Category: Uncategorized

New Paper: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Rose 4–5°C Within A Few Decades 14,700 Years Ago

New Paper: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Rose 4–5°C Within A Few Decades 14,700 Years Ago

via NoTricksZone
http://notrickszone.com

 Temperatures, Sea Levels ‘Naturally’ Rise

 30 – 40 Times Faster Than Today’s Rates


Modern Temperatures Only Rising 0.05°C/Decade


Since 1850, CO2 concentrations have risen from 285 ppm to 400 ppm.  During these ~165 years, the IPCC has concluded that surface temperatures have warmed by 0.78°C.  This is a warming rate of only 0.05°C per decade for 1850-2012 — which happens to be the same rate of warming over the 1998-2012 period.


IPCC AR5 (2013):     “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85°C over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 °C, based on the single longest dataset available 4 (see Figure SPM.1). … [T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 °C per decade).”

Modern Sea Levels Only Rising 0.17 Of A Meter/Century


IPCC AR5 (2013):     “[T]he rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 mm yr between 1901 and 2010“

Historical Hemispheric Temperatures Rose 2.0°C/Decade


According to a new paper, the Bølling Warming event 14,700 years ago raised the surface temperature for the entire Northern Hemisphere by 4 to 5°C within a few decades.  This is a hemispheric warming rate of approximately 2.0°C per decade, which is 40 times faster than the 0.05 °C per decade global warming rate since 1850 (and 1998).


Historical Sea Levels Rose 5.3 Meters/Century


Central Greenland’s surface temperatures rose by as much as 12°C during this time frame (14,700 years ago to 14,500 years ago).  Consequently, glaciers and ice sheets disintegrated rapidly and sea levels rose by about 18 meters (“12-22 m”) in 340 years.  An 18 m rise in 340 years is the equivalent of 5.3 meters per century, which is more than 30 times faster than the rate of sea level change (0.17 m per century) between 1901 and 2010.


Ivanovic et al., 2017     “During the Last Glacial Maximum 26–19 thousand years ago (ka), a vast ice sheet stretched over North America [Clark et al., 2009]. In subsequent millennia, as climate warmed and this ice sheet decayed, large volumes of meltwater flooded to the oceans [Tarasov and Peltier, 2006; Wickert, 2016]. This period, known as the “last deglaciation,” included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~14.7–14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [5.3 meters per century] (Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)) [Deschamps et al., 2012].”


Bølling Warming/Sea Level Rise Occurred With Stable CO2


CO2 record for 25 kya-present courtesy of Kawamura et al., 2003

Greenland Warmed By 10°C Within 3 Years 14,700 Years Ago



Steffensen et al., 2008
     High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years 

“A northern shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone could be the trigger of these abrupt shifts of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes of 2 to 4 kelvin in Greenland moisture source temperature from one year to the next.”

“The d18O warming transition at 14.7 ka [14,700 years ago] was the most rapid and occurred within a remarkable 3 years, whereas the warming transition at 11.7 ka [11,700 years ago] lasted 60 years; both correspond to a warming of more than 10 K.”


Greenland Warmed By 8-15°C Within Decades During Last Glacial


CO2 concentrations remained essentially stable  and dangerously low (~180 parts per million) throughout the last glacial (roughly 80,000 to 15,000 years ago).  And yet despite the lack of CO2 flux, Greenland’s surface temperatures often warmed by about 10.0°C within a matter of decades during this period.  This indicates that CO2 variability is not a detectable factor in abrupt climate changes.


Sánchez et al., 2017


Schmidt and Hertzberg, 2011     “There are twenty-five of these distinct warming-cooling oscillations (Dansgaard 1984) which are now commonly referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, or D-O cycles. One of the most surprising findings was that the shifts from cold stadials to the warm interstadial intervals occurred in a matter of decades, with air temperatures over Greenland rapidly warming 8 to 15°C (Huber et al. 2006).”


