If you care about climate change, vote Republican!

The Climate change pace in this plot

shows voting this fall means a lot.

No original sin

if Republicans win

since temperatures will be less hot.

From Wattsupwiththat.com comes this interesting plot: (Thanks, David Middleton)avid Middleton)

From this we can see that the global temperature changes according to hadcrut4gl are:

During the presidency of George H W Bush temperatures fell by 0.20 C/decade

During the presidency of Bill Clinton temperatures rose by 0.26 C/decade

During the presidency of George W Bush temperatures fell by 0.04 C/decade

During the presidency of Barack H Obama temperatures rose by 0.42 C/decade

So far , during the Presidency of Donald J Trump global temperatures have receded 0.24 C.

It seems the hot air has gone out of Washington.

Any questions?

 

 

A fairy tale on weather forecasting with a twist(er).

Once upon a time in a kingdom by the sea there was a king that was fond of fishing. One day he wanted to go fishing, so he asked the royal weather forecaster for the weather forecast for the next few hours.

The highly esteemed royal weather forecaster looked at his forecast models, developed at great expense and verified by 97% of all climate scientists. He

assured the King there was zero percent probability of rain.

So the king and the queen went fishing. On the way they met a man with a fishing pole riding on a donkey, and he asked the man if the fish were biting.

The fisherman said, “Your Majesty, you should return to the palace!
In just a short time I expect a huge rain storm.”

The king replied: “I have invested a large portion of the science budget of my kingdom in climate science and my royal weather forecaster assured me there is no chance of rain. I believe in science and trust him.”

So the king and queen continued on their way.

However, a short time later a torrential rain fell from the sky. The king and queen got thoroughly soaked.

Furious, they returned to the palace and the king gave the order to fire the meteorologist.

Then he summoned the fisherman and offered him the prestigious position of royal weather forecaster.

The fisherman said, “Your Majesty, I do not know anything about weather forecasting. The donkey told me.”

The King replied: “The donkey is a dumb animal and cannot speak.”

“True,” said the fisherman, “but, if his ears droop, it means with certainty that it will rain.”

So the king hired the donkey.

And thus began the practice of hiring dumb asses to work in influential positions of government. The practice is unbroken to this date, and thus the democrat party symbol was born.

(Is it a true story? Not really. It is making its rounds. This is how the dumb asses party symbol got started.)

Climate Change on trial in San Francisco Wednesday! A Limerick.

The Climate Changes models on trial

Alarmists are still in denial

Elementary flaw

was the models last straw.

The feedback does not move the dial.

Global warming on trial: Global warming goes on trial at 8.00 am this Wednesday, 21 March 2018, in Court 8 on the 19th floor of the Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. Court 8 is the largest of the courtrooms in the Federal District Court of Northern California. They’re clearly expecting a crowd. The 8 am start, rather than the usual 10 am, is because the judge in the case is an early bird.

The judge: His Honor Judge William Haskell Alsup, who will preside over the coyly-titled “People of California” v. British Petroleum plc et al., is not to be underestimated. Judge Alsup, as the senior member of the Northern California Bench (he has been there for almost two decades), gets to pick the cases he likes the look of.  Before he descended to the law (he wanted to help the civil rights movement), he earned a B.S. in engineering at Mississippi State University, and as such will actually understand the science of thermodynamics.

For you all who are interested in the scientific arguments I refer you to:

Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare

For the rest of you I leave you with this graph:

clip_image016

The feedback term is not positive, clouds provide negative feedback, leaving the global temperature feedback term almost neutral.

clip_image028

The outcome of the case: What will His Honor make of all this? My guess is that he will allow our amicus brief to be filed. With his engineering background, he will have no difficulty in understanding why we say that the notion of catastrophic rather than moderate global warming is rooted in the elementary physical error we have discovered.

Therefore, we hope His Honor will ask all parties to provide formal responses to our brief. On any view, it plainly raises a serious question about whether global warming matters at all – a question that strikes right to the heart not only of the case before him but of numerous other such cases now arising in several jurisdictions – and showing some evidence of careful co-ordination.

