No sign of global warming
March 13, 2014 21:49
Brian wonders whatever happened to global warming.
Video at the Page Link:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../3336523146001
No sign of global warming
March 13, 2014 21:49
Brian wonders whatever happened to global warming.
Video at the Page Link:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../3336523146001
Canada 'colder than Mars, North Pole', as northeast United States braces for cold snap
AP January 03, 2014 6:09AM
http://resources1.news.com.au/images...er-weather.jpg
Cars are covered by snow in rental car parking lot at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago. Source: AP
THE northeast US, including New York City, prepared for heavy snow, strong winds and frigid temperatures as Canada recorded temperatures colder than Mars.
Snow began falling overnight in parts of New England and New York, but the real force of the storm was expected later Thursday and into Friday. Temperatures were expected to drop well below freezing, according to the National Weather Service.
"There will be travel problems,'' said Hugh Johnson, a weather service meteorologist.
About 1000 US flights were cancelled for Thursday, with Chicago's O'Hare and New Jersey's Newark Liberty International airports the most affected.
Up to 14 inches (355 millimetres) of snow is forecast for the Boston area, and the National Weather Service issued a blizzard warning for Long Island outside New York City, where up to 10 inches (254 millimetres) of snow was expected.
The storm may be the first test of New York City's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, who was sworn in on Wednesday. The city, expected to get up to 7 inches (177 millimeters), issued a snow alert.
Meanwhile in Canada Winnipeg had its coldest day in 80 years, temperatures plunged to -37.9 C With the windchill factor it felt like -48 C.
http://resources2.news.com.au/images...er-weather.jpg
Frosty New Year ... A woman crosses the road in Bowling Green, Ohio. A cold snap is set to hit the northeast US.
"According to the Curiosity Rover, Mars reached a maximum air temperature of -29°C today. Winnipeg's high was -31°C," the Manitoba Museum posted on Twitter.
The North Pole was also 10 degrees warmer than Winnipeg.
The storm dropped a half-foot or more of snow in Illinois on Wednesday, prompting hundreds of flight cancellations into and out of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, according to the aviation tracking website FlightAware.com.
Authorities said the weather may have been a factor in a fatal crash involving a pickup and a bus carrying casino patrons in Indiana. Police said the truck's driver was killed and 15 bus passengers were hurt in the collision on a snow-covered and slushy highway in Rolling Prairie.
Sections of interior southern New England and New York could get up to a foot of snow, with forecasts generally calling for up to a foot.
While the bulk of the snow was expected to hit southern New England and southern sections of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, the prospect of additional snow was welcome news for many areas farther north.
http://resources1.news.com.au/images...er-weather.jpg
A Frontier airplane waits for passengers at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago.
In Maine, where some communities are still recovering from a recent ice storm that cut power to more than 100,000 customers, people seemed prepared for more winter weather.
Kelly St. Denis, of Auburn, went skiing on Wednesday at the Sunday River ski area with family and friends. She said it's been cold but the skiing has been good.
"Hey, it's winter in Maine,'' she said. "We go with it.''
http://resources3.news.com.au/images...ther-storm.jpg
A woman holds her coat hood as she walks near Central Park bundled against the cold in advance of a winter stor.
http://resources1.news.com.au/images...-curiosity.jpg
Warmer than Winnipeg ... This NASA picture shows Mars which is experiencing warmer weather than Winnipeg, Canada.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...-1226794047422
HAARP, Chemtrails, and Weather Modification – The True Source of Climate Change
by admin · March 7, 2014
James Lee
To state the obvious, the weather around the globe keeps getting more and more intense everywhere. It is getting much colder in some regions and much hotter in others. It is global warming and it is global cooling . . .
http://www.alipac.us/f19/haarp-weath...-haarp-299659/
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...42420566_s.jpg CFACT
'Fossil fuels facilitated industrial revolutions, launched the modern world, and ensure livelihoods, living standards, health, and longevity. Over the past 200 years, largely because of hydrocarbon energy, human populations increased eight-fold, average incomes rose eleven-fold, and global life expectancy more than doubled.'
Share the facts at CFACT.org: http://www.cfact.org/2014/03/20/carbon-benefits-trump-costs-by-up-to-500-to-1/
'The benefits of using carbon-based fuels ...outweigh any hypothesized “social carbon costs” by orders of magnitude: 50-to-1 (using the inflated 2013 SCC of $36/ton of CO2) – and 500-to-1 (using the arbitrary 2010 $22/ton estimate). In fact, any cost estimate is lost in the “statistical noise” of carbon and CO2 benefits.
If the world is serious about increasing or maintaining economic growth, living standards and access to affordable energy, fossil fuels are essential. Restrictions on hydrocarbon energy and faulty carbon cost analyses will undermine progress in all these areas.'
https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...ines.jpg&cfs=1
Carbon benefits trump costs by up to 500 to 1!
