Heliogenic Climate Change

“WASHINGTON – EPA is granting California’s waiver request enabling the state to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for new motor vehicles, beginning with the current model year. Using the law and science as its guide, EPA has taken this action to tackle air pollution and protect human health.

“This decision puts the law and science first. After review of the scientific findings, and another comprehensive round of public engagement, I have decided this is the appropriate course under the law,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.” “EPA Grants California GHG Waiver“

Prior posts on this particular California idiocy here.
-

“Fig. 7. Comparison of the mean squared interannual variation (left column) and lifetime (right column) of the overall minimum temperature data from the US (153 stations), Australia (preliminary, 5 stations) and Europe (44 stations). Europe (bottom row) is shown for the two types of calculation for quick comparison (green curves), and also the magnetic index representing solar activity as in Fig. 4 (blue curve).”

IceCap today highlights a paper (“Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature
data from the USA and Europe“) published last year in the French journal Géoscience. An excerpt from the Abstract:

“The secular trend of all of these curves is similar (an S-shaped pattern), with a rise from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1975, and a subsequent (small) increase. This trend is the same as that found for a number of solar indices, such as sunspot number or magnetic field components in any observatory. We conclude that significant solar forcing is present in temperature disturbances in the areas we analyzed and conjecture that this should be a global feature.”

An excerpt from Discussion and Conclusion:

“We have also shown that solar activity, as characterized by the mean-squared daily variation of a geomagnetic component (but equally by sunspot numbers or sunspot surface) modulates major features of climate. And this modulation is strong, much stronger than the one per mil variation in total solar irradiance in the 1- to 11-year range [7]: the interannual variation, which does amount to energy content, varies by a factor of two in Europe, the USA and Australia. This result could well be valid at the full continental scale if not worldwide.

We have calculated the evolution of temperature disturbances, using either the mean-squared annual variation or the lifetime. When 22-year averaged variations are compared, the same features emerge (Fig. 7), particularly a characteristic centennial trend (an S-shaped curve) consisting of a rise from 1920 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1975 and a rise since. A very similar trend is found for solar indices (see also [5,12]). Both these longer-term variations, and decadal and sub-decadal, well-correlated features in lifetime (see [13]) result from the persistence of higher frequency phenomena that appear to be influenced by the Sun. The present preliminary study of course needs confirmation by including regions that have not yet been analyzed.”

This paper appeared in the 2 January issue of Science. Excerpt from the abstract:

“Reef-building corals are under increasing physiological stress from a changing climate and ocean absorption of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. We investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia. Their skeletal records show that throughout the GBR, calcification has declined by 14.2% since 1990, predominantly because extension (linear growth) has declined by 13.3%. The data suggest that such a severe and sudden decline in calcification is unprecedented in at least the past 400 years.”

Steve McIntyre looked at the data recently and obtained a completely different result. He first noted that the data show an increasing trend in calcification for the last 400+ years (upper graph) and then noted that the claimed recent “severe and sudden decline” coincides with a “severe and sudden decline” in the number of sampling sites, which have “declined sharply in the past 15 years with only one site contributing nearly all the 2005 values” (lower graph, number of sampling sites in pink). He concludes, “The data seems rather thin as a basis for concluding “unprecedentedness” and surely it would be prudent for worried Australians to take few more coral samples.”

He also wrote a hilarious paragraph about “the authors … fail[ure] to address the important issue of teleconnections between their coral calcification data and NH climate.” Must read: ““Unprecedented” in the past 153 Years“
-

“Abstract

The Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at a equilibrium temperature.

Several kinds of evidence are presented to establish and elucidate the Thermostat Hypothesis – historical temperature stability of the Earth, theoretical considerations, satellite photos, and a description of the equilibrium mechanism. …

Conclusions and Musings

1. The sun puts out more than enough energy to totally roast the earth. It is kept from doing so by the clouds reflecting about a third of the sun’s energy back to space. As near as we can tell, this system of cloud formation to limit temperature rises has never failed.

