There is a lot of concern over the price of oil and gasoline. Everyone wants to end our dependence on "foreign oil". Others predict an imminent shortage of oil. Some want to replace oil altogether by using "bio-fuels", or "sustainable" alternatives. The following article illustrates how more oil in the United States, and soon, undoubtedly many other places, is being found and produced because of improvements in technology. It is an encouraging example. Unless of course you believe that global warming is caused by the burning of oil and gas.
Peter
Billions of barrels of oil found in Eastern Montana
By JENNIFER McKEE
Gazette State Bureau HELENA - The low point came when the things got so tight that Billings petroleum geologist Richard Findley flirted with the idea of taking a second job as a restaurant cook.He was working out of his basement, looking for oil in an Eastern Montana field almost nobody else wanted. Then, in 1996, he and his partner accidentally stumbled across a porous layer of dolomite 9,000 feet below ground at a site just a little west and north of Sidney.That serendipity turned out to be the largest on-shore oil discovery in the continental United States in better than 20 years. Today, the oil field Findley found - and the technology he helped develop to extract the oil - has made millionaires out of ordinary Montanans, has swollen state coffers and ushered in a new philosophy of oil prospecting worldwide."It's just been a fairy tale for a guy like me," Findley said.
About 15.7 million barrels of oil were pumped out of Montana in 2000. Five years later, production had more than doubled to almost 32.8 million barrels. The difference, said Tom Richmond, administrator of the State Board of Oil and Gas, is Elm Coulee, the field Findley found.Elm Coulee produced more oil in 2005 than the entire state combined produced just six years earlier. Elm Coulee has helped put Montana back on the map of oil production, said Dave Galt, head of the Montana Petroleum Association.
The story behind the discovery, Findley said, is being in the "right spot for the wrong reasons." But it's also the story of a man who, after years of struggle, found that a field most people thought was tapped out was, in fact, ripe for further tapping.The Williston Basin is a geologic formation beneath a good chunk of Eastern Montana, most of North Dakota, parts of South Dakota and the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Within the basin is something called the Bakken Formation. The Bakken (rhymes with "talking") is a sandwich of two slabs of black shale surrounding a layer of limestone, siltstone, sandstone and dolomite, another kind of sedimentary rock.
The whole area was once part of a shallow inland sea, Findley said. The Williston Basin has seen some oil drilling for decades and geologists have long known that there is oil in the Bakken. But most drillers were focusing on the shale layers, and most early efforts were abandoned for a host of problems. Findley was aiming for another formation beneath the Bakken in the 1990s when he discovered something strange about the middle, dolomite layer.It was porous. If there are holes in the rock, there could be oil in the holes."It was a light bulb kind of thought and I thought, 'My gosh, the oil is in the middle member," Findley said. "When I saw that this was continuous for 50 miles, I called my partner (in Michigan) and I said, 'I think you'd better sit down. I think we found a giant oil field.' "
That Findley - or anyone else - was drilling for oil in the Bakken was somewhat unusual. Almost no one was drilling the field then, he said, and certainly not any major oil company."When we first started drilling this first well, the Bakken was a four-letter word," he said. "All the workers felt the Bakken was uneconomic."Even after Findley proved the area had oil - many billions of barrels of it - the Bakken had such a bad reputation, Findley jokes, that oil companies would hang up on him when he told them he found oil there.Eventually, he found a Dallas company called Lyco that believed enough in Findley's findings that it agreed to drill a well.
Getting oil out of the Bakken is not a matter of poking a hole in ground until you hit a soft spot full of oil. The oil in Elm Coulee is bound up in rocks, and that rock layer is wide but thin.It was Findley's idea to drill a well sideways - a technique called "horizontal drilling" in which prospectors drill down to the oil and then fan out their well thousands of feet to the side like the piping for an underground sprinkler. But horizontal drilling alone couldn't economically get the oil out of the ground. Findley also took his discovery to Halliburton, the industrial services giant, and engineers there figured out a way to both drill sideways and fracture the rock to release the oil.
Both horizontal drilling and fracturing had been done before, but never together, Findley said. Those combined technologies made Elm Coulee possible and are now being used in other fields across the globe. The technology has also changed the way engineers look at potential oil fields, Findley said, opening up oil-bearing rock formations to drilling that were never before thought economic.
Findley was born and raised in Corpus Christi, Texas. He was, by his own admission, "a beach bum" all his young life. Shortly before Findley was to graduate from high school, his dad asked him what he wanted to do with his life. Findley said he had no idea.Before World War II broke out, Findley's father had studied geology at Texas A&M. He suggested his son might enjoy the same."I asked, 'What's geology?' " Findley recalled.He went to Texas A&M, studied geology and became interested in the oil business. In 1975, he graduated with a master's degree in petroleum geology and took a job with an oil company in Denver working along the Rockies."But I realized I wanted to be an independent oil man," he said.
In 1978, Findley moved to Billings and took a job with Patrick Petroleum. Five years later, he started his own business, Prospector Oil Inc."Not realizing that I'd spend the next 20 years doing survival," he said. "But we did survive. My wife and I kept asking ourselves, 'I just didn't know how long we could survive in this business.' I did a lot of stupid things to stay independent in Billings."He worked out of his home, taking on consulting work to pay the bills. Findley never did take on a second job, although he once asked his neighbor, a restaurant owner, if he needed any extra help in the kitchen."There were a lot of lean times," he said. "(But) you just never knew each day, you could wake up and this is the day that you'd find a big oil field."
Findley's discovery has had huge effects. In Richland County, home to Elm Coulee, residents with oil royalties have literally been made millionaires.The state coffers are also thick with oil cash. In 1995, taxes on oil brought about $13 million into the state's checking account, said Terry Johnson, a principal financial analyst for the Montana legislature. Last year, that number had swollen to $92.7 million, and that's just tax on the oil. Oil companies also are paying more in state corporate income tax, Johnson said. Oil field workers and Richland County residents with oil royalties are paying more in individual income tax. Additionally, if any of the oil is drilled on state-owned lands, the royalties go in to a special account to support state schools. If the oil is drilled on federal lands, the state gets half the royalty."It's a pretty significant factor in state revenues," Johnson said.
The boom has been so big that the pipeline carrying Montana and North Dakota crude to Midwestern markets is at capacity and the largest company drilling in Elm Coulee has temporarily closed some wells because they have no way to sell it. The effects are especially stark in Sidney, the Richland County seat and closest town to Elm Coulee. While houses in much of the United States sit on the market for months, Sidney has a shortage, said Nick Jones, owner of Nick Jones Real Estate in Sidney. It's harder to find employees, said Gary Schoepp, owner of Action Auto, Sidney's Chrysler Dodge dealer. However, both Schoepp and Jones said that Sidney, which enjoyed a wild oil boom in the early 1980s, seems much more circumspect about the whole thing this time around.
Things have changed for the oil industry, too. A 2006 U.S. Department of Energy paper on the Bakken Formation ended by saying that new technology, like the kind Findley and Halliburton pioneered, means oil can be extracted from deposits previously dismissed as uneconomic. And things have changed for Findley, too. Suddenly finding himself the man of the hour, he has taken calls from oil prospectors around the world and traveled widely to provide expertise on potential new discoveries. He moved his office out of his basement in 1995 and now has an office in downtown Billings, although the office is still himself and his secretary.
He and his wife recently remodeled their home. They now have an indoor grill with a large fan to vent the smoke outside to accommodate Findley's love of cooking, especially barbecue."I have achieved my dream," he said. "I feel that I am independent today."For all the hubbub, Findley said renovating his home is the only way he and his wife, Lyn, plan on changing their lifestyle. The rest of the money Findley made from his discovery is going into an estate for the Findleys' children, 26-year-old Ben, who is pursuing a career in Seattle, and Leah, who just started her first year at Carroll College in Helena.
Findley also sounds a cautionary note. To state lawmakers, he says, don't get used to oil tax revenues. Oil wells run dry and with it, tax dollars. And to the users of oil, he encourages conservation and other kinds of energy, including nuclear energy. "We do have a lot of oil left to find," he said. "But our demand worldwide is increasing so rapidly, at some point our supply is going to flatten out." Findley worries about a crisis, where demand for oil, especially foreign oil, is significantly greater than the supply." At that point, it is going to be too late," he said. "We need to start today to do everything we can to decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil."
Published on Monday, December 03, 2007.Last modified on 12/3/2007 at 1:52 pmCopyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.
source:
Friday, December 7, 2007
"Scientific American" Magazine On Climate Change
Here is a "special report" on climate change just produced by Scientific American magazine. I've copied it from their website. This magazine's editorial agenda is clear; they are firmly of the belief that global warming and climate change are caused by man, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels and the release of carbon dioxide, a "greenhouse gas" (among other things) into the atmosphere. To see their reasoning, this "reputable" produces the following:
Peter
Special Report: Climate Change
Examining the state of the science on climate change
How can we cope with global warming and the challenges it poses? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just completed its fourth assessment of the science of climate change, its impacts and possible solutions. The panel of 2,500 scientists and other experts declared manmade warming "unequivocal" and wrote that it could lead to climate changes that are "abrupt and irreversible."
Examining the state of the science on climate change
How can we cope with global warming and the challenges it poses? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just completed its fourth assessment of the science of climate change, its impacts and possible solutions. The panel of 2,500 scientists and other experts declared manmade warming "unequivocal" and wrote that it could lead to climate changes that are "abrupt and irreversible."
Next week the world's governments are set to gather in Bali to begin negotiating an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that will succeed the much-debated Kyoto Protocol. The science is clear that the earth is heating up and will continue to do so—with potentially catastrophic consequences—unless we change our ways. What is unclear is how best to go about reining in our globe-warming pollution. Some argue for a fund for future clean technology while others prefer to focus on reducing pollution from present sources.
This special report explores the latest findings on the impact of human activity on Earth's climate—from the melting of Arctic ice to the potential spread of disease. It also explores the more pertinent question of where we can go from here.–The Editors
This special report explores the latest findings on the impact of human activity on Earth's climate—from the melting of Arctic ice to the potential spread of disease. It also explores the more pertinent question of where we can go from here.–The Editors
Thursday, December 6, 2007
The Global Warming Test
This test should be mandatory for all students, especially if they are subjected to that notoriously inaccurate propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth".....this test reveals the real truth...
Peter
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQuiz/Testindex.html
Question 1:
The Global Warming Test
Global warming is a real phenomenon: Earth's temperature is increasing.
The answer is True
The Facts
Global warming is something that has been happening for a long time. The temperature of the Earth has been increasing more or less continuously since the time of the cave man.
Approximately 18,000 years ago the Earth began a gradual process of warming up after more than 100,000 years of Ice Ages. Much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.
By about 15,000 years ago the Earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.
By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.
Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.
From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an "interglacial phase," or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.
Don't panic when you hear global alarmists warning the Earth may have warmed almost 1 degree in the last 200 years. Although this still hasn't yet been proven, it is in fact exactly what should be happening if everything is normal.
If global warming stops, then you can start worrying! It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age!
That is why the danger of nighttime frost is greater when the skies are clear than when skies are cloudy.
The Greenhouse Effect helps to moderate temperatures -- especially nighttime temperatures. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18 degrees C.
Greenhouse gases allow sunlight to pass through Earth's atmosphere, but as sunlight strikes the Earth it is partially changed to radiant heat. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane help inhibit the escape of radiant heat back into space.
That is why the danger of nighttime frost is greater when the skies are clear than when skies are cloudy.
Global Warming Question #4
The Greenhouse Effect is caused primarily by:
Click to view imageWater Vapor Click to view imageCarbon DioxideClick to view imageOzone-destroying Aerosol Sprays
The answer is Water Vapor
The Facts
Over 95 percent of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.
Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Dr. Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia, has demonstrated this phenomenon very effectively.
Did you know...
The world's natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
Global Warming Question #5
Which most accurately describes the effects of Global Warming in the United States over the last 100 years?
Click to view imageTemperatures have risen > 5° CClick to view imageTemperatures have risen > 2° CClick to view imageTemperatures have risen < class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CNext Question Click to view image
The Facts
Temperatures have gone through nearly two complete cycles of warming and cooling over the last 100 years. During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1975 temperatures were decreasing. Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930's.
