iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-22--Pandemic Good News Hidden in the Media

Pandemic Good News Hidden in the Media

Given the mass media bias for amplifying bad news and speculating about the worst possibilities , it is hard to find news of any positives happening .
I just watched a tv anchor interviewing a doctor and displaying a concerted effort to get the expert to say scary things confirming the anchor ’ s fears .
The doc held his ground ( No , droplets from sneezes or coughs do not stay in the air ; No , surfaces are not infected for some fixed time ; many factors affect how long the virus can live . )
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Diamandis for posting these good news reports on his Tech blog and Doug for emailing me .
All links can be accessed freely without any paywalls .
How about some good news for a change ?
There have been A LOT of facts going around regarding COVID-19 , and a flurry of “ positive news ” items to lift our spirits .
Here are a number of major victories from the Pandemic line .
I ’ ve had my team fact-check these wins with links you can follow up on .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine developed by Moderna Inc. began the first stage of a clinical trial on Monday , with testing on 45 healthy adults in Seattle .
[ link ] ( 2 ) China ’ s new cases plummet : China has now closed down its last temporary hospital built to handle COVID-19 .
Not enough new cases to warrant them .
[ link ] ( 3 ) Drugs that work : Doctors in India have successfully treated two Italian patients with COVID-19 , administering a combination of drugs — principally Lopinavir and Ritonavir , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now suggesting the same medical treatment , on a case-by-case basis , globally .
[ link ] [ link ] ( 4 ) Antibodies to the rescue : Researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center claim to have found an antibody that can fend off infection by COVID-19 .
[ link ] ( 5 ) 103-year-old recovery : A 103-year-old Chinese woman has made a full recovery from COVID-19 after being treated for 6 days in Wuhan , China , becoming the oldest patient to beat the disease .
[ link ] ( 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all 42 of its Apple retail stores in China .
[ link ] ( 7 ) Test results in 2 hours : Cleveland ’ s MetroHealth Medical Center has developed a COVID-19 test that can now deliver results in just two hours , rather than in a matter of days .
[ link ] ( 8 ) South Korea ’ s dramatic drop in new cases : After its peak of 909 newly reported COVID-19 cases on February 29th , South Korea has now seen a dramatic drop in the number of new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 9 ) Mortality rates inflated ?
Experts predict that Italy has seen a higher mortality rate of COVID-19 given its significant aging population , as well as its higher percentage of COVID-19 patients with pre-existing health conditions .
This might suggest that COVID-19 ’ s fatality rate may have been slightly more inflated than previously thought for the general population .
[ link ] ( 10 ) Israeli vaccine development : More than 50 scientists in Israel are now working to develop a vaccine and antibody for COVID-19 , having reported significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ characteristics of the novel coronavirus .
[ link ] ( 11 ) Full recoveries : Three patients in Maryland who tested positive for COVID-19 have now been reported to have “ fully recovered.
” [ link ] ( 12 ) Isolated virus : A network of Canadian scientists isolated the COVID-19 virus , which can now be replicated to test diagnostics , treatments , and vaccines .
[ link ] ( 13 ) Yet another vaccine in the works : San Diego biotech company Arcturus Therapeutics is developing a COVID-19 vaccine in collaboration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Singapore .
[ link ] ( 14 ) Treatment protocols : Seven patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Jaipur ’ s Sawai Man Singh ( SFS ) Hospital and Delhi ’ s Safdarjung Hospital in India have recovered .
The treatment protocol will be widely scaled to other hospitals .
[ link ] ( 15 ) Another treatment : Plasma from newly recovered COVID-19 patients ( involving the harvesting of virus-fighting antibodies ) holds promise for treating others infected by the virus .
[ link ] Some of COVID-19 ’ s hardest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after peak infection , and biomedical innovators are tackling the virus at unprecedented speeds .
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER… While everyone is concerned about the super-high mortality rate of this virus — which is calculated by the “ number dead ” divided by “ the number who have tested positive ” ( currently ~14,450/388,000 ) — the denominator , i.e .
the number infected is actually VERY hard to know because so few people have been tested .
It may well be that 10x more are infected but subclinical .
So is the mortality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We will find out as large scale-testing comes reliably online .
