Cool or Cold following 2015-2016 El Nino Collapse (Updated 7/1/2016)

NOAA recently released the following statement: “After dominating the tropical Pacific for more than a year, El Niño ended in May 2016. Near- or below-average temperatures existed in 3 out of 4 ENSO monitoring regions of the tropical Pacific. And for the first time in 2016, wind and air pressure patterns were consistent with neutral conditions. There’s a 75% chance that La Niña will develop by winter.”

NOAA also says that “ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) is one of the most important climate phenomena on Earth due to its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn, influences temperature and precipitation across the globe.” An El Nino is created when the Pacific Ocean near the equator is not able to dissipate heat as efficiently as it normally does. This time around the El Nino is collapsing faster than normal with concurrent drops in ocean surface and land temperature.

What frustrates those who know what is happening are the outrageous claims that the record warm temperatures in 2015 and 2016 were caused by climate change – with nary a word about El Nino. Climatologist and oceanographer Dr. Fredolin Tangang of the University Kebangsaan Malaysia and vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 2008 to 2015, warned that El Nino and climate change are not related. Says Dr. Tangang, “There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change.”
 
Of course, the news about the record-breaking heat of 2015 and 2016 allegedly caused by climate change is now a fact in the public’s mind. The scientists and radical environmentalists feeding the false information to an eager media knew that climate change was not the cause, yet they did it anyway. The bottom line—they successfully lied. That has become the norm for any news on climate change. Don’t believe a word they say.



The June 2016 anomaly is well below the dashed red line which represents the average cooling rate required for the rest of 2016 to tie 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record.

The equatorial ocean and atmospheric temperature comparison from January to June 2016 clearly show that we are entering into a La Nina event that should mature late summer or early fall. Like the La Nina that followed the super El Nino of 2007-2008, the emerging La Nina is likely to be cool and long-lasting.  The global temperature has dropped a “spectacular” -0.37^oC in two months –the second largest drop in the record. For 2016 to be warmer than the warmest year of 1998, the temperature must decline much slower than it is (See graphic above). From 2007 until late 2015 there was no statistical global warming. Except this time the earth may not recover to its former warmth and may, in fact plummet From 2007 until late 2015 there was no statistical global warming. Except this time the earth may not recover to its former warmth and may, in fact plummet.
 

The number of sunspots per 11 year solar cycle has been
sharply declining for the past three cycles. Some solar scientists 
are warning there may be a maximum of 30-60 sunspots in
cycles  25 and 26—the same as occurred in the Little Ice Age.

A growing number of scientists are concerned because the sun is going into a rare 206 year  “Bicentennial  Cycle” of little to no sunspot activity accompanied by a decades-long deep cooling period. The current 11 year solar cycle (Number 24) has the lowest maximum number of sunspots (116) since cycle 14 in 1906 which had a maximum of 107. The “normal” maximum number of sunspots in a solar cycle is 150 to 200. Even at 116 sunspots there have been only a few cycles that had smaller maximum sunspot activity than Cycle 24. Those cycles were concurrent with what history calls the “Little Ice Age.” Cycle 25 which should start in about 6 years, could have much lower sunspot numbers—and colder temperatures. 





A low maximum number of sunspots have a high correlation with

very cold periods in earth's history. Although Galileo didn't perfect

the telescope to be able to actually see sunspots until the

early 1600s, and sunspots were not continuously counted until

1850, there is ample evidence that earth's cold cycles were

correlated with low sunspot activity long before the 1600s.





Why is this important? During the Little Ice Age (approximately from 1300 to 1825) there were massive famines, disease and misery. Hopefully, modern agriculture can overcome the short growing seasons and modern medicine and pest control can keep plagues under control. However, a lot depends on how cold it gets, or even if it gets cold. That is the problem with trying to predict future climate—even when the 206 year cycle of cold is 100 percent correlated with very low sunspot activity. Global warming alarmists seem to believe they have 20-20 foresight to predict catastrophic warming using grossly inaccurate computer models. These climate models have generally predicted temperatures that are 300 percent greater than the actual temperature they are supposed to be predicting. For more information on this potential cold cycle see my article in the 2016 Winter Issue of Range magazine.