Overall, the total average annual temperature increase in the last century is so slight the actual amount is uncertain -- maybe 1/3° C.
Global Warming Question #6
CO2 levels in the atmosphere today are at record high levels.
Click to view imageTrueClick to view imageFalse
The answer is FalseNext Question Click to view image
The Facts
Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (380 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in this chart is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as the line shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished."
Click to view image
In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm, except during periods of glacial expansion during ice ages.
Click to view image
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period).
Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htmCO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III) Click to view image
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:
Click to view imageDuring the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
Click to view imageThe highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
Click to view imageThe Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm.
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence Earth temperatures and global warming.
Global Warming Question #7
Carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants damages forests.
Click to view imageTrueClick to view imageFalse
The answer is FalseNext Question Click to view image
The Facts
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal gas that trees and other plants need to survive, just like oxygen (O2) is the principal gas that humans and other animals require. Trees absorb CO2 and release O2 -- animals inhale O2 and exhale CO2. See how nice this all works!
Earth's first, primitive forests made their prolific debut 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period. Before then, the atmosphere held far more CO2 but concentrations declined throughout the Carboniferous Period as plants flourished.
During the Carboniferous Period the atmosphere became greatly depleted of CO2 (declining from about 2500 ppm to 350 ppm) so that by the end of the Carboniferous the CO2-impoverished atmosphere was less favorable to plant life and plant growth slowed dramatically. Today, CO2 concentrations are barely at 380 ppm -- still CO2-impoverished.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not to be confused with its poisonous evil cousin carbon monoxide (CO), which can kill humans and animals in just a few minutes. Life as we know it could not exist without carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
Did you know ...
Carbon dioxide is invisible. The puffs of clouds you see from coal-fired power plants are just that -- clouds. Power plants use steam to drive the turbines which generate electricity. Steam must be cooled and condensed to water to reuse it to make more steam.
The fat, curvy towers that look like they are belching white smoke are really only emitting pure water vapor. They are in effect making clouds.
The actual exhaust emissions come from the smokestack, which is the tall skinny tower. Because modern technology makes it possible to remove much of the fly ash and sulfur before releasing smokestack gases to the air, smokestack emissons today are often almost invisible.
Global Warming Question #8
Which of the following is not true about an increasing greenhouse effect?
Click to view imageThe consensus of scientists is that the problem warrants drastic actionClick to view imageNighttime temperatures may increase, but daytime temperatures will notClick to view imageThe coldest, driest regions of the planet will warm first
The answer is The consensus of scientists is that the problem warrants drastic action
The Facts
Click to view imageIn 1989 as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war were winding down, the Union of Concerned Scientists began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists. Only three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. Richard S. Lindzen, MIT
Click to view image"When a bureaucracy's reason for existence is threatened, it typically generates new missions." Desperately Seeking Mission: Why the State Department's Gone Green --- Peter VanDoren
Click to view imagePresident Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. Global Warming Treaty is All Pain, No Gain --- Malcom Wallop
Click to view image"It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC) chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming. I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue [the argument that global warming is caused by human industrial activity] was a done deal."
Global Warming Question #9
Which temperature measuring method most accurately measures global warming?Click to view imageGround-based ThermometersClick to view imageOrbiting Weather SatellitesClick to view imageWeather Balloons
The answer is Orbiting Weather SatellitesNext Question
The Facts
Orbiting satellites provide the most accurate global temperature readings -- accurate to 0.1 degree C. Interestingly, in the 18 years that satellites have been recording temperature they have actually showed a slight decrease in average global temperatures.
Ground-based thermometers that were originally in rural areas have been reading increasingly hotter temperatures with time due to urban encroachment. The asphalt and concrete structures replacing green leafy plants makes for hotter local ground temperatures. This phenomenon is known as the "urban heat-island effect" and has been well-documented by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia.
In a November 1997 press release Vice President Al Gore proclaimed that 1997 was the hottest year on record. Ground-based temperature readings were the basis for this announcement. Had the data from orbiting satellites been cited the report would have been much different: no net increase in global temperatures in 1997.
Global Warming Question #10
Which answer below provides the best explanation for the following temperature record?
Click to view image
Click to view imageIndustrial pollution from factories, power plants, and cars caused global warmingClick to view imageNatural variations in global temperatures may occur in roughly 500-year cyclesClick to view imageGlobal cooling occurred as a result of the Renaissance Period
The answer is Natural variations in global temperatures may occur in roughly 500-year cycles
The Facts
The primary cause of variations in global temperature is the cycles of the sun and Earth's orbit about the sun. In addition to 40-year cycles and 500-year cycles, other temperature cycles include:
21,000 - year cycle: Elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun (precession of the equinoxes)
41,000 - year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5 degree wobble in Earth's orbit
100,000 - year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit (cycle of eccentricity)
Finally....
The Global Warming Test
Congratulations. You have completed the test. 10 Correct: Excellent, you know your facts
9 Correct: Good, you are an independent thinker
8 Correct: Fair, you are on your way
7 or below: Check out globalwarmingheartland.org to learn the facts about global warming Learning the facts is the best way to understand that global warming is occuring but is not a crisis. It is better to trust scientists than politicans. Do not let fear ruin your day. Learn the Facts. http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org
Peter
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQuiz/Testindex.html
Question 1:
The Global Warming Test
Global warming is a real phenomenon: Earth's temperature is increasing.
The answer is True
The Facts
Global warming is something that has been happening for a long time. The temperature of the Earth has been increasing more or less continuously since the time of the cave man.
Approximately 18,000 years ago the Earth began a gradual process of warming up after more than 100,000 years of Ice Ages. Much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.
By about 15,000 years ago the Earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.
By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.
Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.
From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an "interglacial phase," or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.
Don't panic when you hear global alarmists warning the Earth may have warmed almost 1 degree in the last 200 years. Although this still hasn't yet been proven, it is in fact exactly what should be happening if everything is normal.
If global warming stops, then you can start worrying! It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age!
- Global Warming Question #2
The Greenhouse Effect is real and contributes to global warming.
The answer is True
The Facts
The Greenhouse Effect helps to moderate temperatures -- especially nighttime temperatures. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18 degrees C.
Greenhouse gases allow sunlight to pass through Earth's atmosphere, but as sunlight strikes the Earth it is partially changed to radiant heat. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane help inhibit the escape of radiant heat back into space.
That is why the danger of nighttime frost is greater when the skies are clear than when skies are cloudy.
- Global Warming Question #3
The Greenhouse Effect is real and contributes to global warming.
The answer is True
The Greenhouse Effect helps to moderate temperatures -- especially nighttime temperatures. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18 degrees C.
Greenhouse gases allow sunlight to pass through Earth's atmosphere, but as sunlight strikes the Earth it is partially changed to radiant heat. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane help inhibit the escape of radiant heat back into space.
That is why the danger of nighttime frost is greater when the skies are clear than when skies are cloudy.
Global Warming Question #4
The Greenhouse Effect is caused primarily by:
Click to view imageWater Vapor Click to view imageCarbon DioxideClick to view imageOzone-destroying Aerosol Sprays
The answer is Water Vapor
The Facts
Over 95 percent of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.
Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Dr. Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia, has demonstrated this phenomenon very effectively.
Did you know...
The world's natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
Global Warming Question #5
Which most accurately describes the effects of Global Warming in the United States over the last 100 years?
Click to view imageTemperatures have risen > 5° CClick to view imageTemperatures have risen > 2° CClick to view imageTemperatures have risen < class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CNext Question Click to view image
The Facts
Temperatures have gone through nearly two complete cycles of warming and cooling over the last 100 years. During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1975 temperatures were decreasing. Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930's.
Overall, the total average annual temperature increase in the last century is so slight the actual amount is uncertain -- maybe 1/3° C.
Global Warming Question #6
CO2 levels in the atmosphere today are at record high levels.
Click to view imageTrueClick to view imageFalse
The answer is FalseNext Question Click to view image
The Facts
Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (380 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in this chart is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as the line shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished."
Click to view image
In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm, except during periods of glacial expansion during ice ages.
Click to view image
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period).
Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htmCO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III) Click to view image
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:
Click to view imageDuring the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
Click to view imageThe highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
Click to view imageThe Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm.
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence Earth temperatures and global warming.
Global Warming Question #7
Carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants damages forests.
Click to view imageTrueClick to view imageFalse
The answer is FalseNext Question Click to view image
The Facts
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal gas that trees and other plants need to survive, just like oxygen (O2) is the principal gas that humans and other animals require. Trees absorb CO2 and release O2 -- animals inhale O2 and exhale CO2. See how nice this all works!
Earth's first, primitive forests made their prolific debut 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period. Before then, the atmosphere held far more CO2 but concentrations declined throughout the Carboniferous Period as plants flourished.
During the Carboniferous Period the atmosphere became greatly depleted of CO2 (declining from about 2500 ppm to 350 ppm) so that by the end of the Carboniferous the CO2-impoverished atmosphere was less favorable to plant life and plant growth slowed dramatically. Today, CO2 concentrations are barely at 380 ppm -- still CO2-impoverished.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not to be confused with its poisonous evil cousin carbon monoxide (CO), which can kill humans and animals in just a few minutes. Life as we know it could not exist without carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
Did you know ...
Carbon dioxide is invisible. The puffs of clouds you see from coal-fired power plants are just that -- clouds. Power plants use steam to drive the turbines which generate electricity. Steam must be cooled and condensed to water to reuse it to make more steam.
The fat, curvy towers that look like they are belching white smoke are really only emitting pure water vapor. They are in effect making clouds.
The actual exhaust emissions come from the smokestack, which is the tall skinny tower. Because modern technology makes it possible to remove much of the fly ash and sulfur before releasing smokestack gases to the air, smokestack emissons today are often almost invisible.
Global Warming Question #8
Which of the following is not true about an increasing greenhouse effect?
Click to view imageThe consensus of scientists is that the problem warrants drastic actionClick to view imageNighttime temperatures may increase, but daytime temperatures will notClick to view imageThe coldest, driest regions of the planet will warm first
The answer is The consensus of scientists is that the problem warrants drastic action
The Facts
Click to view imageIn 1989 as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war were winding down, the Union of Concerned Scientists began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists. Only three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. Richard S. Lindzen, MIT
Click to view image"When a bureaucracy's reason for existence is threatened, it typically generates new missions." Desperately Seeking Mission: Why the State Department's Gone Green --- Peter VanDoren
Click to view imagePresident Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. Global Warming Treaty is All Pain, No Gain --- Malcom Wallop
Click to view image"It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC) chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming. I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue [the argument that global warming is caused by human industrial activity] was a done deal."
Global Warming Question #9
Which temperature measuring method most accurately measures global warming?Click to view imageGround-based ThermometersClick to view imageOrbiting Weather SatellitesClick to view imageWeather Balloons
The answer is Orbiting Weather SatellitesNext Question
The Facts
Orbiting satellites provide the most accurate global temperature readings -- accurate to 0.1 degree C. Interestingly, in the 18 years that satellites have been recording temperature they have actually showed a slight decrease in average global temperatures.
Ground-based thermometers that were originally in rural areas have been reading increasingly hotter temperatures with time due to urban encroachment. The asphalt and concrete structures replacing green leafy plants makes for hotter local ground temperatures. This phenomenon is known as the "urban heat-island effect" and has been well-documented by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia.
In a November 1997 press release Vice President Al Gore proclaimed that 1997 was the hottest year on record. Ground-based temperature readings were the basis for this announcement. Had the data from orbiting satellites been cited the report would have been much different: no net increase in global temperatures in 1997.
Global Warming Question #10
Which answer below provides the best explanation for the following temperature record?
Click to view image
Click to view imageIndustrial pollution from factories, power plants, and cars caused global warmingClick to view imageNatural variations in global temperatures may occur in roughly 500-year cyclesClick to view imageGlobal cooling occurred as a result of the Renaissance Period
The answer is Natural variations in global temperatures may occur in roughly 500-year cycles
The Facts
The primary cause of variations in global temperature is the cycles of the sun and Earth's orbit about the sun. In addition to 40-year cycles and 500-year cycles, other temperature cycles include:
21,000 - year cycle: Elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun (precession of the equinoxes)
41,000 - year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5 degree wobble in Earth's orbit
100,000 - year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit (cycle of eccentricity)
Finally....
The Global Warming Test
Congratulations. You have completed the test. 10 Correct: Excellent, you know your facts
9 Correct: Good, you are an independent thinker
8 Correct: Fair, you are on your way
7 or below: Check out globalwarmingheartland.org to learn the facts about global warming Learning the facts is the best way to understand that global warming is occuring but is not a crisis. It is better to trust scientists than politicans. Do not let fear ruin your day. Learn the Facts. http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The BS Science of Gore's Nobel...
This is a recent editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. It seems more and more people are seeing through Al Gore and his global warming charade.
Peter
The Science of Gore's Nobel
What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?
BY HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR. Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
The Nobel Committee might as well have called it Al Gore's Inner Peace Prize, given the way it seems designed to help him disown his lifelong ambition to become president in favor of a higher calling, as savior of a planet.
The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science." In fact, a Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the "greenhouse" effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.
How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on "availability bias," roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.
Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so.
Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he's playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: "The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona."
Here's exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?
It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn't. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they've chosen to believe.
Less surprising is the readiness of many prominent journalists to embrace the role of enforcer of an orthodoxy simply because it is the orthodoxy. For them, a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself. (These are not scientists, they are intellectual cowards, Peter)
With politicians and lobbyists, of course, you are dealing with sophisticated people versed in the ways of public opinion whose very prosperity depends on positioning themselves via such cascades. Their reactions tend to be, for that reason, on a higher intellectual level.
Take John Dingell. He told an environmental publication last year that the "world . . . is great at having consensuses that are in great error." Yet he turned around a few months later and introduced a sweeping carbon tax bill, which would confront Congress more frontally than Congress cares to be confronted with a rational approach to climate change if Congress really believes human activity is responsible.
Mr. Dingell is no fool. Is he merely trying to embarrass those who offer fake cures for climate change at the expense of out-of-favor industries such as Mr. Dingell's beloved Detroit?
Take Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist working with Kleiner Perkins, a firm Mr. Gore joined last month to promote alternative energy investments. Mr. Khosla told a recent Senate hearing: "One does not need to believe in climate change to support climate change legislation. . . . Many executives would prefer to deal with known legislation even if unwarranted."
Mr. Khosla is no fool either. His argument is that the cascade itself is a reason that politicians can gain comfort by getting aboard his agenda.
Now let's suppose a most improbable, rhapsodic lobbying success for Mr. Gore, Mr. Khosla and folks on their side of the table--say, a government mandate to replace half the gasoline consumed in the U.S. with a carbon-neutral alternative. This would represent a monumental, $400 billion-a-year business opportunity for the green energy lobby. The impact on global carbon emissions? Four percent--less than China's predicted emissions growth over the next three or four years.
Don't doubt that this is precisely the chasm that keeps Mr. Gore from running for president. He could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis." Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs. How much more practical, then, to cash in on the crowd-pleasing role of angry prophet, without having to take responsibility for policies that the public will eventually discover to be fraudulent.
Public opinion cascades are powerful but also fragile--liable to be overturned in an instant when new information comes along. The current age of global warming politics will certainly end with a whimper once a few consecutive years of cooling are recorded. Why should we expect such cooling? Because the forces that caused warming and cooling in the past, before the advent of industrial civilization, are still at work.
No, this wouldn't prove or disprove a human role in warming, only that climate is variable and subject to complicated influences. But it would also eliminate the large incentive for politicians to traffic in doom-laden predictions--because such predictions would no longer command media assent and would cease to function as levers to redistribute resources.
Mr. Gore would have to find a new job.
Mr. Jenkins is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal on Wednesdays.
Peter
The Science of Gore's Nobel
What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?
BY HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR. Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
The Nobel Committee might as well have called it Al Gore's Inner Peace Prize, given the way it seems designed to help him disown his lifelong ambition to become president in favor of a higher calling, as savior of a planet.
The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science." In fact, a Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the "greenhouse" effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.
How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on "availability bias," roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.
Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so.
Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he's playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: "The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona."
Here's exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?
It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn't. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they've chosen to believe.
Less surprising is the readiness of many prominent journalists to embrace the role of enforcer of an orthodoxy simply because it is the orthodoxy. For them, a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself. (These are not scientists, they are intellectual cowards, Peter)
With politicians and lobbyists, of course, you are dealing with sophisticated people versed in the ways of public opinion whose very prosperity depends on positioning themselves via such cascades. Their reactions tend to be, for that reason, on a higher intellectual level.
Take John Dingell. He told an environmental publication last year that the "world . . . is great at having consensuses that are in great error." Yet he turned around a few months later and introduced a sweeping carbon tax bill, which would confront Congress more frontally than Congress cares to be confronted with a rational approach to climate change if Congress really believes human activity is responsible.
Mr. Dingell is no fool. Is he merely trying to embarrass those who offer fake cures for climate change at the expense of out-of-favor industries such as Mr. Dingell's beloved Detroit?
Take Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist working with Kleiner Perkins, a firm Mr. Gore joined last month to promote alternative energy investments. Mr. Khosla told a recent Senate hearing: "One does not need to believe in climate change to support climate change legislation. . . . Many executives would prefer to deal with known legislation even if unwarranted."
Mr. Khosla is no fool either. His argument is that the cascade itself is a reason that politicians can gain comfort by getting aboard his agenda.
Now let's suppose a most improbable, rhapsodic lobbying success for Mr. Gore, Mr. Khosla and folks on their side of the table--say, a government mandate to replace half the gasoline consumed in the U.S. with a carbon-neutral alternative. This would represent a monumental, $400 billion-a-year business opportunity for the green energy lobby. The impact on global carbon emissions? Four percent--less than China's predicted emissions growth over the next three or four years.
Don't doubt that this is precisely the chasm that keeps Mr. Gore from running for president. He could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis." Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs. How much more practical, then, to cash in on the crowd-pleasing role of angry prophet, without having to take responsibility for policies that the public will eventually discover to be fraudulent.