Wishing you the best .
Remember that our most important tool during times of panic and crisis is our mindset .
-Peter Diamandis

Given the mass media bias for amplifying bad news and speculating about the worst possibilities, it is hard to find news of any positives happening. I just watched a tv anchor interviewing a doctor and displaying a concerted effort to get the expert to say scary things confirming the anchor’s fears. The doc held his ground (No, droplets from sneezes or coughs do not stay in the air; No, surfaces are not infected for some fixed time; many factors affect how long the virus can live. )
There are hopeful things happening, and thanks to Peter Diamandis for posting these good news reports on his Tech blog and Doug for emailing me. All links can be accessed freely without any paywalls.
How about some good news for a change?
There have been A LOT of facts going around regarding COVID-19, and a flurry of “positive news” items to lift our spirits.
Here are a number of major victories from the Pandemic line. I’ve had my team fact-check these wins with links you can follow up on.
(1)Vaccine development: An experimental vaccine developed by Moderna Inc. began the first stage of a clinical trial on Monday, with testing on 45 healthy adults in Seattle. [link]
(2) China’s new cases plummet: China has now closed down its last temporary hospital built to handle COVID-19. Not enough new cases to warrant them. [link]
(3) Drugs that work: Doctors in India have successfully treated two Italian patients with COVID-19, administering a combination of drugs — principally Lopinavir and Ritonavir, alongside Oseltamivir and Chloroquine. Several are now suggesting the same medical treatment, on a case-by-case basis, globally. [link] [link]
(4) Antibodies to the rescue: Researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center claim to have found an antibody that can fend off infection by COVID-19. [link]
(5) 103-year-old recovery: A 103-year-old Chinese woman has made a full recovery from COVID-19 after being treated for 6 days in Wuhan, China, becoming the oldest patient to beat the disease. [link]
(6) Stores re-opening: Apple has reopened all 42 of its Apple retail stores in China. [link]
(7) Test results in 2 hours: Cleveland’s MetroHealth Medical Center has developed a COVID-19 test that can now deliver results in just two hours, rather than in a matter of days. [link]
(8) South Korea’s dramatic drop in new cases: After its peak of 909 newly reported COVID-19 cases on February 29th, South Korea has now seen a dramatic drop in the number of new cases reported daily. [link]
(9) Mortality rates inflated? Experts predict that Italy has seen a higher mortality rate of COVID-19 given its significant aging population, as well as its higher percentage of COVID-19 patients with pre-existing health conditions. This might suggest that COVID-19’s fatality rate may have been slightly more inflated than previously thought for the general population. [link]
(10) Israeli vaccine development: More than 50 scientists in Israel are now working to develop a vaccine and antibody for COVID-19, having reported significant breakthroughs in understanding the biological mechanism and characteristics of the novel coronavirus. [link]
(11) Full recoveries: Three patients in Maryland who tested positive for COVID-19 have now been reported to have “fully recovered.” [link]
(12) Isolated virus: A network of Canadian scientists isolated the COVID-19 virus, which can now be replicated to test diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines. [link]
(13) Yet another vaccine in the works: San Diego biotech company Arcturus Therapeutics is developing a COVID-19 vaccine in collaboration with Duke University and National University of Singapore. [link]
(14) Treatment protocols: Seven patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Jaipur’s Sawai Man Singh (SFS) Hospital and Delhi’s Safdarjung Hospital in India have recovered. The treatment protocol will be widely scaled to other hospitals. [link]
(15) Another treatment: Plasma from newly recovered COVID-19 patients (involving the harvesting of virus-fighting antibodies) holds promise for treating others infected by the virus. [link]
Some of COVID-19’s hardest hit nation victims are already emerging strong after peak infection, and biomedical innovators are tackling the virus at unprecedented speeds.
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER… While everyone is concerned about the super-high mortality rate of this virus — which is calculated by the “number dead” divided by “the number who have tested positive” (currently ~14,450/388,000) — the denominator, i.e. the number infected is actually VERY hard to know because so few people have been tested.
It may well be that 10x more are infected but subclinical. So is the mortality rate 4% or 0.4%?
We will find out as large scale-testing comes reliably online.
