by his successor, and that is why this election is so important. All his political appointees will be replaced by new ones.

Obama is doing what he can to make his regulations permanent by having his political appointees promoting only hard core progressives to the top career positions in every department. Previous presidents have relied more on promoting the most qualified candidates to these positions. This will make it so much harder to change the direction of the bureaucratic inertia. Bureaucrats, once given power, are loath to relinquish it.

Should Donald Trump win the campaign it is therefore of utmost importance he chooses department heads that are capable of fighting the bureaucratic behemoth. Luckily, the Republican bench of candidates is deeper than ever.

Should Hillary be elected, regulations will become even more stifling and will increase crony capitalism, which depends on favorable regulations to prevent competition. This will time cause an economic gridlock.

This leads to verse 91 of the Obama impeachment song (as if sung by President Barack Hussein Obama to the tune of “Please release me, let me go”)

Less than hundred days remain

of fundamental transform pain.

All my efforts were in vain,

I was ineffective, end my reign.

Here is the complete impeachment song: https://lenbilen.com/2015/02/25/the-complete-obama-impeachment-song/

 

Earth day 2016. Sign the Paris agreement!

Obama is signing in Paris

a document meant to ensnare us.

Constitution? Who cares?

He wants One World affairs

With doomsday predictions to scare us.

It is typical that Obama didn’t sign the agreement himself, but did send John Kerry instead. After all, it had to be done on Lenin’s birthday, also known as Earth day, and Obama was engaged in a self invited private luncheon with Queen Elizabeth and meddling in the political affairs of the United Kingdom.

Obama claims he has the authority to give away the sovereignty of the United States, putting it under U.N. regulations without the approval of Congress.

Maybe so, since this world changing document has no vehicle for enforcement. But if that is the case, why even bother?

The U.S. Army though has as its highest priority pledged to honor “Earth Day” by “reasserting its pledge to address the implications of climate change and assess associated risks to national security.”

Way to go.