Conclusion: The anthropogenic global warming we can now expect will be small, slow, harmless, and even net-beneficial. It is only going to be about 1.2 K this century, or 1.2 K per CO2 doubling. If the parties are not able to demonstrate that we are wrong, and if His Honor accepts that we have proven the result set out publicly and in detail here for the first time, then the global warming scare was indeed based on a strikingly elementary error of physics.

The avowedly alarmist position too hastily adopted by governments and international bureaucratic entities has caused the most egregious misallocation of resources in history.

Ladies and gentlemen, we call time on a 50-year-old scam, in which a small number of corrupt and politicized scientists, paid for by scientifically-illiterate governments panicked by questionable lobby-groups funded by dubious billionaires and foreign governments intent on doing down the West, and egged on by the inept and increasingly totalitarian news media, have conspired to perpetrate a single falsehood: that the science was settled.

Well, it wasn’t.  Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

People, raw material and energy, the trade war with China, and will tariffs solve anything?

We are in a pickle. At least we were until President Trump stirred the pot and decided to address the trade war with China that has been going on for more than a decade, encouraged and abetted by former President Obama and his religious belief that the biggest threat to civilization is not nuclear holocaust, chemical poisoning of people and the earth or super-volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural phenomena, but climate change, all man-made of course.

Let us compare the economies of China and the U.S. in raw numbers.

1. Concrete. China produced 51.4% of the world’s cement in 2015, USA produced 1.8%. China’s production was almost 30 times larger.

It takes a lot of concrete to build artificial islands so they can take control of the South China Sea.

2 Steel production. China produced 50.3% of the world’s crude Steel in 2015, USA produced 4.9%. China’s production was over 20 times larger. Some of this steel was dumped below production cost to crush our domestic low end steel industry. An example: Rolled steel to make steel cans were exported at about $200 a ton, the production cost in the U.S. is more like $400 a ton.

3. Aluminum (or Aluminium as the British and IUPAC call it) China produced 41% of the world’s raw aluminum in 2010, USA produced 4.5%. China’s production was nearly 10 times larger.

This is easily rectified. Aluminum is produced where electricity is abundant and cheap, like in Norway and Iceland. Aluminum is produced whenever there is excess electric capacity, never on peak hours. Even here China dumps their excess Aluminum.

4. Coal. China burned 51.2% of the world’s coal in 2012, USA produced 12.5%. China’s production was more than four times larger.

This of course with the Paris accord in mind. U.S. and the European countries are to limit their emissions and slowly diminish them, down to a per capita emission comparable to the mid 1800’s, while China, being a developing country is allowed to increase their emissions until 2030, and then stabilize them, not decrease them.

If this seems like we have already sold out to China, it is nothing compared to

5. Rare Earth Metals. First, rare earth metals re not rare at all, they exist in small quantities together with Thorium and sometimes Uranium wherever other metals are mined.

The Lanthanides occur in quantity in Monazite, a byproduct of mining Phosphates, but also as a byproduct of mining Titanium, and even from some Iron ores. The rare earth metals are free to begin extraction if it was not for one thing, they also contain Thorium, and Thorium is radio-active, so in the mid 1980’s the NRC and IAEA reclassified Monazite and anything containing Thorium as a “Source Material” and after that it became too costly to comply with all the regulations for nuclear material, so all production of rare earth minerals ceased in the U.S.

China saw an opportunity to grab the world market for Rare Earth Metals and is now controlling about 94% of the supply of all rare earth metals.

So what are rare earth metals used for?

China now has a de facto monopoly on all usages of rare earth metals, and in the case of war or an embargo, not only are our precious cell phones and computers in jeopardy, so is our defense, night vision goggles, aircraft engines, navigation systems, laser guidance, just to name a few uses.

And not only that, we import the completed parts from China, even for our most sophisticated military equipment, such as the F35 aircraft, after telling the Chinese how to make the components. The very same components are now in China’s version of the F35, still under development, but in a year or so China will have their faithful copies made!