Wishing you the best. Remember that our most important tool during times of panic and crisis is our mindset. -Peter Diamandis
via Science Matters
https://ift.tt/3bhbmIV
March 22, 2020 at 01:13PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-22--Graphing The Icy Reality

Graphing The Icy Reality

Today I saw some scary headlines .
I post them up along with snippets of the stories .
First , from the BBC : Earth ’ s great ice sheets , Greenland and Antarctica , are now losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s thanks to warming conditions .
“ That ’ s not a good news story , ” said Prof Andrew Shepherd from the University of Leeds in the UK .
Next , from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL ) Hmmm , sez I , the dreaded “ worst-case ” climate scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data .
The articles are in Nature magazine , links are here ( paywalled , I got the DOI and used it over at SciHub to get the papers ) .
The study is done by a group of scientists who are part of a project called the “ ice sheet mass balance inter-comparison exercise ” ( IMBIE ) .
Here is their money graph regarding Antarctica : Figure 1 .
From Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017 .
The purple at the bottom is the overall total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the corresponding graph for Greenland : Figure 2 .
From Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018 .
Click to expand .
Dark blue is the overall total loss for Greenland OK , both of those look scary enough .
So I downloaded the data .
Kudos to the Imbie folks who did the study .
The data ’ s all available on two Excel spreadsheets , freely available here .
Figure 3 shows my graph of their data corresponding to the “ Antarctica ” part of Figure 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss , Antarctica .
The photo is penguins on surreal ice .
And Figure 4 shows the corresponding data from Greenland : Figure 4 .
Cumulative ice mass loss , Greenland .
Note the different vertical scales .
Greenland loses more ice than Antarctica .
YIKES !
The ice loss looks like it ’ s falling off of an ice cliff … So those agree with the IMBIE study , and they are both adequately terrifying .
Having seen that , I thought “ how does this compare to the total ice mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Their ice volumes are not exactly known but are on the order of thirty million cubic kilometres in Antarctica and a tenth of that , three million cubic kilometres , in Greenland .
Now , one cubic kilometre is about 0.95 gigatonnes of ice .
Using those figures , I added the monthly Greenland ice mass loss shown in Figure 4 to the total mass of the ice in Greenland .
That gives me the monthly total amount of Greenland ice .
Figure 5 shows that result .
Figure 5 .
Monthly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not graphed by the IMBIE team .
See the blue/black line across the top ?
Yep , that ’ s the change in Greenland ice .
The net change is so small that you can ’ t really see it even in a quarter century plus of data .
It ’ s about five-thousandths of one percent ( 0.005 % ) of the total Greenland ice mass per year … be still , my beating heart .
And here ’ s the corresponding plot for Antarctica : Figure 6 .
Change in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ graphed by the IMBIE team .
As before , the blue/black line across the top is indeed the change in the total ice mass of Antarctica .
The thing is , all of that terrifying ice loss shown in Figure 3 represents a total loss of three ten-thousandths of one percent ( 0.0003 % ) of the Antarctic ice mass per year … lost in the noise .
Next , the media , and to a lesser extent the scientists , waste a bunch of ink hyperventilating about the effect on sea-level rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t state , that this is increasing the overall rate of sea-level rise .
However , what they fail to note is that in fits and starts , the polar ice caps have been melting since we came out of the last glacial period … so the effect of polar meltwater is not new .
Meltwater has been included in the sea level rise data for centuries .
And as I ’ ve shown here , we ’ re not seeing any acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in the longest and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finally , here ’ s probably the biggest thing that the studies revealed .
Figure 7 shows the monthly ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica combined .
Notice anything curious about that chart ?
I mean , other than the fact it has a map of Greenland , Antarctica , and the US in the background ?
Yep , you ’ re right .
In 2011 , it started going the other way .
The great ice caps were losing more and more ice each year from 1992 to 2011 .
By 2011 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ice each month .
In that year , something changed .
Since 2011 , Antarctica and Greenland have recovered to where the loss is less than half of the maximum loss of fifty gigatonnes per month .
Seems to me that things are getting colder , not warmer as all the headlines are shouting .
Most recently the loss is only on the order of twenty gigatonnes per month .
