Real Climate Science

Originally posted in The Coloradoan.

——————————–

Pope Francis’s Climate Encyclical Is Unwise and Should Not Be Acted Upon

by Bill Gray

It is unfortunate that Pope Francis has let politics and erroneous climate science sway his judgment into advising the world to change much of its energy usage from cheaper fossil-fuels to more expensive renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.). Such changes will slow-down the globe’s future economic development and adversely affect the poorest people of the world. And such changes will not significantly improve our global climate.

Pope Francis’s Encyclical gives a rather pessimistic view on the current status of humanity with its large wealth disparities and its market driven economic systems which appear to many to put profit above the overall benefit of society. Yet it is the extensive use of fossil-fuels and the free-market economic system which has so greatly raised the living standards and life expectancy of the world over the last 150 years. Increased (not decreased) fossil-fuel usage will be necessary if society is to continue its wondrous economic and human-life improvements in the coming decades.

None of us can know of the unique new beneficial economic and human advancements that will be coming if plentiful and cheap fossil-fuel energy is available and if society continues to encourage individual imagination and well rewards individual achievement. The fostering of such a future creative society will likely have the best chance of any other system of discovering and developing new energy sources which would be able to gradually relieve our dependence of fossil-fuels at energy costs much lower than we will encounter by turning to wind and solar energy at this time. Society will encounter no serious global warming or environmental degradation over the next 50-100 years from rises in atmospheric CO₂ amounts.

I have spent 60 years studying, teaching, and forecasting weather and climate. This lifetime study has convinced me and many hundreds of my older and similarly experienced colleagues that there is no physical way that the expected atmospheric CO₂ gas increases over the next 50-100 years can possibly bring about the large amounts of global warming (2-4^oC) that has been projected by the climate models. The primary climate change which a doubling in CO₂ gas will bring about is not temperature but an increase in global rainfall (~3%) which should be overall beneficial for humanity. Contrary to the current general belief, global temperature rise, due to a doubling of CO₂ later in this century, should be expected to be quite small (0.2-0.3^oC). Most of the global temperature changes of the last century have been of natural origin. There has been no global surface warming in the last 18 years as CO₂ amounts have risen.

The failure of the climate models are related to their inability to explicitly resolve the globe’s many individual deep cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud elements. Due to faulty assumptions these cloud models produce unrealistic upper tropospheric temperature and moisture rises as CO₂ amounts increase. These increases in moisture block too much radiation loss to space and cause unrealistic warming. By contrast, observations show that increases in global deep Cb clouds from CO₂ gas increases brings about an opposite (drying) response. Observed upper tropospheric drying from Cb clouds acts to enhance radiation flux to space and bring about temperature decreases.

Those who demonize fossil-fuel usage do not understand or appreciate the great economic technical and human advances which fossil-fuels have brought to society. Our modern society with its higher living standards and increased lifespan would not have been possible without the large amounts of cheap energy which fossil-fuels have provided over the last century-and-a-half.

The many environmentalists and politicians who cite the climate models for justification of their warming pronouncements do so because these climate model results fit so well into their global government and other political control agendas. The real science behind what changes CO₂ gas increases will bring about does not concern them. It is what the climate uninformed public can be lead to believe which is most important. Most of the believers of large CO₂-induced global warming lack the necessary climate background knowledge to be able to know how unrealistic their climate warming ideas really are. They get caught up following the popular view.

We should all try not to be swayed by this politically generated and driven fictitious warming threat, whether it comes from our Government, the UN, the IPCC, or now from the Pope.

Report: Polar bears’ fate tied to reversing global warming | Alaska Public Media

1. Humans don’t control the climate
2. Arctic sea ice is at its highest level in a decade.
3. Polar Bears thrive in the Hudson Bay, which is ice-free for three months every year.

Basing policy on mindless superstition is probably not such a good idea.

Google News top stories

Yesterday the White House announced that Polar Bears are doomed, as sea ice returns back to 2005 levels.

Here is the same image with the Wednesday glitch removed

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Not only is the ice extent high, but its thickness is too. Arctic sea ice is the thickest since 2006.

Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png (2488×1960)

As always, the White House is lying – about both the ice and the bears. There is not the slightest indication that either are threatened.

The same people who have been telling us that Polar Bears are dying due to polar sea ice loss, now say it will be another ten years before they start being affected.

Study: Polar Bears Could Feel Global Warming’s Sting by 2025 – ABC News

Everything now is about getting western countries to agree to choke off their energy supply in Paris, and all of the climate studies coming out now seem to be nothing but fraud directed towards that end. Weirdest thing I have ever seen.

China promises to keep increasing their CO2 emissions for the next 15 years, while calling the massive increase a “carbon intensity reduction”

Beijing: China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has submitted a new carbon intensity reduction target to the United Nations while reaffirming its goal to curb carbon emissions by 2030, or “even earlier”.

Premier Li Keqiang made the announcement while during a visit to Paris, where the global climate conference will take place at the end of the year.

“China’s carbon dioxide emissions will peak by around 2030 and China will work hard to achieve the target at an even earlier date,” Mr Li said in a statement after meeting with French President Francois Hollande.

Global warming: China intensifies carbon reduction and reaffirms 2030 emissions target

In other words, when they complete all their new coal plants around the year 2030, then they won’t have to build any more. China understands that western governments and press are mentally defective, and will believe anything they are told.

Experts say that Europe never used to have heatwaves in July.

17 Jul 1896 – HEAT-WAVE IN EUROPE. DEATHS FROM SUNSTROKE. LOND…

Bill Gates points out that wide scale wind and solar energy are a farce, and that people who claim it isn’t have no idea what they are talking about.

Retired software kingpin and richest man in the world Bill Gates says today’s renewable-energy technologies aren’t a viable solution for reducing CO2 levels, and governments should divert green subsidies into R&D aimed at better answers.

Gates expressed his views in an interview given to the Financial Times yesterday, saying that the cost of using current renewables such as solar panels and windfarms to produce all or most power would be “beyond astronomical”. At present very little power comes from renewables: in the UK just 5.2 per cent, the majority of which is dubiously-green biofuel burning1 rather than renewable ‘leccy – and even so, energy bills have surged and will surge further as a result.

In Bill Gates’ view, the answer is for governments to divert the massive sums of money which are currently funnelled to renewables owners to R&D instead. This would offer a chance of developing low-carbon technologies which actually can keep the lights on in the real world.

“The only way you can get to the very positive scenario is by great innovation,” he told the pink ‘un. “Innovation really does bend the curve.”

Gates says he’ll personally put his money where his mouth is. He’s apparently invested $1bn of his own cash in low-carbon energy R&D already, and “over the next five years, there’s a good chance that will double,” he said.

The ex-software overlord stated that the Guardian‘s scheme of everyone refusing to invest in oil and gas companies would have “little impact”. He also poured scorn on another notion oft-touted as a way of making renewable energy more feasible, that of using batteries to store intermittent supplies from solar or wind.

“There’s no battery technology that’s even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables,” he said, pointing out – as we’ve noted on these pages before – that it’s necessary “to deal not only with the 24-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it’s cloudy and you don’t have sun or you don’t have wind.”

Bill Gates: Renewable Energy Can’t Do The Job | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

At current rates of ice loss, the Arctic will be ice-free by July 1 – Just as Al Gore and Peter Wadhams predicted

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut