Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (69137)	3/22/2016 12:15:35 PM
From: Eric	Respond to of 86350

Cliff Mass Weather Blog This blog provides updated forecasts and comments on current weather or other topics Monday March 21, 2016 The Golden Rule of Climate Extremes An extreme weather or seasonal climate event occurs and one question is often asked: to what degree was human-forced global warming the cause? In fact, the National Academy of Sciences just released a report on this subject, also known as climate attribution. In this blog, I will talk about a serious, widely held misconception about extreme events and try to clarify the issue using a new Golden Rule. Let me start by giving you a little quiz. Some area of the world has a record multi-day heat wave. The media and some scientists suggest that anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change contributed. What percent of the extreme temperature is caused by (1) human-enhanced greenhouse gases (GG) or (2) natural variability (NV)? a. 100% GG and 0% NV b. 90% GG and 10% NV c. 0% GG and 100% NV d. 10% GG and 90% NV e. 50% of each The answer in most cases would probably be (d). The largest contribution to extreme temperatures is from natural variability, which is not the impression one usually gets from the media. Rather, the implication of most stories is that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases, such as CO2, are the overwhelming contributors to extreme weather events. Natural variability causes temperature changes that would have occurred without any human impacts. The Golden Rule Considering the substantial confusion in the media about this critical issue, let me provide the GOLDEN RULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES. Here it is: The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability. Or to put it a different way, the larger or more unusual an extreme, the higher proportion of the extreme is due to natural variability. The Golden Rule of Climate Extremes is very different from the implications of many media stories, which suggest that a highly unusual event is mainly the result of anthropogenic global warming. It also has a very important implication. Since the major contributor to extremes is natural, most large climate-related impacts (e.g., heat wave and drought over California last year) would have been occurred with or without human enhancement of greenhouse gases. Now before I get some folks concerned or upset, let me be clear that I am not some kind of global warming denier. Global warming due to greenhouse gas increases IS occurring now. But in virtually all situations its amplitude today is much smaller than natural variability. THAT'S the point. It is easy to demonstrate the GOLDEN RULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES. Here is the IPCC global temperature future projections assuming a large increase of greenhouse gases (A2 scenario). About a 1C warm up so far globally. Of course, the warming is not uniform, with the Arctic warming up the most and continents warming more than oceanic regions. This is illustrated in the projected change between 1980-1999 and 2020-2029 from the IPCC report. The Arctic is forecast to warm by 2-3C. Now consider the heat wave of winter 2015. Here is the difference from normal (1990-1995) for January-May (the temperature anomaly). Huge warmth in the western U.S., with anomalies reaching 4-5C. The global warming signal is much less (perhaps 1-1.5C). So most of the warmth must be from natural variability. And we even know what natural variability that did the deed: unusual ridging (high pressure) over the western U.S. and the eastern Pacific. The record breaking precipitation this last winter over the Pacific Northwest? Global warming suggests only a very minor increase in winter precipitation, completely dwarfed by the huge wet anomaly this winter. Natural variability rules, at least for now. Another way to understand the Golden Rule of Climate Extremes is to look at probability plots of temperatures. Here is an example from the IPCC Science report. Temperature probability plots tend to be Gaussian (bell-shaped), with the highest probability near the mean. The gray line shows the situation before any anthropogenic warming. The probabilities decrease towards warm and cold extremes, with this distribution caused by natural variability. If the mean warms, the whole distribution tends to shift towards warmer temperature (dashed line). The probability of extremes increases, but the reason they are much warmer than the new mean is STILL because of natural variability. Even if there was no global warming, the extreme temperatures far to the right of the mean would STILL be extreme. Let me put it a different way. If there was no natural variability, NO ONE would be talking about heat waves or precipitation extremes. If temperatures, were always the same and warmed up by a 1-2C, few would notice. Our temperatures typically reach around 44F in midwinter. If they rose to a steady 47F, would you even notice? A frequent analogy for anthropogenic climate change is that it is like putting the climate system on steroids. But think about this comparison for a second. Steroids incrementally improve the performance of world-class athletes. They are already 90% of the way there and they are looking for a small additional edge (which is huge when you are playing at their level). You don't give steroids to the average person and expect they will be breaking world records. Similarly, without natural variability doing most of the work, you don't get extreme weather. Now some folks might ask: couldn't global warming cause some kind of climate discontinuities, whereby the modest radiative effect from CO2 causes a jump in temperatures or a radical reorganization of the atmosphere. Such a hypothesis was the basis for the movie, A Day After Tomorrow. For most of the planet, this does not seem to be the case. Our best models do NOT suggest it. In fact, there is substantial research that suggests that variability in the atmosphere could deamplify as the planet warms. As the Earth warms, the global warming signal will increase progressively and eventually will produce temperature anomalies in some location as large as those produced by natural variability today. But these is not the case now and won't be for a long time (end of century). So remember the GOLDEN RULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES and hopefully some of the media will keep it in mind. ADDED MATERIAL! Several folks have noted that global warming will increase the frequency of extremes. That is absolutely true. But nevertheless most of the origin of the extremes will still be from natural variability. Consider a population of people in which the heights range natural from 60 to 79 inches. So there is a natural variation of heights from 5 feet to 6 ft 5 inches. Now a new vitamin/protein supplement is discovered that increases the heights of people by 1 inches. There will now be new record heights (6 ft 6 inches). A big increase in frequency for such heights. But most of the variability (now from 61 to 80 inches) will still be natural. Climate is the same way. Posted by Cliff Mass at 1:00 AM cliffmass.blogspot.