2012 UN IPCC report, "Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation," Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (582 pages):
UN IPCC states "central North America" temperatures cooled between 1950 and 2011. Citations on pages 121, 134, and 135 reference "central North America" cooling. (Scientific American says UN IPCC is "the world's premier scientific body on the climate.") ..................
3 citations for "central North America" cooling temperatures from 1950-2011," per 2012 UN IPCC report, Chapter 3, "Changes in Climate Extremes and their Impacts on the Natural Physical Environment," begins p. 109:
First citation, p. 121:
p. 121, Subhead 3.1.6: "Changes in Extremes and Their Relationship to Changes in Regional and Global Mean Climate:"
(Right column, near end of page): "Parts of central North America [otherwise known as the US] and the eastern United States present cooling trends in mean temperature and some temperature extremes in the spring to summer season in recent decades (Section 3.3.1)."...
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.pdf
.............................
-----------------------------------------------
.....
Second citation, p. 134:
Subhead 3.3, "Observed and Projected Changes in Weather and Climate Extremes," Subhead 3.3.1, "Temperatures," subhead, "Observed Changes" (begins p. 133), Chapter 3:
p. 134, left column, 2nd parag.: "Regions that were found to depart from this overall behavior toward more warm days and nights and fewer cold days and nights in Alexander et al. (2006) were mostly central North America [the US], the eastern United States, southern Greenland (increase in cold days and decreases in warm days), and the southern half of South America (decrease in warm days; no data available on the northern half of the continent). In central North America and the eastern United States this partial tendency for a negative trend [ie, a cooling trend] in extremes is also consistent with a reported mean negative trend [ie, cooling] in temperatures mostly in the spring to summer season, (also termed 'warming hole,' e.g., Pan et al., 2004; Portmann et al., 2009)."
============================
..................................
Third citation, p. 135:
Subhead 3.3, "Observed and Projected Changes in Weather and Climate Extremes," Subhead 3.3.1, "Temperatures," subhead, "Observed Changes" (begins p. 133), Chapter 3:
p. 135, (Left column): "Only a few regions show changes in temperature extremes consistent with cooling, most notably for some extremes in central North America [ie, the US], the eastern United States,
and also parts of South America."...
...........
.........................
Added: Why 1950-2011 start and end dates in this report?
Re: 1950 start date, following is the only reference I found for possible significance of 1950:
p. 8, SPM: "There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes." (Subhead, "Climate Extremes and Impacts")
Re: 2011 end date, following is citation for May 2011 cutoff date:
page ix, Preface: "This report provides a careful assessment of scientific, technical, and socioeconomic knowledge as of May 2011, the cutoff date for literature included." (parag. 3, last sentence)
------------------------------------------------------
==============================
Added: More little noticed US climate data: Despite US 70% population increase (1960-2008 (48 yrs.), p. 258, per 2010 US Census), US CO2 has plunged over 20 years, 1992-2012:
Chapter 4, "Changes in Impacts of Climate Extremes: Human Systems and Ecosystems:"
Subhead (right column): "North America," "Introduction 4.4.6.1:"
"Coastline regions of the Gulf of Mexico region in the United States increased by 150% from 1960 to 2008, while total US population increased by 70% (US Census Bureau, 2010)." (last sentence in parag.)
...........................
Additional source for US cooling: 1986-2015 compared to 1901-1960: "US Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report (CSSR)," 2017 Executive Summary, third draft, Dec. 2016, two charts:
This map, page 19, "US Global Change Research Program, Climate Science Special Report (CSSR)," 2017, Executive Summary, third draft. "Changes are the difference between average for present-day (1986-2015) and the average for the first half of the last century (1901-1960)."..."What this map shows is highly damaging to the global warming alarmism industry. It proves that, regardless of average temperature trends, temperatures at the top end of the scale are not increasing. Note that this applies even in the case of California, until recently the golden child of warmists. We may be seeing milder winters and warmer nights, but, as far as the US is concerned, we are certainly not seeing hotter days."...Aug. 9, 2017, "US Climate Report Edits Out Highly Embarrassing Section," Paul Homewood
"We see that the hottest temperatures, (averaged over the US), were not only much, much higher in the 1930s. They were also higher during the 1920s. Indeed there have been many other years with higher temperatures than most of the recent ones."...August 9, 2017, "US Climate Report Edits Out Highly Embarrassing Section," Paul Homewood
(Comment: 3rd draft vs 5th draft: The UN freely states it's not about climate, it's about redistributing the world's wealth: 1/14/2010, "Climate policy redistributes world's wealth," NZZamSontag, interview with Ottmar Edenhofer by Bernhard Potter. Whichever "draft" is more punishing to Americans is the one the US political class will support).