EPA “social cost of carbon” claims ignore hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide benefits
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uplo...sofjustice.jpg
March 20, 2014 by Paul Driessen, 2 Comments
By Roger Bezdek and Paul Driessen
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uplo.../03/bezdek.jpg
Roger Bezdek
Government agencies claim fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions cause “dangerous global warming.” Their latest strategy for advancing this thesis involves estimating the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) – monetized damages associated with alleged climate risks.
The agencies assume Earth’s climate is highly sensitive to CO2 and hypothesize every conceivable carbon cost, including impacts on agriculture, forestry, water resources, coastal cities, ecosystems, wildlife and human health. However, as a new Management Information Services report explains, they completely ignore even the most obvious and enormous benefits of using fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide.
Had they followed federal laws and basic benefit-cost (B-C) analysis rules, they would have found that hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide benefits outweigh costs by at as much as 500 to 1!
Executive Order 12866 (1993) requires that federal agencies “assess both the costs and benefits” of a proposed regulation, and adopt it “only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits … justify its costs.” The Office of Management and Budget recently said B-C calculations should help determine whether a regulation is worth implementing at all.
By addressing only the supposed costs of carbon-based fuels – while ignoring even their most significant, well-documented benefits – government analyses and regulatory proposals violate the law. Their actions are illegal, misleading, even fraudulent.
The methodology for developing SCC estimates is so flexible, so devoid of rigorous standards, that it could produce almost any estimates an agency might desire. It allowed agencies to set the cost at $22 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2010, and three years later arbitrarily increase it to $36/ton. Each time, they did so with little publicity, debate or public input.
They are using the $36 formula to justify proposed standards for microwave ovens, cell phone chargers, and laptops; costly, job-killing rules for automobiles and coal-fired power plants; and ultimately standards for factories, refineries, hospitals, and apartment buildings. Each time they proclaim unacceptable damages from “carbon” and enormous benefits from their regulations.
Now environmentalists want an even higher number: $43/ton.
SCC calculations rely on computer models that supposedly analyze climate processes, economic growth, and feedbacks between the climate and global economy in a single modeling framework. However, only limited, speculative research links climate impacts to economic damages.
Even the agencies admit the exercise is subject to “simplifying assumptions and judgments, reflecting the modelers’ best attempts to synthesize the available scientific and economic research characterizing these relationships.” [emphasis added]
Each model uses a different approach to translate global warming into damages. Worse, transforming economic damages over time into a single value requires “judgments” about how to discount them, and officials have been highly selective in choosing which “available scientific and economic research” they utilize.
The process is highly detrimental to American lives, jobs, living standards, health, and welfare. It lets officials exaggerate the supposed benefits of rules, minimize their costs, and ignore the value of energy, facilities, and activities being regulated. It is being imposed in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” that thousands of scientists say is hypothetical.
Literally trillions of dollars are at stake.
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uplo...16-KB-jpeg.jpg
Paul Driessen
Fossil fuels facilitated industrial revolutions, launched the modern world, and ensure livelihoods, living standards, health, and longevity. Over the past 200 years, largely because of hydrocarbon energy, human populations increased eight-fold, average incomes rose eleven-fold, and global life expectancy more than doubled.
Concurrently, human CO2 emissions increased 2,800-fold, to 8.4 billion tons/year – and atmospheric concentrations rose to nearly 400 ppm. That too has benefits. Carbon dioxide facilitates plant growth and enhances agricultural productivity. It is the basis of all life on Earth.
Hydrocarbons currently provide 81% of world energy, and forecasts say this will continue. Most important, the positive relationship between fossil fuels, economic growth, and CO2 emissions is strong – supporting some $70 trillion per year in GDP.
Under accepted benefit-cost analyses, proposed regulations would pass muster if the rules’ benefits exceed their costs by a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. However, employing the government’s own carbon “cost” figures demonstrates that the ratios are completely and dramatically reversed.
The benefits of using carbon-based fuels outweigh any hypothesized “social carbon costs” by orders of magnitude: 50-to-1 (using the inflated 2013 SCC of $36/ton of CO2) – and 500-to-1 (using the arbitrary 2010 $22/ton estimate). In fact, any cost estimate is lost in the “statistical noise” of carbon and CO2 benefits.
If the world is serious about increasing or maintaining economic growth, living standards and access to affordable energy, fossil fuels are essential. Restrictions on hydrocarbon energy and faulty carbon cost analyses will undermine progress in all these areas.
_______________
Dr. Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and President of Management Information Services, Inc., in Washington, D.C.
http://www.cfact.org/2014/03/20/carb...p-to-500-to-1/