Global Warming Exposure as Fraud Should Not Stop New Energy Effort

It will probably take another 10 years for the Europeans to get it, and 5 years before the Democrats in America give up on it, but human-caused global warming is just not provable, and the science is quickly proving that any warming is cyclical and natural.

Here is a Nasa revision of hotest years on record over the last 100 or so. You don't need to be a scientist to look at those numbers and do an analysis which even questions whether there is global warming of any consequence at all.

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)

Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year
1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939

Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.
Year
1998
1934
2006
1921
1931
1999
1953
2001
1990
1938

Then here is a listing of scientists with super-impressive credentials who once believed in anthropomorphic global warming, who have changed their mind due to further research.

The most important point to be made of all this has nothing to do with global warming or cooling or whether man has anything to do with it. The other reasons for encouraging science and markets to dramatically increase efficiencies in energy use, and to find alternative energy sources are far more compelling, provable, and immediate.

1. Middle East and Northern Coast of South America use of oil as weapon.
2. Cost of chasing ever more difficult to reach carbon based resources
3. Pollution of air and other natural rescources by current methods of extraction, delivery, and use of carbon based fuel.
4. Just makes good sense to minimize all costs of energy, freeing up capital and income for other uses.

Futurethink - What Are Big Issues for the Future

I ran into this website while researching future trends. The blogger did an excellent job of laying out some possible major issues of the future. Some of the comments were outstanding. I couldn't help myself, so I commented

Aging Population - Aging Labor force. It seems likely that we will see major increases in productivity that will result in needing less labor rather than the other way around. The seniors won't need to go back to work as some may think as, but they may want to to increase sense of being valuable. Many young adults will be bored out of their skulls like some of the wealthy young adults are today, since the average person will enjoy a lifestyle like a rockstar today. If that seems crazy, imagine what the average person has today vs what they had in the 30's or even 50's. There will be a major business opportunity and use of labor for entertaining these bored people.

Health Care costs will peak and decline- There will be no field where innovation will drive down costs more than this one. The incentive to invest in this area will drive huge amounts of capital into faster, less expensive cures, and lowered drug cost. Changes in the method of delivery of health care is already happening (see WalMart health clinics, for instance.)

China and Russia may be the major threats of the future, but they may just as likely integrate into the community of nations without any real confrontations of consequence. The Extremist Muslims will be marginalized by all "mature" nations. As Mideast oil becomes less important (due to oil from other places and new sources of energy), the rest of the world will no longer be held hostage, and will be able to use all necessary methods to root out the bad guys from the tinpot dictatorships.

Solar energy will be the future energy method that will win the day. New materials, new storaage approaches, and computer optimization will combine to find a way. Solar is the obvious ultimate victor, because it is ubiquitous, and can't be owned. This months Wired magazine shows a new material that may dramatically increase the ability to maximize available sources of sunlight in a small area.

The issue of rich vs poor will never go away, and many will still be arguing for redistribution of wealth. It won't work. Take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor. Wait 10 years and the distribution will work its way back to the way it was +/-.

Global cooling will be the big political issue 10 years from now as the Sun enters a period like the 50's - 70's. The foolish among us will once again claim the sky is falling and that the next ice age is just around the corner.

Pollution will become a non issue as the cost of controlling it becomes substantially less (orders of magnitude.)

As history will prove, the real issues of politics will be unintended consequences, ruthless desire for power by sociopathic leaders, and folks with IQ's of 100 and 180 who fall for the garbage offered by such leaders.

Religion will be alive and thriving as the rest of life becomes less and less meaningful. We tend to find meaning in our occupations, our children, our possessions, and our creative output. All of these things will have less meaning. (e.g. See LA Times article on luxury goods losing their cachet.

I agree with the idea that runaway science in any of a number of places is the greatest threat to our futures: Nano anything, genetic engineering, robots, etc.

Energy Independence From MidEast AND Reduce CO2

Gregg Easterbrook, Brooking Institute Fellow, and not someone I would normally quote, says the following (link to entire article):

This chart shows that in 1975, when the fuel crunch hit, new cars in the United States averaged 136 horsepower. The average declined to a low of 99 horsepower in 1982, as manufacturers scurried to raise fuel economy. (Higher horsepower means more gasoline burned.) Really, 99 horsepower isn't enough for anything larger than a minicar; you need enough horses to be able to accelerate, especially at freeway merge lanes. But in the last two decades, average horsepower has been climbing steadily. In 2004, the typical new car had 184 horsepower, and the typical new SUV or pickup truck used as a car--SUVs and pickups used as cars now account for about half of new vehicle sales--had 235 horsepower. That rolls together for an average of about 210 horsepower in new passenger vehicles sold in the United States. In other words 2004 cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks offer more than 50 percent better horsepower than passenger vehicles in 1975. (At that time there were no SUVs, and using a pickup truck as a car, rather than for commercial work, was rare.)

Ever-higher horsepower is the reason the overall fuel economy of new U.S. vehicles is now at its lowest since 1988. Engineers have steadily made automotive power trains more efficient--but nearly all the efficiency has gone into power, not MPG. Other things being equal, a one-third reduction in the horsepower of new vehicles would lead to roughly a one-third increase in their miles-per-gallon numbers. And a one-third increase in the MPG of new cars and SUVs is all that is required to eliminate petroleum imports from Persian Gulf states!

Now, I recognize I am past the age of caring very much about muscle cars (that is unless someone wants to indulge me in my fantasy of taking a HemiCuda out for a day on the Salt Flats.) But if Easterbrook is right, and we could be energy independent by merely chopping HP by and average of 33%, which would also mean 33% less Carbon in the atmosphere. What is Congress waiting for.

In fact, the House passed an energy bill today that did not include any increase in MPG standards. The Senate version calls for an increase to 35 MPG average by 2020.

No Hurricanes - Must Be Global Cooling

I would never choose the career of a weather forecaster. With all the data, all the scientific advances, all the weather satellites, and all the ice core drilling, you'd think we could predict what the high and low will be tomorrow. But we are lousy at it. See my scientific report on same last year here.

So Al Gore, the inventor of global warming, hung his hat in a major way on Atlantic and Gulf hurricanes being related to global warming. Then the headlines declared global warming proven beyond doubt after the 2005 season. Of course, Al and his disciples called the 2006 season (one of the least productive in a century) a fluke. 2005 wasn't a fluke, it was scientific evidence. As July segues into August, we have another fluke on our hands. All the forecasters who are called upon by the media to predict hurricane numbers are lowering their estimates for 2007 to another unusually mild year.

So the scientific question for all you Global Warming advocates: "How many flukes does it take to change a mind?"