2. This reflective shield of clouds forms in the tropics in response to increasing temperature.

3. As tropical temperatures continue to rise, the reflective shield is assisted by the formation of independent heat engines called thunderstorms. These cool the surface in a host of ways, move heat aloft, and convert heat to work.

4. Like cumulus clouds, thunderstorms also form in response to increasing temperature.

5. Because they are temperature driven, as tropical temperatures rise, tropical thunderstorms and cumulus production increase. These combine to regulate and limit the temperature rise. When tropical temperatures are cool, tropical skies clear and the earth rapidly warms. But when the tropics heat up, cumulus and cumulonimbus put a limit on the warming. This system keeps the earth within a fairly narrow band of temperatures.

6. The earth’s temperature regulation system is based on the unchanging physics of wind, water, and cloud.

7. This is a reasonable explanation for how the temperature of the earth has stayed so stable (or more recently, bi-stable as glacial and interglacial) for hundreds of millions of years.” “The Thermostat Hypothesis“

Jeff Id has worked out the weights given to the temperature trends of the four geographic regions of Antarctica by Stieg et al. in their paper which was featured on the cover of Nature early this year and created a sensation in alarmist circles and the press.

Remember, by far the largest region of Antarctica is East Antarctica, followed by West Antarctica. The Antarctic Peninsula, the only part of Antarctica where significant recent warming has occurred, is a very small percentage of the total area of the continent.

Yet, as you can see, the Steig paper weights the temperature trend of the tiny peninsula 72% of the total continental trend! In Jeff’s words, “There it is, we can now say conclusively that the positive [temperature] trend in the [Steig paper's] Antarctic reconstruction comes primarily from the well known peninsula warming trend.” “Antarctic warming — the final straw” Prior posts here
-

“Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea. …

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.

Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.” “Polar bear expert barred by global warmists” h/t WUWT

“America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants [and laying off employees], cutting capital spending and increasing imports.

Under the Waxman-Markey climate bill … refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants and from vehicles when motorists burn their fuel. Imports would need permits only for the latter, which ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive imbalance.

“It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment,” Mulva said in a June 16 interview in Detroit. Houston-based ConocoPhillips has the second-largest U.S. refining capacity.

The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.” “Big Oil’ s Answer to Carbon Law May Be Fuel Imports“

House Democrats approved the Ration and Tax bill, the biggest tax increase and the biggest bureaucratic takeover of the American economy in history. Shame. China, India, Brazil, and the rest of the sane world are rejoicing. The vote was 219 to 212 (218 votes were needed), 44 Democrats voted NO, 8 Republicans voted YES.

Now the battle moves to the Senate. Contact your Senators and express your outrage at this travesty against the American economy and people.
-

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership’s solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics. …

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year [soon to be $7,500] in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.” “The Cap and Tax Fiction“

“The House of Representatives is preparing to vote on an anti-stimulus package that in the name of saving the earth will destroy the American economy. Smoot-Hawley will seem like a speed bump.

Not since a misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey.

The 1,000-plus-page American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is being rushed to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before anyone can seriously object to this economic suicide pact.

It’s what Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, might call a “man-caused disaster,” a phrase she coined to replace the politically incorrect “terrorist attack.” But no terrorist could ever dream of inflicting as much damage as this bill.

Its centerpiece is a “cap and trade” provision that has been rightfully derided as “cap and tax.” It is in fact a tax on energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide.

It is the largest tax increase in American history — a tax on all Americans — even the 95% that President Obama pledged would never see a tax increase. …

As we’ve said before, capping emissions is capping economic growth. An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see charts below).

Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500.

Hit hardest by all this would be the “95% of working families” Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy. Then they’ll be hit by this draconian energy tax.” “Waxman-Markey: Man-Made Disaster“

“Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.

“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.” “CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA“

The study is in the form of comments (on EPA’s proposed endangerment finding) prepared by EPA’s NCEE staff (National Center for Environmental Economics) for possible submission to EPA’s OAR (Office of Air and Radiation). The study was sent to the Director of NCEE and concludes:

“Hence it is not reasonable to conclude that there is any endangerment from changes in GHG levels based on the satellite record, since almost all the fluctuations appear to be due to natural causes and not human-caused pollution as defined by the Clean Air Act. …

These inconsistencies are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in our view EPA needs to make an independent evaluation of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP. … Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” (Emphasis added.)