In Contrast, There Has Been No Net Warming In Greenland For 80 Years


Zhao et al., 2016


Hasholt et al., 2016      “We determined that temperatures for the ablation measurement periods in late July to early September were similar in both 1933 and the recent period [1990s – present], indicating that the temperature forcing of ablation within the early warm period and the present are similar.”


van As et al., 2016     “JJA [summer] temperatures were higher in 1928 and 1929 than in any other year of the Qaqortoq record, both attaining values of 9.2°C. This suggests that ablation in those years may have exceeded the largest net ablation measured on the Greenland ice sheet (2010).”


Box et al., 2009     “The annual whole [Greenland] ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”


Conclusion


Modern rates of temperature change and sea level rise are quite modest and unremarkable relative to the magnitude of the changes in the geological past (that are 30 to 40 times larger or faster).  The abrupt and pronounced historical temperature and sea level rise events occurred without any significant changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

In contrast, during the last 100 to 150 years there has been a dramatic rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations…but no accompanying dramatic rise in temperatures or sea level.

Thus, the conceptualization that human activity or CO2 concentration changes are the primary drivers of temperature changes and sea level rise does not  seem to be supported by the geological evidence.

via NoTricksZone http://notrickszone.com

April 12, 2017 at 09:02PM

Australia’s Runaway Renewable Energy Crisis: the Product of Government, Not Market Failure

Australia’s Runaway Renewable Energy Crisis: the Product of Government, Not Market Failure

via STOP THESE THINGS
http://ift.tt/2kE7k62

*** Governments’ renewable energy push to blame for crisis The Australian Financial Review Ben Potter 7 April 2017 The energy sector is in disarray because of government failure, not market failure, former Productivity Commission chairman Gary Banks says. He told Infrastructure Partnerships Australia the spectacle of South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill blaming the private sector […]

via STOP THESE THINGS http://ift.tt/2kE7k62

April 12, 2017 at 07:33PM

AIR POLLUTION NOT TO BLAME FOR THOUSANDS OF DEATHS

AIR POLLUTION NOT TO BLAME FOR THOUSANDS OF DEATHS

via climate science
http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie

This article exposes the fraudulent claims that air pollution is a major cause of death in modern cities.

Ross McKitrick, a University of Guelph economist, has taken a close look at the usefulness of the computer methods producing these smog death figures. First he took Toronto’s computer model and gave it data from the 1960s, when air pollution was noticeably worse than today. Back-testing is a common way to judge a computer model’s reliability. If it cannot explain what has already happened, then it’s usefulness in explaining the future is highly suspect.

The output was nonsense. In February 1965, for instance, the computer model claimed more people died from air pollution than died in the real world from all causes.
“The results I got suggest the models are implausible,” McKitrick told me. “They’re attributing over 100 percent of all deaths to air pollution. It just doesn’t make sense.”
Given the obvious flaws in existing computer models, McKitrick created his own simulation. With two Scottish academics he gathered 20 years of data from five Canadian cities – a far larger data set than used by the Ontario Medical Association – and performed a more sophisticated computer test. These results show air pollution to be almost entirely irrelevant to hospital admissions or death.

According to McKitrick, even if all forms of air pollution miraculously disappeared from Ontario over night, there would be no noticeable decline in the death rate. Claims of a massive death toll do not stand up to scrutiny.

via climate science http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie

April 12, 2017 at 06:30PM

Ford’s Electric Cars in China: Good News or Bad?

Ford’s Electric Cars in China: Good News or Bad?

via Master Resource
http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1

“Even with more wind and solar power, coal will continue to supply around two-thirds of the power for China’s  expanding electric car users.”

“Think in terms of opportunity cost. The resources for installing 12,000 charging stations could have been used to modernize Chinese coal power plants instead of catering to already-subsidized electric car buyers.

Electric cars are popular with investors, and the New York Times reports on booming market value as “Tesla Passes Ford in Market Value as Investors Bet on the Future,” (April 3, 2017). Tesla’s Elon Musk wants all future engines (except rockets) to be electric:

In his vision, Tesla is going to change the world, and is primed to cash in on the two transformative trends in the industry: the shift to electric vehicles as part of a broader societal move to cleaner energy, and the advent of automated driving.