Public opinion cascades are powerful but also fragile--liable to be overturned in an instant when new information comes along. The current age of global warming politics will certainly end with a whimper once a few consecutive years of cooling are recorded. Why should we expect such cooling? Because the forces that caused warming and cooling in the past, before the advent of industrial civilization, are still at work.
No, this wouldn't prove or disprove a human role in warming, only that climate is variable and subject to complicated influences. But it would also eliminate the large incentive for politicians to traffic in doom-laden predictions--because such predictions would no longer command media assent and would cease to function as levers to redistribute resources.
Mr. Gore would have to find a new job.
Mr. Jenkins is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal on Wednesdays.
Show Me The Money! Japan, Italy and Spain Owe $33 Billion For Kyoto Failure....
Are these fines owed by Japan, Spain, and Italy for not meeting their Kyoto Treaty Emissions goals actually going to be paid? I can not imagine it. They have not only not met their treaty obligations, their emissions have actually increased. Is this all some global joke, or what?
Peter
source:
“L'hôpital se moque de la charité” [French saying]
Every day one contemplates ‘global warming’ and the Kyoto Protocol, the more the hypocrisy hits you. I am increasingly angry at the political nonsense we have to witness, year in, year out, especially from the countries of the E.U. The forthcoming Bali Conference (see: ‘Bali Hoo Is Calling’, November 25) will be yet another depressing spectacle. I must ask: “Is ‘global warming’ the ultimate example of a faith without works?” Here are two new reports which would indicate precisely so.
First, from Bloomberg (‘Japan, Spain, Italy Face $33 Billion Kyoto Payments (Update1) ’, November 30; quotes from original version):
“Japan, Italy and Spain face fines of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.
The three countries are the worst performers among 36 nations that agreed to curb carbon dioxide gases that cause climate change.”
[May I remind you that this is the Japan after which the Kyoto Protocol is named, and the Italy which recently threatened India with trade sanctions if if didn’t accept European Kyoto-style emission targets. The arrogance is outrageous.] And the reason for the failures:
“’They’re looking at a huge bill now,’ said Mike Rosenberg, management professor at the University of Navarra’s IESE Business School in Barcelona. ‘That is because none would pay to reconvert factories, power plants and paper mills’ to trim gases blamed for the planet-warming ‘greenhouse effect.’”
The figures stack up as follows:
“Spain vowed to cap emissions growth at 15 percent above the 1990 level, and its government forecasts 37 percent growth. Italy agreed to a 6.5 percent cut and may increase by 11 percent. Japan promised a 6 percent drop and estimates a 1.6 percent gain.”
Accordingly, “Spain faces a $7.8 billion cost, and Italy and Japan each may owe about $13 billion, based on estimates by their governments and the current price for permits.”
But who will pay for such follies? In Italy, taxpayers will foot 75 per cent of the bill; Japanese taxpayers will pay for two-thirds; Spain will pass 40 percent of the cost on to businesses, while the rest will come from taxes. Wonderful!
I hope the good folk of these countries will now understand the sheer fatuousness of ‘global warming’ politics/economics and begin to cry “Enough is enough!”
But then, secondly, there is evergreen Ireland (‘Taxpayer to foot bill if Kyoto target not reached’, Independent.ie, November 28):
“Ireland is set to overshoot its Kyoto targets by almost 100pc as things stand, according to the latest figures from the European Commission.”
“CO2 emissions in Ireland, by 2012, will be more than 22.5pc above 1990 levels.” “This is almost twice the Kyoto target of 13pc.”
[Note, en passant, that Ireland (the poor old Celtic Tiger that it is) was actually permitted an increase in emissions under the Protocol]
So, again, the cost to the Irish tax payer? “Tax payers face having to fork out more than €270m so that Ireland can ‘buy its way’ into meeting the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gas emissions.”
All I ask is this: please bear these political and economic realities in mind when the hot air starts to circle around the globe from the Bali Conference [and these are but four examples - try Canada next, if you have a moment]. Just watch the Coriolis effect bend the warm words and bring them firmly down-to-earth. Above all, beware naive and ever-optimistic blather from BBC correspondents, and their ilk, over what is going on at Bali.
And, of course, the developing world should remain ever wary of the ‘good intentions’ of the developed world!
Ultimately, it will all end in tears.
As the French say: “L'hôpital se moque de la charité.”
Peter
source:
“L'hôpital se moque de la charité” [French saying]
Every day one contemplates ‘global warming’ and the Kyoto Protocol, the more the hypocrisy hits you. I am increasingly angry at the political nonsense we have to witness, year in, year out, especially from the countries of the E.U. The forthcoming Bali Conference (see: ‘Bali Hoo Is Calling’, November 25) will be yet another depressing spectacle. I must ask: “Is ‘global warming’ the ultimate example of a faith without works?” Here are two new reports which would indicate precisely so.
First, from Bloomberg (‘Japan, Spain, Italy Face $33 Billion Kyoto Payments (Update1) ’, November 30; quotes from original version):
“Japan, Italy and Spain face fines of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.
The three countries are the worst performers among 36 nations that agreed to curb carbon dioxide gases that cause climate change.”
[May I remind you that this is the Japan after which the Kyoto Protocol is named, and the Italy which recently threatened India with trade sanctions if if didn’t accept European Kyoto-style emission targets. The arrogance is outrageous.] And the reason for the failures:
“’They’re looking at a huge bill now,’ said Mike Rosenberg, management professor at the University of Navarra’s IESE Business School in Barcelona. ‘That is because none would pay to reconvert factories, power plants and paper mills’ to trim gases blamed for the planet-warming ‘greenhouse effect.’”
The figures stack up as follows:
“Spain vowed to cap emissions growth at 15 percent above the 1990 level, and its government forecasts 37 percent growth. Italy agreed to a 6.5 percent cut and may increase by 11 percent. Japan promised a 6 percent drop and estimates a 1.6 percent gain.”
Accordingly, “Spain faces a $7.8 billion cost, and Italy and Japan each may owe about $13 billion, based on estimates by their governments and the current price for permits.”
But who will pay for such follies? In Italy, taxpayers will foot 75 per cent of the bill; Japanese taxpayers will pay for two-thirds; Spain will pass 40 percent of the cost on to businesses, while the rest will come from taxes. Wonderful!