And why is that ?
Why is the rate changing ?
Why is even the sign of the rate changing , from more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost each month ?
And why did that change occur nine years ago , and not seven years or eleven years ago ?
Oh , they tell you in the studies that it ’ s from “ ocean-driven melting ” or the “ North Atlantic Oscillation ” or ” atmospheric circulation favoured cooler conditions ” or that the “ spatial pattern of accelerating mass changes reflects the geography of NAO-driven shifts in atmospheric forcing ” … but those are just mechanistic correlations and relations .
When they say “ ocean-driven melting ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the water is warmer the ice melts more .
Which is trivially true , and doesn ’ t answer the simple question—why did the trend reverse nine years ago , and not eleven years ago , or seven years ago , or not at all ?
My best to all , As Is My Wont : I ask people that when you are commenting please quote the exact words that you are discussing .
This way , we can all understand just who and what you are referring to .

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Today I saw some scary headlines. I post them up along with snippets of the stories. First, from the BBC:
Earth’s great ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, are now losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s thanks to warming conditions. “That’s not a good news story,” said Prof Andrew Shepherd from the University of Leeds in the UK.
Next, from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
The two regions have lost 6.4 trillion tons of ice in three decades; unabated, this rate of melting could cause flooding that affects hundreds of millions of people by 2100.
Finally, from LiveScience:
The rapid ice loss puts the world right on track for the ‘worst case’ climate scenario.
Hmmm, sez I, the dreaded “worst-case” climate scenario … so I went to find the data. The articles are in Nature magazine, links are here (paywalled, I got the DOI and used it over at SciHub to get the papers). The study is done by a group of scientists who are part of a project called the “ice sheet mass balance inter-comparison exercise” (IMBIE).
Here is their money graph regarding Antarctica:
Figure 1. From Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017. The purple at the bottom is the overall total loss for Antarctica
And here’s the corresponding graph for Greenland:
Figure 2. From Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018. Click to expand. Dark blue is the overall total loss for Greenland
OK, both of those look scary enough.
So I downloaded the data. Kudos to the Imbie folks who did the study. The data’s all available on two Excel spreadsheets, freely available here. Figure 3 shows my graph of their data corresponding to the “Antarctica” part of Figure 1:
Figure 3. Cumulative ice mass loss, Antarctica. The photo is penguins on surreal ice.
And Figure 4 shows the corresponding data from Greenland:
Figure 4. Cumulative ice mass loss, Greenland. Note the different vertical scales. Greenland loses more ice than Antarctica.
YIKES! The ice loss looks like it’s falling off of an ice cliff …
So those agree with the IMBIE study, and they are both adequately terrifying.
Having seen that, I thought “how does this compare to the total ice mass in the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets? Their ice volumes are not exactly known but are on the order of thirty million cubic kilometres in Antarctica and a tenth of that, three million cubic kilometres, in Greenland.
Now, one cubic kilometre is about 0.95 gigatonnes of ice. Using those figures, I added the monthly Greenland ice mass loss shown in Figure 4 to the total mass of the ice in Greenland. That gives me the monthly total amount of Greenland ice. Figure 5 shows that result.
Figure 5. Monthly change in Greenland ice mass as calculated but not graphed by the IMBIE team.
See the blue/black line across the top? Yep, that’s the change in Greenland ice. The net change is so small that you can’t really see it even in a quarter century plus of data. It’s about five-thousandths of one percent (0.005%) of the total Greenland ice mass per year … be still, my beating heart.
And here’s the corresponding plot for Antarctica:
Figure 6. Change in Antarctic ice mass as calculated but not graphed by the IMBIE team.
As before, the blue/black line across the top is indeed the change in the total ice mass of Antarctica. The thing is, all of that terrifying ice loss shown in Figure 3 represents a total loss of three ten-thousandths of one percent (0.0003%) of the Antarctic ice mass per year … lost in the noise.
Next, the media, and to a lesser extent the scientists, waste a bunch of ink hyperventilating about the effect on sea-level rise. They imply, but don’t state, that this is increasing the overall rate of sea-level rise. However, what they fail to note is that in fits and starts, the polar ice caps have been melting since we came out of the last glacial period … so the effect of polar meltwater is not new. Meltwater has been included in the sea level rise data for centuries. And as I’ve shown here, we’re not seeing any acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in the longest and best tide gauge records we have.