Paul Homewood on 5th draft vs 3rd draft: Fifth draft (June 2017) omits politically fatal portions of third draft (Dec. 2016):
Aug. 9, 2017, "US Climate Report Edits Out Highly Embarrassing Section," Paul Homewood
"I mentioned in my previous post that the latest [5th] draft climate report, published in June, had seemingly left out a rather embarrassing table from the Executive Summary, one that had previously been written into the Third Draft, published last December.
As the link to the Third Draft had disappeared from the NYT, I could not show it.
However, Michael Bastasch, writing over at WUWT, did have the link, so we can now compare the relevant sections.
First, the latest draft, the Fifth:
The headline box only talks about global extreme heat rather than US, and the next paragraph can only claim that extremely warm days have become warmer since the 1960s.
The maps and graphs that follow on the next page show just why. I’ll zoom in on the right hand map:
Remember that the maps depict the difference between the average for 1986-2015 and the average for 1901-60.
Although they try to blame the much lower temperatures on the dust bowl era, an average for 60 years should make this much less significant.
What this map shows is highly damaging to the global warming alarmism industry. It proves that, regardless of average temperature trends, temperatures at the top end of the scale are not increasing.
Note that this applies even in the case of California, until recently the golden child of warmists.
We may be seeing milder winters and warmer nights, but, as far as the US is concerned, we are certainly not seeing hotter days. Check out the maximum temperature graph as well:
We see that the hottest temperatures, (averaged over the US), were not only much, much higher in the 1930s. They were also higher during the 1920s. Indeed there have been many other years with higher temperatures than most of the recent ones....
The US temperature record is extremely important for this Report, both because it is the US, but also because the US has most of the long running, high quality temperature data, along with the likes of the UK.
Claims of higher temperatures in the rest of the world can be easily dismissed because of doubts about the quality of the data, or the length of the record.
Even in the UK for instance, we find that Faversham, which set the supposed record UK temperature in 2003, only has continuous data since 1998, making such claims utterly meaningless.
It would therefore have been extremely embarrassing, and arguably fatal, for the Draft Report to have admitted that maximum temperatures were actually higher than now for much of the 20thC.
It was imperative therefore that this information be suppressed.
This new piece of evidence proves beyond doubt that the purpose of this latest climate report is a purely political one, designed to get across a particular message, regardless of the actual facts."
"SOURCE
The Fifth Draft is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html
And the Third Draft:
https://archive.org/details/CSSRTODALL"
...................................
...............
Added: US CO2 also plunges: US CO2 plunges to 20 year low, 1992-2012, AP: "Virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy."
8/16/2012, "CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low," AP, Pittsburgh, Kevin Begos
"In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years [1992-2012], and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere....
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that total U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.
While conservation efforts, the lagging economy and greater use of renewable energy are factors in the CO2 decline, the drop-off is due mainly to low-priced natural gas, the agency said....
Coal and energy use are still growing rapidly in other countries, particularly China, and CO2 levels globally are rising, not falling."...
(continuing, AP): "The International Energy Agency said the U.S. has cut carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country over the last six years
[2006-2012]. Total U.S. carbon emissions from energy consumption peaked at about 6 billion metric tons in 2007. Projections for this year are around 5.2 billion, and the 1990 figure was about 5 billion.
China's emissions were estimated to be about 9 billion tons in 2011, accounting for about 29 percent of the global total. The U.S. accounted for approximately 16 percent."...
....................
Added: As the US political class ordered in 1990, the poor would be robbed of precious US taxpayer dollars in favor of rich climate profiteers: "A fifth of official development aid is now diverted to climate policy." Money that might've been spent on the poor and needy:
12/10/2014, "Hot Stuff, Cold Logic," The American Interest, Richard Tol
"Politically correct climate change orthodoxy has completely destroyed our ability to think rationally about the environment."
"A fifth of official development aid is now diverted to climate policy."...(second to last paragraph)
.........
Added: 2015 paper: The explosion of global climate science spending was traced to the United States Executive branch in 1990 and Bush #1's USGCRP law ordering massive diversion of US tax dollars:
The 1990 law said the US must "assist" the rest of the world in addressing dangerous "global change" in the environment. US taxpayers are thus declared global slaves: "The purpose of this title [I, Sec. 101] is to provide for development and coordination of a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change."