But the study was never submitted to the OAR. The response to the NCEE staff by the NCEE Director was as follows:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. … I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” Source

“And it gets even better. Not content to tempt political fate by imposing huge carbon taxes on the American middle class, Democrats have added a provision which imposes stiff tariffs on our trading partners if they don’t adopt aggressive carbon restrictions of their own.

You heard correctly: progressives have authored a bill that earns the mortal enmity of domestic energy consumers and our most crucial trading partners at the same time. Economy-killing climate policies and a trade war — together at last!” “Cap-and-Trade-War” h/t CCNet
-

“A House committee working on sweeping energy legislation seems determined to make sure that the United States will tax China and other carbon polluters, potentially disrupting an already-sensitive climate change debate in Congress.

The Ways and Means Committee’s proposed bill language would virtually require that the president impose an import tariff on any country that fails to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions.

Directed primarily at China, the United States’ biggest manufacturing competitor, the provisions aim to protect cement, steel and other energy-intensive industries that expect to face higher costs under a federal emissions cap. But associations that represent importers and multinational corporations are raising red flags, warning that the language could lead to trade wars, hurt the United States’ ability to export low-carbon technology and harm consumers. …

Meanwhile, the proposed import tax language has so far not made it into the latest version of the bill. But both supporters and opponents call it a work still in progress. They say it could rise up in the form of a manager’s amendment before a floor vote is taken. …

The notion of an import tax has been a thorny issue for years. Energy intensive industries like steel maintain they will see a steep rise in their production costs under climate legislation. Moreover, they argue that if other countries do not play by the same rules in addressing emissions, U.S. companies will move overseas. The end result: American jobs are lost, and greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated in another part of the world. …

[I]ndustry officials … insist that taxing imports from countries that do not reduce greenhouse gases is key to leveling the playing field. …

Jonathan Huneke, spokesman for the U.S. Council for International Business said he is fearful the measure, if it passes, could spark a trade war. Moreover, he said, it undercuts the United States’ attempt to convince countries like China to lower their trade barriers as the United States tries to sell low-carbon technology abroad. …

Sallie James, a trade policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank, called the proposed language “very dangerous.” She warned that because Congress addresses competitiveness and not environmental concerns, the measure would almost certainly not be protected by World Trade Organization rules.” “Possible Plan for Tariffs on Imports From China Remains Alive in House Climate Bill” h/t CCNet
-

“House Democratic leaders are furiously lobbying their members and moderate Republicans to support a landmark [anti-]energy bill in the face of resistance from some conservative members of their own party, and staunch opposition from the GOP — roadblocks that are making it difficult to find the 218 votes necessary to pass the measure, according to Democratic leadership aides. …

Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded Wednesday evening that there were not enough votes to pass the bill, but that meetings with Democrats and Republicans were ongoing. …

“There is no question that the cap and trade bill will cost millions of jobs and it is pretty evident, I think now, given the word that we are hearing that the other side has 190 votes at this point, far short of that which are needed to pass this bill,” said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Virginia.” “House Democrats unsure of global warming bill’s passage“

“An environmental group on Wednesday asked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to deny permits for pipelines that would bring oil from Canada’s oil sands to the United States.

ForestEthics said production from Canadian oil sands, also known as tar sands, generates up to five times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil. …

The group urged Clinton to deny permits for pipelines that would move the oil to U.S. refineries, particularly the Alberta Clipper pipeline. The State Department has a say in pipelines that would cross the U.S. border.

Enbridge Energy Partners LP’s 1,000-mile (1,610-kilometre) pipeline would be able to carry 450,000 barrels of tar sands crude oil a day from Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The oil would then be sent to U.S. refineries to be processed into petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel. …

[Travis] Davies [spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers] acknowledged that oil sands production causes higher greenhouse gas emissions, but not at the rate five times higher claimed by ForestEthics.