Finally, here’s probably the biggest thing that the studies revealed. Figure 7 shows the monthly ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica combined.
Figure 7. Total combined monthly ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
Notice anything curious about that chart? I mean, other than the fact it has a map of Greenland, Antarctica, and the US in the background?
Yep, you’re right. In 2011, it started going the other way. The great ice caps were losing more and more ice each year from 1992 to 2011. By 2011 they were losing about fifty gigatonnes of ice each month.
In that year, something changed. Since 2011, Antarctica and Greenland have recovered to where the loss is less than half of the maximum loss of fifty gigatonnes per month. Seems to me that things are getting colder, not warmer as all the headlines are shouting. Most recently the loss is only on the order of twenty gigatonnes per month.
And why is that? Why is the rate changing? Why is even the sign of the rate changing, from more ice lost each month to less ice lost each month? And why did that change occur nine years ago, and not seven years or eleven years ago?
Simple answer. We don’t know.
Oh, they tell you in the studies that it’s from “ocean-driven melting” or the “North Atlantic Oscillation” or ” atmospheric circulation favoured cooler conditions” or that the “spatial pattern of accelerating mass changes reflects the geography of NAO-driven shifts in atmospheric forcing” … but those are just mechanistic correlations and relations. When they say “ocean-driven melting”, they’re just saying that when the water is warmer the ice melts more. Which is trivially true, and doesn’t answer the simple question—why did the trend reverse nine years ago, and not eleven years ago, or seven years ago, or not at all?
We don’t know.
My best to all,
w.
As Is My Wont: I ask people that when you are commenting please quote the exact words that you are discussing. This way, we can all understand just who and what you are referring to.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-22--Pandemic & Economic Crisis Downgrade Climate Change, Possibly For Years To Come

The global focus on coronavirus will come at the expense of attention paid to climate change as governments , investors and companies pursue recovery and growth above all else .
In January , risk # 7 described how climate change would put governments , investors , and society at large on a collision course with corporate decision-makers , who would have to choose between ambitious commitments to reduce their emissions and their bottom lines .
Civil society would be unforgiving of investors and companies they believe are moving too slowly .
Oil and gas firms , airlines , carmakers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Disruption to supply chains would be a meaningful risk .
Investors would reduce exposures to carbon intensive industries , sending asset prices lower .
All this as global warming would make natural disasters more likely , more frequent , and more severe .
The global focus on coronavirus will come at the expense of attention paid to climate change .
Environmental , social , and corporate governance ( ESG ) investing mandates will become weaker in implementation if not in spirit , as investors and companies pursue recovery and growth above all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space on targeted measures to blunt the impact of the coronavirus , and whatever is left over for broad fiscal stimulus will only be partially dedicated to “ green ” projects , and to varying degrees across countries .
Further , collapsing oil prices will undercut the competitiveness of cleaner alternative energy sources .
With large-scale protest activity diminished because of social distancing , civil society actors will turn to cyber and online tools to apply pressure on companies and governments , most of which will have less appetite and ability to respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a clash between politics and economics over climate change significantly diminishes in the short term , even if the overarching threat of climate change remains as real as ever .
The post Pandemic & Economic Crisis Downgrade Climate Change , Possibly For Years To Come appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

The global focus on coronavirus will come at the expense of attention paid to climate change as governments, investors and companies pursue recovery and growth above all else.
In January, risk #7 described how climate change would put governments, investors, and society at large on a collision course with corporate decision-makers, who would have to choose between ambitious commitments to reduce their emissions and their bottom lines. Civil society would be unforgiving of investors and companies they believe are moving too slowly. Oil and gas firms, airlines, carmakers, and meat producers would feel the heat. Disruption to supply chains would be a meaningful risk. Investors would reduce exposures to carbon intensive industries, sending asset prices lower. All this as global warming would make natural disasters more likely, more frequent, and more severe.
The global focus on coronavirus will come at the expense of attention paid to climate change. Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) investing mandates will become weaker in implementation if not in spirit, as investors and companies pursue recovery and growth above all else.