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (69137)	3/22/2016 12:40:10 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86350

Radical Climate Bill Stuns German Industry March 21, 2016 tags: germany By Paul Homewood http://notrickszone.com/2016/03/21/paris-fallout-radical-climate-bill-stuns-german-industry-who-warn-of-catastrophic-consequences-and-climate-dictatorship/#sthash.m6lbJOxs.O4rNWPTe.dpbs While Ed Miliband and Andrea Leadsom talk about total decarbonisation of our economy, Germany it seems is already making concrete plans. Pierre Gosselin has details of this article from Die Welt: In the wake of the lofty declarations made at the Paris Conference to roll back global CO2 emissions, a number of high level Environment Ministry bureaucrats in Germany’s government have been eagerly concocting a “radical bill” dubbed “Climate Protection 2050? – designed to make Germany almost carbon-free by 2050. Already the bill’s extremism and disconnect from reality are coming under heavy fire. *High costs would devastate the poor* In the wake of Paris, Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks* has put together a “catalogue of measures” which she and her Ministry hope will be passed into law by early summer.* Should the proposals be enacted, Wetzel writes that it would mean “higher rental prices for apartments, higher taxes, mandatory renovations by building owners, speed limits and massive cost hikes for industrial enterprises“. The proposals call for the mandatory, comprehensive renovation of buildings that owners would be forced by law to carry out. Such huge costs of course would have to be passed on to the occupants who rent or lease the buildings. Wetzel writes that Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks is moving rapidly to get the bill enacted before summertime. Industry warns of “catastrophic consequences” should the CO2 restricting proposals be adopted. The catalogue of measures designed to lead Germany to a near zero-carbon society by 2050 has the industry spooked. Wetzel writes of an “urgent letter” by leading industry trade groups addressed to the Environment Ministry – one that uses uncharacteristically harsh terms such as “threatening ecology or climate dictatorship“. Copies of the letter were also sent to the heads of other German federal ministries, such as the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry Of Commerce. *“Poison list of draconian measures”* According to Wetzel some of the proposals include severe tax penalties for owners of “energy inefficient” buildings should they refuse to implement costly renovation works. The catalogue also calls for excruciatingly high taxes on heating oil and natural gas. Wetzel quotes Andreas Lücke of the German Heating Industry Association (BDH) who calls the “Climate Protection Plan 2050? a “poison list of draconian measures.” The catalogue of climate measures also calls for the heavy taxation of coal power plants, which thus would put tens of thousands of coal mining and power sector jobs in jeopardy. Also the catalogue calls for a speed limit of 120 km/hr on the country’s famed autobahns and a snail-like speed of 30 km/hr. within all city limits. The proposed climate protection bill also calls for eliminating fossil fuel combustion engines in motor vehicles by 2050, which means no internal combustion engine cars will be sold after 2030. Already today Germany’s plan to get one million cars onto the streets by 2020 is only some 2% fulfilled, as no one is interested in electric cars. Wetzel writes: When the German government foresees the death of the combustion engine within the next 14 years, even though electric cars have failed to sell so far, it shows us the newly acquired level of radicalism that their climate-political demands and expectations have taken on”. When examining the catalogue of measures proposed in the Environment Ministry’s bill, one has to wonder if the German government has any remaining connection left to reality. If this bill does not get watered down severely – very severely, then Germany may find itself needing a wall to keep the citizens and companies in – and not refugees out. It’s mind-boggingly radical and extreme. Germany’s Ministry Of Environment obviously does not have a balanced panel of advisors, but rather one likely made up of only extreme environmental activists. Wetzel writes of requests being made by the WWF, which is calling for a transition over to the full electrification of the entire transport sectors, industrial processes and heating, and away from fossil fuels altogether. This, the WWF feels, can be accomplished with sun and wind. They also call for the end of coal power by 2035. However, the WWF gave no specifics how this should be accomplished. From an energy engineering standpoint, little of what is proposed by the catalogue can be done without major sacrifice. So, it is little wonder the government realized this and rightly scaled back on renewable energies already over the past couple of years. But when the bill reaches Parliament in early summer, nothing can be excluded. Yet, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Expect the highly corrosive measures to be severely watered down. http://notrickszone.com/2016/03/21/paris-fallout-radical-climate-bill-stuns-german-industry-who-warn-of-catastrophic-consequences-and-climate-dictatorship/#sthash.m6lbJOxs.O4rNWPTe.dpbs You have been warned! https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/radical-climate-bill-stuns-german-industry/