I hope the good folk of these countries will now understand the sheer fatuousness of ‘global warming’ politics/economics and begin to cry “Enough is enough!”
But then, secondly, there is evergreen Ireland (‘Taxpayer to foot bill if Kyoto target not reached’, Independent.ie, November 28):
“Ireland is set to overshoot its Kyoto targets by almost 100pc as things stand, according to the latest figures from the European Commission.”
“CO2 emissions in Ireland, by 2012, will be more than 22.5pc above 1990 levels.” “This is almost twice the Kyoto target of 13pc.”
[Note, en passant, that Ireland (the poor old Celtic Tiger that it is) was actually permitted an increase in emissions under the Protocol]
So, again, the cost to the Irish tax payer? “Tax payers face having to fork out more than €270m so that Ireland can ‘buy its way’ into meeting the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gas emissions.”
All I ask is this: please bear these political and economic realities in mind when the hot air starts to circle around the globe from the Bali Conference [and these are but four examples - try Canada next, if you have a moment]. Just watch the Coriolis effect bend the warm words and bring them firmly down-to-earth. Above all, beware naive and ever-optimistic blather from BBC correspondents, and their ilk, over what is going on at Bali.
And, of course, the developing world should remain ever wary of the ‘good intentions’ of the developed world!
Ultimately, it will all end in tears.
As the French say: “L'hôpital se moque de la charité.”
Climate Change? Catastrophic? Hardly......
Is global warming a major threat to humanity? A new report suggests just the opposite. As I and others have been saying for a long time, we're on the wrong track regarding global warming and climate change. We're being badly misled. Consider the following. Are we headed for climate change catatastrophe? The evidence sure does not support it.
Peter
We Are Weathering The Weather Better Than Ever......
A superb analysis of weather-related deaths has just been published, the ‘Civil Society Report on Climate Change’ (produced by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, November 2007). I would encourage everybody to read this document immediately. It places the forthcoming Bali jamboree in the reality spotlight. The full .pdf version can be downloaded free here (direct .pdf download), or from here, or from here [bottom of page].
This well-researched report throws a gigantic snowball at the claims that ‘global warming’ is causing more weather-related deaths. As I have long suspected, precisely the opposite is the case, with the number of people killed each year by weather-related disasters declining dramatically.
It appears that weather-related deaths peaked in the 1920s, at around 500,000 per annum. In stark contrast, the death toll during the period 2000-2006 averaged only 19,900 (thank goodness, one might add). Indeed, the average annual number of deaths from weather-related events during the period 1990-2006 (when ‘global warming’ is supposed to have been at its most severe) is down by the staggering figure of 87% on the 1900-89 average. Moreover, the mortality rate from catastrophes, measured in deaths per million people, dropped by no less than 93%.
These simple statistics demonstrate all too clearly the nonsensical claims that have been made about the likely impacts of ‘global warming’. The study also shows that the richer a country, the fewer the weather-related deaths. Development, not emission caps, is the way ahead.
Once again, therefore, we see that the true danger of the ‘global warming’ trope is the unscrupulous hype employed to undermine the very economics that are reducing the number of deaths from the weather. The morality stinks.
Weathering this hype should now be our top priority.
‘Blogotariat’ helpfully summarises the main conclusions of the report, as follows:
(a) Kyoto 2 is the wrong solution. Such a treaty would harm billions of poor people, making energy and energy-dependent technologies, such as clean water, more expensive, and would perpetuate poverty by retarding growth;
(b) Mortality from extreme weather events is far more strongly affected by the technologies deployed by humans - such as the construction of houses, roads, and dams - than by climate;
(c) Human ecology and human behaviour are the key determinants of the transmission of infectious diseases. Obsessive emphasis on climate is unwarranted;
(d) If adaptation is not unduly restricted, production of food and other agricultural products, as well as forestry products, will keep pace with growing human demands (so much for the Neo-Malthusian pessimists);
(e) Foreign aid is being used as a ‘carrot’ to induce poor countries to restrict their emissions. But aid has mostly been wasted, or even counterproductive; and,
(f) The stick of trade sanctions has been threatened as a means of enforcing global emissions caps [see also: ‘Kyoto Cant’, December 1] - yet such sanctions harm both parties - a clear ‘lose - lose scenario’.
Our rich Northern ecochondria is a neo-colonialism too far. Let’s hope that the developing world put the cap on Bali.
source:
Peter
We Are Weathering The Weather Better Than Ever......
A superb analysis of weather-related deaths has just been published, the ‘Civil Society Report on Climate Change’ (produced by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, November 2007). I would encourage everybody to read this document immediately. It places the forthcoming Bali jamboree in the reality spotlight. The full .pdf version can be downloaded free here (direct .pdf download), or from here, or from here [bottom of page].
This well-researched report throws a gigantic snowball at the claims that ‘global warming’ is causing more weather-related deaths. As I have long suspected, precisely the opposite is the case, with the number of people killed each year by weather-related disasters declining dramatically.
It appears that weather-related deaths peaked in the 1920s, at around 500,000 per annum. In stark contrast, the death toll during the period 2000-2006 averaged only 19,900 (thank goodness, one might add). Indeed, the average annual number of deaths from weather-related events during the period 1990-2006 (when ‘global warming’ is supposed to have been at its most severe) is down by the staggering figure of 87% on the 1900-89 average. Moreover, the mortality rate from catastrophes, measured in deaths per million people, dropped by no less than 93%.
These simple statistics demonstrate all too clearly the nonsensical claims that have been made about the likely impacts of ‘global warming’. The study also shows that the richer a country, the fewer the weather-related deaths. Development, not emission caps, is the way ahead.
Once again, therefore, we see that the true danger of the ‘global warming’ trope is the unscrupulous hype employed to undermine the very economics that are reducing the number of deaths from the weather. The morality stinks.
Weathering this hype should now be our top priority.