Countries will utilize their fiscal space on targeted measures to blunt the impact of the coronavirus, and whatever is left over for broad fiscal stimulus will only be partially dedicated to “green” projects, and to varying degrees across countries.
Further, collapsing oil prices will undercut the competitiveness of cleaner alternative energy sources. With large-scale protest activity diminished because of social distancing, civil society actors will turn to cyber and online tools to apply pressure on companies and governments, most of which will have less appetite and ability to respond to climate change.
The immediate risk of a clash between politics and economics over climate change significantly diminishes in the short term, even if the overarching threat of climate change remains as real as ever.
The post Pandemic & Economic Crisis Downgrade Climate Change, Possibly For Years To Come appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2QElPq1
March 22, 2020 at 11:59AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-22--2012: German Gov Was Warned Of Pandemic…Yet Instead Poured Tens Of Billions Into “Climate Protection

2012: German Gov Was Warned Of Pandemic…Yet Instead Poured Tens Of Billions Into “Climate Protection”

The German government , led by Angela Merkel , had been warned more than 7 years ago of the very real potential for a pandemic and that the country ’ s health care system was not prepared to deal with such a crisis .
Yet , instead of preparing for the probable scenario , the government poured tens of billions of euros into fighting the imaginary “ climate crisis ” .
Now , as Germany reels from the current COVID-19 pandemic , critical voices are asking why the government never bothered to take action to implement preventive measures .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Risk Analysis in Civil Protection 2012 ” looked at two potential hazards the country could face : 1 ) Flooding rivers fed by mountain run off , and 2 ) potential SARS-like pandemic .
Described 1 to 1 today ’ s situation – in 2012 !
The 88-page government report , beginning on page 55 , explicitly assesses the potential pandemic risks and warns of catastrophic consequences that could unfold .
It describes almost 1 to 1 what is happening today .
Particularly macabre is that the corona virus is explicitly named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ February ” and that the first two cases would appear in North Rhine Westphalia and Southern Germany !
Moreover it describes the major economic changes and the possible encroachment of fundamental rights that would occur .
The event is also seen unfolding in February in Asia and spreading to Germany just weeks later ( see 2.4 ) .
The report also assesses the damage extent ( Schadensausmaß ) a pandemic would have in the four categories comprising man , environment , economy and immaterial .
Except for environment , most were rated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The costs to the private sector caused by the event are considerable , supra-regional scope , and a large proportion of the companies concerned can not from their own resources .
Long-term losses of turnover for the affected industries are or companies to be expected .
A large number of companies go into insolvency , many more companies are threatened with insolvency ; in some sectors , nationwide effects are ( supplier companies ) .
The entire national economy suffers from the event into a recession , economic stimulus packages are necessary.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authors of the pandemic scenario could not have been more accurate .
Yet , the German government never took the risk analysis seriously and stood by as its health care system eroded further .
Instead the German government unilaterally poured hundreds of billions to combat global climate , among other things .
In a recent interview , economist and book author Dr. Markus Krall brings up the 2013 government report ( 15:00 ) , saying that the government should have invested in the country ’ s health care system long ago and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take action to prepare for this risk shows how “ incompetently ” we are being governed .
Krall adds that the government could have , for example , procured 100,000 respirators for a mere 50 million euros in preparation for a pandemic .
“ We spent billions , many billions…hundreds of billions by the handful , for other things ” .
“ I don ’ t want to say what I think about it , but every person can decide for himself what it means in terms of gross negligence in policymaking ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was responsible for.
” Krall accuses the German government of moving too slowly due to its open border ideology .
“ Our German chancellor wanted , no matter what , to stick to her open borders , and she still does.
” Krall notes , “ I have absolutely no understanding over how this government sets its priorities .
That just can not be accepted .
It ’ s irresponsible .
”

The German government, led by Angela Merkel, had been warned more than 7 years ago of the very real potential for a pandemic and that the country’s health care system was not prepared to deal with such a crisis.
Yet, instead of preparing for the probable scenario, the government poured tens of billions of euros into fighting the imaginary “climate crisis”. Now, as Germany reels from the current COVID-19 pandemic, critical voices are asking why the government never bothered to take action to implement preventive measures.
