See for yourself how working class global warming has spun out of control.
Where’s my middle class carbon tax?
See for yourself how working class global warming has spun out of control.
Where’s my middle class carbon tax?
February 15, 2018 – February 11, 2019
In Spanish, Sierra Nevada means “snowy mountain range.” During the past few months, the range has certainly lived up to its name. After a dry spell in December, a succession of storms in January and February 2019 blanketed the range.
In many areas, snow reports have been coming in feet not inches. Back-to-back storms in February dropped eleven feet (3 meters) of snow on Mammoth Mountain—enough to make it the snowiest ski resort in the United States. More than 37 feet (11 meters) have fallen at the resort since the beginning of winter, and meteorologists are forecasting that yet another storm will bring snow this week.
The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) acquired these natural-color images of the Sierra Nevada on February 11, 2019, and February 15, 2018. In addition to the much more extensive snow cover in 2019, notice the greener landscape on the western slopes of the range.
Statistics complied by the California Department of Water Resources indicate that the mountain range had a snow water equivalent that was 146 percent of normal as of February 19, 2019. It was just 44 percent of normal on Thanksgiving 2018. Last season, on February 15, 2018, snow cover was at a mere 21 percent of normal.
Some of the snow has come courtesy of atmospheric rivers, a type of storm system known for transporting narrow, low-level plumes of moisture across long ocean distances and dumping tremendous amounts of precipitation on land.
The condition of Sierra Nevada snowpack has consequences that go well beyond ski season. Spring and summer melt from the Sierra Nevada plays a crucial role in recharging California’s reservoirs. Though conditions could change, California drought watchers are cautiously optimistic that the boost to the snowpack will insulate the state from drought this summer.
The reservoirs are already in pretty good shape. Cal Water data show that most of the reservoirs are already more than half-full, and several have water levels that are above the historical average for the middle of February.
NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens, using MODIS data from NASA EOSDIS/LANCE and GIBS/Worldview. Story by Adam Voiland.
Major CA Resivor Levels
Daily Snow Sensor Report
The scientist widely known as the “Father of Global Warming” has admitted for the first time that data used to promote his climate change theory was false and fradulently manipulated by Al Gore to suit an agenda.
In 1986 the former NASA scientist, James Hansen, testified to Congress during a hearing on global warming organized by then-Congressman Al Gore to produce scientific models based on a number of different scenarios that could impact the planet.
According to Hansen, Al Gore took the data provided in a “worst-case scenario” and intentionally twisted it, rebranding it as “Global Warming,” making tens of millions of dollars in the process.
The model was titled “Scenario B” and was one of many provided to Congress by Hansen, however it left out significant factors meaning it didn’t reflect real-world conditions. This didn’t stop Al Gore and climate alarmists using the data to mislead millions of people all over the world.
However a new study that compares real-world data to the original Scenario B model — finding no correlation — has received Hansen’s backing, with the “Father of global warming” admitting he is “devastated” by the way his data has been used by climate alarmists.
Real World data shows “the science is not settled”
The dire climate prediction that was taken from Hansen’s data model “significantly overstates the warming” observed in the real world since the 1980s, according to the new analysis.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, known as the ‘Father of Global Warming’, says real world data shows no global warming has occured.
Western Journal reports: Economist Ross McKitrick and climate scientist John Christy found observed warming trends match the low end of what Hansen told Congress during a hearing on global warming organized by then-Congressman Al Gore.
“Climate modelers will object that this explanation doesn’t fit the theories about climate change,” the two wrote.
“But those were the theories Hansen used, and they don’t fit the data.
“The bottom line is, climate science as encoded in the models is far from settled.”
Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue wrote that “surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.”
“But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong,” Michaels and Maue wrote in The Wall Street Journal in June.
The WSJ op-ed set off a fierce debate over the accuracy of Hansen’s predictions.
Several media reports interviewing climate scientists claimed Hansen’s predictions — issued in 1988 — were pretty much correct.
Hansen’s dire global warming predictions turned 30 this year, sparking fawning media coverage of their accuracy.
The so-called “godfather” of global warming even told The Associated Press “I don’t want to be right in that sense.”
Some scientists moved the goalposts and argued even though Hansen’s temperature predictions were off, he got the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions correct.
However, McKitrick and Christy’s analysis takes into account such objections, pointing out that Hansen’s prediction of carbon dioxide emissions was actually close to what was observed — there just wasn’t much warming.
It turns out Hansen’s worst-case scenario projection of global warming, known as Scenario B, only takes carbon dioxide emissions into account, but still showed too much warming, McKitrick and Christy wrote.
“What really matters is the trend over the forecast interval, and this is where the problems become visible,” McKitrick and Christy wrote.
Hansen’s conclusion, they wrote, “significantly overstates the warming.”
It snowed 16 inches in the Sahara Desert near the town Ain Sefra in Algeria after a storm hit on Sunday. This is the third time in 40 years that snow has fallen on the city.
Residents also awoke to snow in 2016 and 2017. But this time, they got about 16 inches of the white stuff. While the actual town of Ain Sefra only saw a few inches of snow, the sand dunes in the desert, which is on the outskirts of the town, were covered.
“We were really surprised when we woke up to see snow again. It stayed all day on Sunday and began melting at around 5 pm,” said Photographer Karim Bouchetata. When Bouchetata says “again”, the photographer is referring to another snowstorm not long ago. In 2016, the town known as “The Gateway to the Desert” saw deep snow shortly after Christmas and it caused chaos, with passengers stranded on buses after the roads became slippery and icy.
But children made the most of it, sledding down the desert sand dunes and building snowmen.