Electric enthusiasm has reached China as well and CleanTechnica reports: “China Electric Car Sales Demolish US & European Electric Car Sales” (January 25, 2017):

…the 351,861 electric car sales registered in China during 2016 represent approximately 46% of ALL plug-ins sold worldwide this year, with Chinese carmakers responsible for 43% of all EV production in 2016.

Wall Street Journal reports U.S. carmaker Ford in China will be adding to the electric surge:  “Ford to Make Electric Cars in China Amid Green Drive,” , April 7, 2017):

Ford’s local joint venture Changan Ford Automobile Co. will start building the Mondeo Energi plug-in hybrid vehicle in China next year, with a new all-electric sport-utility vehicle set to follow within five years, the company said in a statement.

Screen Shot 2017-04-07 at 4.23.10 PMElectric cars offer many advantages, but reducing pollution isn’t always one of them. Instead, electric cars shift the point of pollution to electricity sources. Electric cars charged in the Pacific Northwest draw power from very clean hydroelectric dams. But electric cars in California add to power imported from coal-fired generating plants in other states.

In addition, electric cars sold in the U.S., China, and E.U. receive significant government subsidies. Yet “Electric cars and the coal that runs them” (Washington Post, November 23, 2015), notes:

…Thanks to generous tax incentives, the share of electric vehicles has grown faster in the Netherlands than in nearly any other country in the world.

But behind the green growth is a filthy secret: In a nation famous for its windmills, electricity is coming from a far dirtier source. Three new coal-fired power plants, including two here on the Rotterdam harbor, are supplying much of the power to fuel the Netherlands’ electric-car boom.

A Wired article on Tesla’s electric cars (March, 31, 2016) explains:

Your electric car doesn’t need gas, but it still might get its energy from burning carbon. It depends on how your local grid generates electricity. “If you use coal-fired power plants to produce the electricity, then all-electrics don’t even look that much better than a traditional vehicle in terms of greenhouse gases,”  … But if your local grid incorporates a fair amount of renewable solar and wind energy, like California, your electric vehicle is pretty clean.

So electric cars in California can be clean on sunny, windy days, and less clean when the grid draws power from out-of-state sources (up to 50% from burning coal). California doesn’t generate much energy from coal, but does import a lot. “UPDATE: California’s quiet market for coal,” SNL (October 12, 2015):

In 2014, less than 5% of California’s total energy demand was served by coal and petroleum coke-fired plants, nearly all of it from plants outside the state, according to an Oct. 12 report from the California Energy Commission. By 2026, California will end virtually all its reliance on coal.

But at times, as much as 50% of Southern California’s electricity still comes from coal-fired plants, Steve Homer, director of project management for the Southern California Public Power Authority, or SCPPA, told SNL Energy.

Back to the China story, generating electricity from coal in United states power plants is far less polluting than electricity from coal in China. “In Coal-Powered China, Electric Car Surge Fuels Fear of Worsening Smog,” (Reuters, January 27, 2016) reports:

A series of studies by Tsinghua University, whose alumni includes the incumbent president, showed electric vehicles charged in China produce two to five times as much particulate matter and chemicals that contribute to smog versus gas-engine cars. Hybrid vehicles fare little better.

“International experience shows that cleaning up the air doesn’t need to rely on electric vehicles,” said Los Angeles-based An Feng, director of the Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation. “Clean up the power plants.”

The key policy point is the upgrade power plants before pushing (subsidizing) electric cars:

Tsinghua’s studies call into question the wisdom of aggressively promoting vehicles which the university said could not be considered environmentally friendly for at least a decade in many areas of China unless grid reform accelerates.

In addition to the problem of electricity source pollution are infrastructure challenges. “California bets on electric cars, at ratepayer risk,” (San Diego Union Tribune,  February 7, 2017), asks:

Should all utility consumers subsidize the wealthier few who like to drive electric cars?