This is clearly unsustainable, so in 2014  Congress tried to pass HR 4883 and         S 2006 to remedy the situation, but the bills got killed in review by none other than the defense department, citing National Security!

We are no longer under the Obama “Strategic Patience” doctrine, so an updated version of these bills need to be introduced ASAP, or we will be on the hook from China forever!

After all this, the current spat with North Korea seems like a nuisance.

 

And then there was one. U.S. alone fights climate change the right way.

At the climate conference in Bonn, Germany, Syria signed the so called Paris Accord on Climate Change, leaving the United States alone as a non-signer.

Our European friends are quite upset about this. After all, countries like Denmark and Germany have the highest residential electricity rates in the world to pay for their wind and solar power installed. Here are the countries with reduced CO2 emissions this century:

But if one looks at the absolute decline in CO2 emissions, the U.S. leads the pack hands down:

So, who is the biggest CO2 villain? It is China by 6500 million tons of oil equivalent increase since 2000.    According to the Paris accord China is allowed to emit 6 times as much CO2 as the U.S. And not only that, the U.S. would pay them as one of the “developing” countries to do that!

Isaiah 24, the LORD’s devastation of the Earth.

At the climate conference in Bonn, Germany, Syria signed the so called Paris Accord on Climate Change, leaving the United States alone as a non-signer.

Climate alarmists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that the thermal response to increasing CO2 is a feedback gain from increasing water vapor that results from higher temperatures, leading to much higher temperatures. Current climate model averages indicate a temperature rise of 4.7 C by 2100 if nothing is done, 4.65 C if U.S keeps all its Paris commitments and 4.53 C if all countries keep their part of the agreement. In all cases, with or without the Paris agreement we are headed for a disaster of biblical proportions as described in Isaiah 24, but IPCC call all these changes man-made.

As the chart indicates, implementing all of the Paris agreement will delay the end of mankind as we know it by at most 4 years.

But God has provided two important feed-back loops, clouds and vegetation to keep the climate from overheating.  (more at https://lenbilen.com/2017/06/04/with-the-paris-accord-not-signed-can-the-world-still-be-saved-a-look-at-the-arctic/ )   This is not the real disaster, the real disaster occurs when mankind turns away from God.

A truly smart electricity meter will revolutionize our electricity use.

Sixty years ago I worked as a plate scrubber and errand boy in a Swedish bakery. In one corner of the bakery stood the oven, a giant cement and stone contraption weighing at least 50 tons. It was run on electricity, turning on every night at 10 P.M. and turning itself off at 5 A.M. First in the morning we baked the Danishes and other good stuff that required the highest heat, and as the day wore on and the oven cooled off, other breads were baked in the order of temperature need. It took some planning, but the price difference between night rates and day rates made it all worthwhile.

This brings me to a truly smart electricity meter.

It would charge the customer at the current cost of generation + transmission cost + utility profit, displaying the current cost at any given time of the day.

The customer would have the right to sell back electricity to the net at the current cost of generation – transmission cost – utility profit.

Knowing the current true price of energy the customer can then delay turning on the clothes dryer until the price goes below an acceptable level. He could take a look at the current price and decide to turn off the air conditioner rather than pay $1.20 per KW, or she could decide: It is worth it.

By making the user rather than the power company decide how and when electricity is used and produced this will bring immense benefits:

Many users will decide to buy a backup generator with battery, charge the battery when the price is low, and discharge the battery when the price is high. If there is excess battery capacity, he can even sell back the excess at the inflated price. And if the price is high enough it is cheaper to use the generator.

This will have immense benefits on the grid, lessening peak demand and increasing the off peak use.

And best of all, should the grid fail, there will be enough generating capacity to run the refrigerators and essential stuff until power is restored.

What prevents this from being realized?

Politicians and the power companies desire to maintain total control over how the net is used. Political regulators hate to give decision making power back to the people.