In 1990 the US political class converted the US Executive branch and at least 13 federal agencies to enslave US taxpayers to global cronies and parasites. USGCRP was only the beginning of the gusher:
rather than the other way around:"
3/6/2015, "Causes and consequences of the climate science boom," William Butos and Thomas McQuade
"1. The Government’s Role in Climate Science Funding...[is] embedded in scores of agencies and programs scattered throughout the Executive Branch of the US government. While such agency activities related to climate science have received funding for many years as components of their mission statements, the pursuit of an integrated national agenda to study climate change and implement policy initiatives took a critical step with passage of the Global Change Research Act of 1990....
11. Funding appears to be driving the science rather than the other way around. And the extent of this funding appears not to have been heretofore fully documented. [32]...
2. By any standards, what we have documented here is a massive funding drive, highlighting the patterns of climate science RandD as funded and directed only by the Executive Branch and the various agencies that fall within its purview.[40] To put its magnitude into some context, the $9.3 billion funding requested for climate science RandD in 2013 is about one-third of the total amount appropriated for all 27 National Institutes of Health in the same year,[41] yet it is more than enough to sustain a science boom. Its directional characteristic, concentrated as it has been on RandD premised on the controversial issue of the actual sensitivity of climate to human-caused emissions, has gone hand in hand with the IPCC’s expressions of increasing confidence in the AGW hypothesis and increasingly shrill claims of impending disaster....
This Act established institutional structures operating out of the White House to develop and oversee the implementation of a National Global Change Research Plan and created the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to coordinate the climate change research activities of Executive Departments and agencies.[33] As of 2014, the coordination of climate change-related activities resides largely in the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, which houses several separate offices, including the offices of Environment and Energy, Polar Sciences, Ocean Sciences, Clean Energy and Materials RandD, Climate Adaptation and Ecosystems, National Climate Assessment, and others. The Office of the President also maintains the National Science and Technology Council, which oversees the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability and its Subcommittee on Climate Change Research. The Subcommittee is charged with the responsibility of planning and coordinating with the interagency USGCRP. Also, the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy is housed within the President’s Domestic Policy Council. While Congress authorizes Executive branch budgets, the priorities these departments and agencies follow are set by the White House. As expressed in various agency and Executive Branch strategic plans, these efforts have been recently organized around four components comprising (1) climate change research and education, (2) emissions reduction through “clean” energy technologies and investments, (3) adaptation to climate change, and (4) international climate change leadership.[36]."...
The International
Energy Agency said the U.S. has cut carbon dioxide emissions more than
any other country over the last six years. Total U.S. carbon emissions
from energy consumption peaked at about 6 billion metric tons in 2007.
Projections for this year are around 5.2 billion, and the 1990 figure
was about 5 billion.
China's emissions were estimated to be about 9 billion tons in 2011, accounting for about 29 percent of the global total. The U.S. accounted for approximately 16 percent.
Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. On the other hand, leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto target for that gas.
Even with such questions, public health experts welcome the shift, since it is reducing air pollution.
"The trend is good. We like it. We are pleased that we're shifting away from one of the dirtiest sources to one that's much cleaner," said Janice Nolen, an American Lung Association spokeswoman. "It's been a real surprise to see this kind of shift. We certainly didn't predict it."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-08-co2-emissions-year.html#jCp
China's emissions were estimated to be about 9 billion tons in 2011, accounting for about 29 percent of the global total. The U.S. accounted for approximately 16 percent.
Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. On the other hand, leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto target for that gas.
Even with such questions, public health experts welcome the shift, since it is reducing air pollution.
"The trend is good. We like it. We are pleased that we're shifting away from one of the dirtiest sources to one that's much cleaner," said Janice Nolen, an American Lung Association spokeswoman. "It's been a real surprise to see this kind of shift. We certainly didn't predict it."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-08-co2-emissions-year.html#jCp
The International
Energy Agency said the U.S. has cut carbon dioxide emissions more than
any other country over the last six years. Total U.S. carbon emissions
from energy consumption peaked at about 6 billion metric tons in 2007.
Projections for this year are around 5.2 billion, and the 1990 figure
was about 5 billion.
China's emissions were estimated to be about 9 billion tons in 2011, accounting for about 29 percent of the global total. The U.S. accounted for approximately 16 percent.
Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. On the other hand, leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto target for that gas.
Even with such questions, public health experts welcome the shift, since it is reducing air pollution.
"The trend is good. We like it. We are pleased that we're shifting away from one of the dirtiest sources to one that's much cleaner," said Janice Nolen, an American Lung Association spokeswoman. "It's been a real surprise to see this kind of shift. We certainly didn't predict it."
Power plants that burn coal produce more than 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, five times as much nitrogen oxide and twice as much carbon dioxide as those that run on natural gas, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and nitrogen oxides lead to smog.
Bentek, an energy consulting firm in Colorado, said that sulfur dioxide emissions at larger power plants in 28 Eastern, Midwestern and Southern states fell 34 percent during the past two years, and nitrous oxide fell 16 percent. Natural gas has helped the power industry meet federal air pollution standards earlier than anticipated, Bentek said.
Last year the Environmental Protection Agency issued its first rules to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, but the standards don't take effect until 2014 and 2015. Experts had predicted that the rules might reduce emissions over the long term, but they didn't expect so many utilities to shift to gas so early. And they think price was the reason.
"A lot of our units are running much more gas than they ever have in the past," said Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for Ohio-based American Electric Power Co. "It really is a reflection of what's happened with shale gas."
"In the near term, all that you're going to build is a natural gas plant," she said. Still, she warned: "Natural gas has been very volatile historically. Whether shale gas has really changed that — the jury is still out. I don't think we know yet."
Jason Hayes, a spokesman for the American Coal Council, based in Washington, predicted cheap gas won't last.
"Coal is going to be here for a long time. Our export markets are growing. Demand is going up around the world. Even if we decide not to use it, everybody else wants it," he said. Hayes also said the industry expects new coal-fired power plants will be built as pollution-control technology advances: "The industry will meet the challenge" of the EPA regulations.
The boom in gas production has come about largely because of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Large volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals, are injected to break shale rock apart and free the gas.
Environmentalists say that the fluids can pollute underground drinking water supplies and that methane leaks from drilling cause serious air pollution and also contribute to global warming. The industry and many government officials say the practice is safe when done properly. But there have been cases in which faulty wells did pollute water, and there is little reliable data about the scale of methane leakage.
"The Sierra Club has serious doubts about the net benefits of natural gas," said Deborah Nardone, director of the group's Beyond Natural Gas campaign.
"Without sufficient oversight and protections, we have no way of knowing how much dangerous pollution is being released into Americans' air and water by the gas industry. For those reason, our ultimate goal is to replace coal with clean energy and energy efficiency and as little natural gas as possible."
Wind supplied less than 3 percent of the nation's electricity in 2011 according to EIA data, and solar power was far less. Estimates for this year suggest that coal will account for about 37 percent of the nation's electricity, natural gas 30 percent, and nuclear about 19 percent.
Some worry that cheap gas could hurt renewable energy efforts.
"Installation of new renewable energy facilities has now all but dried up, unable to compete on a grid now flooded with a low-cost, high-energy fuel," two experts from Colorado's Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute said in an essay posted this week on Environment360, a Yale University website.
How much further the shift from coal to natural gas can go is unclear. Bentek says that power companies plan to retire 175 coal-fired plants over the next five years. That could bring coal's CO2 emissions down to 1980 levels. However, the EIA predicts prices of natural gas will start to rise a bit next year, and then more about eight years from now.
Despite unanswered questions about the environmental effects of drilling, the gas boom "is actually one of a number of reasons for cautious optimism," Mann said. "There's a lot of doom and gloom out there. It is important to point out that there is still time" to address global warning.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-08-co2-emissions-year.html#jCp
................... China's emissions were estimated to be about 9 billion tons in 2011, accounting for about 29 percent of the global total. The U.S. accounted for approximately 16 percent.
Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. On the other hand, leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto target for that gas.
Even with such questions, public health experts welcome the shift, since it is reducing air pollution.
"The trend is good. We like it. We are pleased that we're shifting away from one of the dirtiest sources to one that's much cleaner," said Janice Nolen, an American Lung Association spokeswoman. "It's been a real surprise to see this kind of shift. We certainly didn't predict it."
Power plants that burn coal produce more than 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, five times as much nitrogen oxide and twice as much carbon dioxide as those that run on natural gas, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and nitrogen oxides lead to smog.