It’s hardly a fair question. Yet that’s what the California Public Utilities Commission will eventually have to decide, now that utilities have proposed a $1 billion plan to build and effectively own the state’s retail charging network of tomorrow.

New charging stations cost money, and so does the renewable power generation grid:

… a second problem created mostly in California, a serious glut of renewable energy. Starting in 2006, lawmakers ordered utility consumers to subsidize rapid increases in wind and solar energy production.

Today the state has as much as 50 percent more power available than needed on a sunny, windy winter afternoon. And then, when the sun goes down or weather causes production to drop, fossil-fuel plants fire up because batteries are too expensive.

China where average incomes are much lower than California, has more severe infrastructure problems for charging electric cars. “What’s Driving The Electric Car Trend In China?,” (NPR Morning Edition, December 14, 2015 ) reports on government subsidies in boosting electric car sales in China. Yang Zhou discusses his new car:

ZHOU: I bought a hybrid model from a Chinese carmaker called BYD. And it stands for Build Your Dreams. I paid $24,000 for the car. And that’s 30 percent off the sticker price. But I paid no purchase tax. And the best thing that comes with the car is a free Shanghai license plate, which is worth $13,000.

Zhou explains that this special license plate allows him to rush-hour access to less-congested elevated Shanghai highways. But he also complains that charging his car is difficult:

ZHOU: I have to admit that charging the car is really a hassle. Every time I do it, I have to lower an extension cord from my apartment, which is on the 11th floor. …

ZHOU: Oh, yeah, it’s very long. And it’s really heavy (laughter). It takes seven hours to charge the car. And the car can drive 40 miles on one charge. But fortunately, I don’t have to charge the car every day. But I do expect that the infrastructure for these kind of vehicles will get better over time because China’s government has planned to build 12,000 charging stations by the year 2020.

Think in terms of opportunity cost. The resources for installing 12,000 charging stations could have been used to modernize Chinese coal power plants instead of catering to already-subsidized electric car buyers.

Shanghai does have a showcase clean coal plant. “China hopes Shanghai clean coal plant sets example,” (PEi, August 23, 2016) and “China’s drive to clean up its coal power, one plant at a time,” (New Scientist, August 22, 2016).

Yet coal still accounts for about two-thirds of China’s energy provision, and more than 200 new coal plants have been given the go-ahead. Globally, too, coal demand and production are forecast to grow until at least 2040.

Technology that improves coal-burning efficiency could be useful for retrofitting older power plants, and cut down their emissions.

Even with more wind and solar power, coal will continue to supply around two-thirds of the power for China’s  expanding electric car users.

Charles C. Mann’s “Renewables Aren’t Enough. Clean Coal is the Future,” (Wired, March 25, 2014) looks at high technology coal power development in China:

GreenGen is a billion-dollar facility that extracts the carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power plant and, ultimately, will channel it into an underground storage area many miles away. Part of a coming wave of such carbon-eating facilities, it may be China’s—and possibly the planet’s—single most consequential effort to fight climate change. …

China, like most of the rest of the world, “pretty much has to use coal,” says Dean, the fuel analyst. “Or, I guess, leave people in the dark.” And since coal is not going away, coal plants around the world will need to find a way to capture and store their emissions. “It’s just crazy not to develop this technology.”

An earlier post “For Still-Poor China, Coal Pollution from Home Heating,” reviewed the challenges of China’s antiquated coal-power plants, especially those for home heat.

———-

Gregory F. Rehmke has directed the Economic Thinking Program for high school, homeschool, and college students for more than 20 years. Mr Rehmke has also directed educational programs at the Center for the American Idea, The Reason Foundation, and the Foundation for Economic Education.

Mr. Rehmke has a degree in Economics from the University of Washington and has worked with the Reason Foundation, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Center for the American Idea, and the Foundation for Economic Education. He is published in The Freeman, Reason, DailySpeculations.com, the MasterResource blog, GlobalEnvision.org, and TechCentralStation.com.

Mr. Rehmke is coauthor of the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Global Economics.

The post Ford’s Electric Cars in China: Good News or Bad? appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1

April 12, 2017 at 06:06PM