‘Blogotariat’ helpfully summarises the main conclusions of the report, as follows:
(a) Kyoto 2 is the wrong solution. Such a treaty would harm billions of poor people, making energy and energy-dependent technologies, such as clean water, more expensive, and would perpetuate poverty by retarding growth;
(b) Mortality from extreme weather events is far more strongly affected by the technologies deployed by humans - such as the construction of houses, roads, and dams - than by climate;
(c) Human ecology and human behaviour are the key determinants of the transmission of infectious diseases. Obsessive emphasis on climate is unwarranted;
(d) If adaptation is not unduly restricted, production of food and other agricultural products, as well as forestry products, will keep pace with growing human demands (so much for the Neo-Malthusian pessimists);
(e) Foreign aid is being used as a ‘carrot’ to induce poor countries to restrict their emissions. But aid has mostly been wasted, or even counterproductive; and,
(f) The stick of trade sanctions has been threatened as a means of enforcing global emissions caps [see also: ‘Kyoto Cant’, December 1] - yet such sanctions harm both parties - a clear ‘lose - lose scenario’.
Our rich Northern ecochondria is a neo-colonialism too far. Let’s hope that the developing world put the cap on Bali.
source:
The Great Bali Global Warming Hypocrisy.......
Since global warming is a world-wide issue, I think it is fitting to listen to someone other that the mainstream true believers in the United States. Here is an example from Britain.
Peter
At last, the media appear to be rumbling (about) the sheer nonsense and hypocrisy that is the 13th U.N. Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which began today in beautiful Bali. Nice conference if you can get it!
First, just listen to the scepticism in John Humphrys’ (“For it is he!”) voice (“Does it really take 10,000 delegates to set an agenda!”), as he interviews a waffling Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s ever-eager Environment Correspondent, on what Bali is supposed to be about [‘Today’, BBC Radio 4, December 3, c. 6.48 am: you can listen again here. Choose the 06.30 - 07.00 slot; the interview is around 06.48-55. After today, select ‘Monday’, and then, after 7 days, ‘Audio Archive’]. My wife declared that listening to Roger rabbit on this morning about Bali was “a laugh-a-minute”. Roger talks a lot about what the EU wants from Bali. I’ll believe the EU when it stops having two parliaments and a secretariat in three different countries!
Secondly, The Daily Telegraph (December 3) gets it absolutely right in an excoriating ‘Leading Article’, which I recommend wholeheartedly: ‘A blast of hot air at Bali’s climate conference’:
“It’s not the waste that rankles so much as the hypocrisy. Some 15,000 politicians, officials, quangocrats and assorted busybodies are descending on Bali for a jamboree that will produce more than 100,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The purpose of their trip? To discuss how to reduce CO2 emissions.
We wonder whether there would be so many observers and hangers-on if the venue were, say, Düsseldorf. For many of those attending have no direct involvement in the talks.
For example, 19 MEPs, accompanied by advisers and staff, are in Bali, staying at a luxurious spa hotel. Not only will their fares, meals and accommodation be paid for by the rest of us, but they will also claim a further £95 per day.”
Nice work if you can get it! After more scathing comment and analysis, this excellent ‘Leader’ concludes:
“The Kyoto agenda is not principally about affecting climate change. Even if we accept all its proponents’ figures, we would succeed in reducing the projected temperature rise by just 0.3F over the next century (at a cost of an almost unbelievable £3 trillion).
No, the Bali meeting is not really about doing anything. It is about feeling smug; and getting paid for it.”
I think you may also enjoy some of the reader comments which now follow at the end of the article, especially one by a particularly pithy Mr. Kaminski.
I wonder if Bali will prove a Green indulgence too far? The hypocrisy is so blatant that even the media seem less willing than usual to indulge international ‘greenfoolery’.
One of my best correspondents e-mailed to say that she gave ‘global warming’ nonsense five more years before world agendas experience a continental drift. Europe had better watch out.
Peter
At last, the media appear to be rumbling (about) the sheer nonsense and hypocrisy that is the 13th U.N. Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which began today in beautiful Bali. Nice conference if you can get it!
First, just listen to the scepticism in John Humphrys’ (“For it is he!”) voice (“Does it really take 10,000 delegates to set an agenda!”), as he interviews a waffling Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s ever-eager Environment Correspondent, on what Bali is supposed to be about [‘Today’, BBC Radio 4, December 3, c. 6.48 am: you can listen again here. Choose the 06.30 - 07.00 slot; the interview is around 06.48-55. After today, select ‘Monday’, and then, after 7 days, ‘Audio Archive’]. My wife declared that listening to Roger rabbit on this morning about Bali was “a laugh-a-minute”. Roger talks a lot about what the EU wants from Bali. I’ll believe the EU when it stops having two parliaments and a secretariat in three different countries!
Secondly, The Daily Telegraph (December 3) gets it absolutely right in an excoriating ‘Leading Article’, which I recommend wholeheartedly: ‘A blast of hot air at Bali’s climate conference’:
“It’s not the waste that rankles so much as the hypocrisy. Some 15,000 politicians, officials, quangocrats and assorted busybodies are descending on Bali for a jamboree that will produce more than 100,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The purpose of their trip? To discuss how to reduce CO2 emissions.
We wonder whether there would be so many observers and hangers-on if the venue were, say, Düsseldorf. For many of those attending have no direct involvement in the talks.
For example, 19 MEPs, accompanied by advisers and staff, are in Bali, staying at a luxurious spa hotel. Not only will their fares, meals and accommodation be paid for by the rest of us, but they will also claim a further £95 per day.”
Nice work if you can get it! After more scathing comment and analysis, this excellent ‘Leader’ concludes:
“The Kyoto agenda is not principally about affecting climate change. Even if we accept all its proponents’ figures, we would succeed in reducing the projected temperature rise by just 0.3F over the next century (at a cost of an almost unbelievable £3 trillion).
No, the Bali meeting is not really about doing anything. It is about feeling smug; and getting paid for it.”
I think you may also enjoy some of the reader comments which now follow at the end of the article, especially one by a particularly pithy Mr. Kaminski.
I wonder if Bali will prove a Green indulgence too far? The hypocrisy is so blatant that even the media seem less willing than usual to indulge international ‘greenfoolery’.
One of my best correspondents e-mailed to say that she gave ‘global warming’ nonsense five more years before world agendas experience a continental drift. Europe had better watch out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)