He said the full life-cycle emissions from oil sands — production, transport, refining and end use — is only 5 to 15 percent more than oil imported from Saudi Arabia and about equal to oil from Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria and even California.” “Green Group Asks U.S. To Bar Canada Oil Sands“

“At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation [cap and tax] is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe.” Obama press conference June 23 h/t Power Line blog

Got that? “Polluters” (businesses, industries, schools, hospitals, virtually any and every enterprise that uses energy), not the consumers of goods and services produced by “polluters”, will pay for cap and tax. Good thing our public schools don’t teach economics anymore, someone might not buy this whopper.

Carbon emissions (he must mean CO2 because he is discussing cap and tax) “contaminate the water we drink”?? No more carbonated beverages!

“Pollute the air that we breathe”?? Thank goodness for a gullible public, eh?

And not a single question from the press corps about Obama’s idiotic statement. Sad.
-

“Polar bear populations in and around Alaska are declining due to continued melting of sea ice and Russian poaching, according to reports released Thursday by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Fewer polar bears have survived in the southern Beaufort Sea, which extends from northern Alaska to parts of Canada, and in the Chukchi and Bering Seas between northwestern Alaska and Russia, the agency’s draft population assessments show.

Officials say the drop among the Chukchi and Bering bears is likely steeper than for those in the Beaufort, due to a more dramatic melt of sea ice — which the bears need to travel and forage for food — and an illegal Russian hunt believed to be killing 150 to 250 bears a year. …

There was an estimated 0.3 percent annual decline in the polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea between 2001 and 2007, with the total numbers likely hovering between 1,397 and 1,526 animals, according to the draft assessments.” “Alaska Polar Bear Numbers Declining: US Agency“

Let’s see, 0.3% of 1500 southern Beaufort Sea bears is 4.5 bears and the uncertainty is 129 bears. In other words, the result is meaningless. And arctic sea ice is not “melting dramatically”, in fact it’s rebounded substantially in the last year and a half. Just another scare story.
-

” The Lower Mainland’s health authorities will have to dig more than $4 million a year out of their already stretched budgets to pay B.C.’s carbon tax and offset their carbon footprints.

“[ Update: June 3, 2009 - 8:44 AM ET: Talking Points Memo (TPM) has removed the article from their website. "The file you are looking for has not been found" - But the url with a portion of the chilling message lingers as evidence: "at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-ex..." - http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/crazedandconfused/2009/06/at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-ex.php?ref=reccafe - Climate Depot has also saved a screen shot of the original article. Update: Washington Examiner weighs in: 'Hate sport': Is TPM poster simply lone fanatic? Excerpt: Poster "believes killing those who disagree with him politically is justified." Update: June 5, 2009: Talking Points Memo issues retraction for call to execute skeptics! -- 'A formal retraction and apology' -- Update: June 5, 2009: Joe Romm defends strangle skeptics in bed remark as 'not a threat, but a prediction' -- Strangle Skeptics in Bed! "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds" ]” “‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’“
-

” ENERGY bills will hit a shocking £5,000 a year to strike a blow to millions of struggling families, experts warned last night. …

Bills will rise by up to 42 per cent a year over the next decade – with the biggest single increase an eye-watering £1,280. …

And they warned that the huge rise would stretch household budgets to breaking point and dump hundreds of thousands more people into fuel poverty.

Experts at uSwitch.com said that average annual bills have more than doubled from £580 five years ago to £1,243 today.

Over the next decade customers will suffer even steeper price rises with fees quadrupling by 2020, they warn. Investment in outdated infrastructure and new green energy policies will drive bills higher. …

The bill for making “green” energy by cutting emissions, using wave or wind power and cleaning up coal power stations will also run into billions of pounds. …

Michelle Mitchell, charity director for Age Concern and Help the Aged, warned of the plight of elderly people.

“With more than one in three pensioner households already in fuel poverty, any further price rises could have serious consequences,” she warned.” “£5,000 POWER BILLS SHOCK“
-