The cold snap comes as Europe and the United States froze in bitter temperatures. Winter Storm Grayson, battering the US east coast, has seen the sea freeze in Cape Cod, along with the Niagra Falls in stunning scenes.
“Cold air was pulled down south into North Africa over the weekend as a result of high pressure over Europe,” said a spokesman for the Met Office earlier. “The high pressure meant the cold weather extended further south than normal.” Ain Sefra is about 3,281 feet above sea level and surrounded by the Atlas Mountains.
The Sahara Desert covers most of Northern Africa and it has gone through shifts in temperature and moisture over the past few hundred thousand years. Although the Sahara is very dry today, it is expected to become green again in about 15,000 years and was green in the past. This change was blamed on “global warming” or “climate change.”
There is one thing that is not up for discussion as Gov. Jerry Brown battles to win support for the extension of California’s cap-and-trade program: the flow of cap-and-trade funds to the bullet train.
“If that’s a killer for you, then you have a dead body,” Brown told this newspaper’s editorial board.
The governor is urgently pressing the Legislature to pass Assembly Bills 398 and 617, two bills that are the product of months of private negotiations to reauthorize the cap-and-trade program for an additional 10 years. It’s currently set to expire in 2020.
What’s the rush? Brown says the world is hurtling toward catastrophic climate change that will lead to 47 percent of the planet having temperatures of 130 or even 140 degrees, with suffering and migration that will destabilize the world. “It’s damn real,” he said.
For the sake of argument, let’s agree that climate change is happening, catastrophic and entirely our fault.
California accounts for only 1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. We could shut down the entire state, turn off all the generators and shoot all the cows, and it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the global climate.
But the governor says California’s cap-and-trade program serves as a model for the world, inspiring other governments to adopt similar policies to reduce greenhouse gases.
The idea of cap and trade is that regulators place a statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions and require permits for each ton of emissions that a facility produces. Some permits are given out at no charge, and the state holds back a large share of them to sell at quarterly auctions in order to raise revenue.
The revenue goes into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and the legislature spends the money on politically favored projects connected to the climate. The connection is sometimes thin.
As of January, according to the governor’s budget summary, $3.37 billion had been spent this way. Those billions of dollars were pulled from the pockets of people who were paying higher prices for everything manufactured or transported in California.
In 2016, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office said cap and trade had added 11 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline, 13 cents to the price of diesel. Earlier this year, the LAO estimated that if the cap-and-trade program is extended for 10 years, it will add 63 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas in 2021, rising to 73 cents in 2031.
With its higher cost of living, California’s poverty rate is 20.6 percent, the highest in the nation, and economic distress is evident. In May, state finance officials said sales-tax revenue came in far below expectations, likely because wages were lower. The governor’s January budget proposal said that over the past four years, “the percentage of wage and salary growth from high-wage sectors dropped from 50 percent to 36 percent of total growth.” Cap and trade began in 2012.
Is the cap-and-trade program contributing to the loss of high-paying industrial jobs in California?
There’s no time to think about it, because the vote to extend the program will probably happen on Monday, just one week after the bills were made public.
It’s about money, not climate. The governor’s budget summary says extending the program to 2030 will lessen volatility in the quarterly auctions and boost revenues. And then there’s the bullet train.
As of January, $800 million of cap-and-trade funds had been spent on high-speed rail. And in the rail authority’s 2016 business plan, there’s a letter to legislative leaders from the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group about the financing for the initial operating segment from San Jose to Wasco.
“Most important,” they write, is “the Authority’s ability to securitize cap-and-trade funding when needed in the future.”
Securitizing is the process of borrowing future revenues by selling bonds to investors. The longer the time period of guaranteed revenue, the more that can be borrowed.
“Extending the C&T program beyond 2020 and defining the Authority’s share of the proceeds is one potential way to achieve at least part of the funding objective,” the experts wrote.
The business plan says the first segment of the bullet train will need $5.3 billion in committed cap-and-trade funds, plus another $5.2 billion borrowed against future cap-and-trade revenues to be collected between 2025 and 2050.
But the cap-and-trade program expires in 2020.
Is it starting to make sense? The voters approved a bullet train that would be built without a tax increase and operated without a public subsidy. Cap-and-trade funds are not tax revenues, so they can be spent building high-speed rail forever.
A vote to extend the cap-and-trade program is a vote to fund the bullet train with ever-higher prices for food, gasoline, electricity and everything that’s made or moved in California.
That’s the real path to catastrophe.
UPDATE: It passed.
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.
“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.
His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.
“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”
There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.
While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.
So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?
Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.
He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.
If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.
“It took me years to figure this out, but finally there is a potential resolution between the insistence of the climate scientists that CO2 is a big problem, and the empirical evidence that it doesn’t have nearly as much effect as they say.”
Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.
He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts on his wife Jo Nova’s blog for climate sceptics.
He is about half way through his series, with blog post 8, “Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth”, published on Friday.
When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review.
“It’s a new paradigm,” he says. “It has several new ideas for people to get used to.”
You heard it here first!
Those doing the Geo Engineering, or Solar Radiation Management, to combat so-called global warming would say they are saving the planet. Just the opposite, researcher Dane Wigington says, “Those in the military who are involved in the program are being told exactly that, and this is imperative to try to sustain the planet’s life support system. In fact, with available data from 65 years of climate engineering, we know this is making the situation far worse, not better.
We now have some in academia with the courage to start speaking out. Many are afraid about speaking about his issue, but we now have peer reviewed studies that say climate engineering can’t work. The trapping of the heat that comes from putting these particulates in the atmosphere and the shredding of the ozone layer, which is now in tatters, are all results of climate engineering. We don’t have the climate science community stating directly that this is happening or acknowledging it, but they are all stating on the record that it can’t work.”