Dr. Michael Coffman

 

 

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtmlhttps://www.climate.gov/enso

Good News You Won’t Find in the Liberal Press

 

    Chances are you’ve never heard that U.S. carbon emissions have plummeted since about 2007 and are now at 1994 levels. As important, as a percentage of total global CO2 emissions, the U.S. will make up a small amount. All you ever hear in the liberal press is how bad the carbon emissions are in the good ‘ol USA, giving the impression those emissions are skyrocketing.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has issued several reports the last few months showing how the U.S. is not a major contributor of CO2 emissions today, but its emission contribution will decline significantly through 2040. First, the U.S. emissions declined from 6,000 million metric tons in 2007 to 5,280 in 2015, a drop of 12 percent. No other nation comes close to this reduction. The EIA also found that much of that change has “occurred in the electric power sector because of the decreased use of coal and the increased use of natural gas for electricity generation.”

Before 2007 most of the U.S. emissions from electricity production were from coal, some from natural gas and minor amounts from biomass and other sources. After 2007 use of coal sharply declined and was replaced by natural gas, which emits far less carbon than coal. The use of wind and solar increased substantially (made possible by huge government subsidies) making the “other” category almost zero. Even though the use of electricity remained relatively constant, the total emissions of CO2 by fossil fuels declined to 1994 levels, primarily because of natural gas and a lesser reduction due to renewables. 

Global

On the global scale it is readily apparent that the U.S. emissions (bottom, dark blue) remain static and but a small proportion of the total global emissions. Conversely, the global emissions increase by

one-third between 2012 and 2040, almost entirely driven by the non-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) developing nations. In 2012 the non-OECD nations emitted 46 percent, while the OECD nations emitted 54 percent. By 2040 the non-OECD nation’s share of emissions jumps to 68 percent with the OECD nations share reduced to 32 percent, a decline of 22 percent.

China and India account for the largest increases. By 2040 U.S. emissions will only be 22 percent of that of China and only 11 percent of that of the entire world. Both nations have very active programs to build coal-fired electrical plants, with China bringing online some 2.5 new coal-fired plants a month. This has created so much smog that the phrase “the brown cloud” was coined. The brown cloud has spread over SE Asia accompanied by citizens having to wearing masks during the worst conditions. Yet, the Paris agreement allows China to postpone any CO2 reductions until 2030.

Having said the non-OECD nation’s account for almost all future increases, they have every right to improve their citizen’s lives by producing more electricity. They have no choice. To expect them to use expensive green energy is absurd. A major global study by the International Renewable Energy Agency found “that many developing countries made huge strides towards deploying renewable technologies over the past decade — but this rise is now leveling off. Instead, these countries are turning towards fossil fuels to meet the energy demands of their citizens. 

Green Energy Benefits are Grossly Overblown

Another major very detailed study by Utah State’s Institute of Political Economy found that every cost estimate of wind power is on average 48 percent lower than its true cost. When all the numerous and very complex cost inputs are considered, the true cost of wind power is $149 per mega watt-hour of power – far greater than fossil fuels.

While proponents of renewable energy brag about how renewables are competitive with fossil fuels, the full costs of these renewables are greatly underestimated. They can only be competitive if the government gives them huge government subsidies paid by you taxpayers. In one subsidy, the Production Tax Credit (PTC), costs $39 per mega watt-hour and is guaranteed for a period of ten years for each power producer. So dependent are green energy producers on this subsidy that the report claims “If the PTC permanently expires in 2016, it is unlikely there will be any new wind installations.” Yet, you will not read this in the liberal press.

The point is that renewable energy is still very expensive and is not yet ready for prime time. Yet, it is being forced on citizens using deceptive practices. Germany and England are slowly awakening to the fact that their electricity costs have risen by over 70 percent because of renewable energy; creating an entirely new class of poverty-stricken citizens in what is called fuel poverty. Fuel poverty is variously defined as a family that can no longer keep their house warm, or they have to spend more than ten percent of their income on electrical energy.

The point is that governments and the liberal media are ignoring the positive things that are happening, like declining levels of U.S. CO2 emissions, and grossly over-exaggerating renewable benefits. This is not academic. President Obama’s plan for reducing CO2 emissions will have a devastating impact on America’s economy and will only reduce CO2’s emissions by less than 0.01^oC. This is further dwarfed by China’s and other non-OECD nations’ increased emissions. In a word, it is insane to continue our renewable energy policy on the false belief that all our economic pain will do any good.

Michael Coffman, PH.D.