Bentek, an energy consulting firm in Colorado, said that sulfur dioxide emissions at larger power plants in 28 Eastern, Midwestern and Southern states fell 34 percent during the past two years, and nitrous oxide fell 16 percent. Natural gas has helped the power industry meet federal air pollution standards earlier than anticipated, Bentek said.
Last year the Environmental Protection Agency issued its first rules to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, but the standards don't take effect until 2014 and 2015. Experts had predicted that the rules might reduce emissions over the long term, but they didn't expect so many utilities to shift to gas so early. And they think price was the reason.
"A lot of our units are running much more gas than they ever have in the past," said Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for Ohio-based American Electric Power Co. "It really is a reflection of what's happened with shale gas."
"In the near term, all that you're going to build is a natural gas plant," she said. Still, she warned: "Natural gas has been very volatile historically. Whether shale gas has really changed that — the jury is still out. I don't think we know yet."
Jason Hayes, a spokesman for the American Coal Council, based in Washington, predicted cheap gas won't last.
"Coal is going to be here for a long time. Our export markets are growing. Demand is going up around the world. Even if we decide not to use it, everybody else wants it," he said. Hayes also said the industry expects new coal-fired power plants will be built as pollution-control technology advances: "The industry will meet the challenge" of the EPA regulations.
The boom in gas production has come about largely because of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Large volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals, are injected to break shale rock apart and free the gas.
Environmentalists say that the fluids can pollute underground drinking water supplies and that methane leaks from drilling cause serious air pollution and also contribute to global warming. The industry and many government officials say the practice is safe when done properly. But there have been cases in which faulty wells did pollute water, and there is little reliable data about the scale of methane leakage.
"The Sierra Club has serious doubts about the net benefits of natural gas," said Deborah Nardone, director of the group's Beyond Natural Gas campaign.
"Without sufficient oversight and protections, we have no way of knowing how much dangerous pollution is being released into Americans' air and water by the gas industry. For those reason, our ultimate goal is to replace coal with clean energy and energy efficiency and as little natural gas as possible."
Wind supplied less than 3 percent of the nation's electricity in 2011 according to EIA data, and solar power was far less. Estimates for this year suggest that coal will account for about 37 percent of the nation's electricity, natural gas 30 percent, and nuclear about 19 percent.
Some worry that cheap gas could hurt renewable energy efforts.
"Installation of new renewable energy facilities has now all but dried up, unable to compete on a grid now flooded with a low-cost, high-energy fuel," two experts from Colorado's Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute said in an essay posted this week on Environment360, a Yale University website.
How much further the shift from coal to natural gas can go is unclear. Bentek says that power companies plan to retire 175 coal-fired plants over the next five years. That could bring coal's CO2 emissions down to 1980 levels. However, the EIA predicts prices of natural gas will start to rise a bit next year, and then more about eight years from now.
Despite unanswered questions about the environmental effects of drilling, the gas boom "is actually one of a number of reasons for cautious optimism," Mann said. "There's a lot of doom and gloom out there. It is important to point out that there is still time" to address global warning.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-08-co2-emissions-year.html#jCp
Added: The genius of the CO2 danger industry: "There's no amount of money you wouldn't pay:" GOP Energy lobbyist insider Mike McKenna, quoted in 2013 Politico article:
"“If you really believe or accept that global warming is a legitimate, real, immediate threat, then there's no amount of money you wouldn't pay to avoid it," he said:"
6/27/2013, "GOP climate tack: Talk jobs, not science," Politico Pro, Darren Goode (near end of article)
..................
 | ||
| Bush #1: 'New World Order' | image of Bush #1 via You Tube "New World Order quotes" |
................................
Added: Seeking "climate action"? It began in 1990 and exists today thanks to Bush #1 (actually thanks to US taxpayers). (This chart, page 4, pdf, is an underestimate, doesn't include congressional allocations):
"Note and Sources: The data shown here are funding disbursements by the White House U.S. Global Change Research Program and its predecessor, the National Climate Program, available at NCP 1988, 43; Climate Science Watch 2007; and Leggett, Lattanzio, and Bruner 2013. These data, however, do not represent congressional climate science funding appropriations to other government agencies. As we show later in a more detailed assessment of U.S. government climate science funding, the numbers here, especially those for more recent years, greatly underestimate the actual level of funding."
Fall 2015, "Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom," independent.org, Butos and McQuade
http://www.gcrio.org/gcact1990.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.pdf
https://archive.org/stream/CSSRTODALL/CSSR-TOD_ALL#page/n19/mode/2up
.................
No comments:
Post a Comment