A printed federal government document titled “Report on Risk Analysis in Civil Protection 2012” looked at two potential hazards the country could face: 1) Flooding rivers fed by mountain run off, and 2) potential SARS-like pandemic.
Described 1 to 1 today’s situation – in 2012!
The 88-page government report, beginning on page 55, explicitly assesses the potential pandemic risks and warns of catastrophic consequences that could unfold. It describes almost 1 to 1 what is happening today. Particularly macabre is that the corona virus is explicitly named and that the outbreak would start in “February” and that the first two cases would appear in North Rhine Westphalia and Southern Germany!
Moreover it describes the major economic changes and the possible encroachment of fundamental rights that would occur. The event is also seen unfolding in February in Asia and spreading to Germany just weeks later (see 2.4).
Widespread damage
The report also assesses the damage extent (Schadensausmaß) a pandemic would have in the four categories comprising man, environment, economy and immaterial. Except for environment, most were rated with “E” for extensive.
Extent of damage rated “E” means:
The costs to the private sector caused by the event are considerable, supra-regional scope, and a large proportion of the companies concerned cannot from their own resources. Long-term losses of turnover for the affected industries are or companies to be expected. A large number of companies go into insolvency, many more companies are threatened with insolvency; in some sectors, nationwide effects are (supplier companies). The entire national economy suffers from the event into a recession, economic stimulus packages are necessary.”
and
Maintaining public security and order is endangered across regions to nationwide.”
Eight years later, we see that the authors of the pandemic scenario could not have been more accurate. Yet, the German government never took the risk analysis seriously and stood by as its health care system eroded further. Instead the German government unilaterally poured hundreds of billions to combat global climate, among other things.
“Incompetence, gross negligence”
In a recent interview, economist and book author Dr. Markus Krall brings up the 2013 government report (15:00), saying that the government should have invested in the country’s health care system long ago and that the government’s failure to take action to prepare for this risk shows how “incompetently” we are being governed.
Krall adds that the government could have, for example, procured 100,000 respirators for a mere 50 million euros in preparation for a pandemic. “We spent billions, many billions…hundreds of billions by the handful, for other things”.
“I don’t want to say what I think about it, but every person can decide for himself what it means in terms of gross negligence in policymaking’s obligation with respect to the duties it was responsible for.”
Krall accuses the German government of moving too slowly due to its open border ideology. “Our German chancellor wanted, no matter what, to stick to her open borders, and she still does.”
Krall notes, “I have absolutely no understanding over how this government sets its priorities. That just cannot be accepted. It’s irresponsible.”
via NoTricksZone
https://ift.tt/2QC8nTD
March 22, 2020 at 11:50AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-22--Temperature Forecasts, Cherry Blossoms and Covid-19

To start on a positive note , the Cherry Blossoms are in full bloom on the UW Campus , with the visual effect enhanced by the beautiful , sunny weather .
( I should note that the UW is not encouraging folks to visit the blosssoms in person ) .
There is a lot of interest in the temperature/coronavirus relationship and what the weather forecasts suggest .
During the past several weeks there have been several papers submitted ( but not yet reviewed ) suggesting that coronavirus flourishes for daily mean temperatures roughly from 32F to 55F .
Warmer than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The temperature map for the past month suggests that the only area of the U.S. that has been at sufficiently warm ( 14C–57F or more ) to slow up the virus was the southeast U.S. ( see below ) .
Unfortunately , the latest forecasts do not offer warm-temperature virus relief for much of the country during the next week .
Let me show that by presenting the 11 AM PDT temperatures for the next few days .
Look for the blue , yellow , orange and red colors for virus-poor conditions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not so good for the NW and NE .
Monday–same thing , but improved ( warm ) condition in most of Texas .
By Wednesday , warmer temperatures are over the SE , the central plains , and up into the Carolinas .
Fast forwarding to next Sunday ( March 29th ) , little improvement for the NW and NE .
The bottom line is that mother nature is not giving most of us the warm temperatures needed to suppress the virus But April is not far away .
And if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing at the University of Washington ( Med School ’ s Virology department ) is now finding a stabilization in the number of positive evaluations ( see graphic below ) .
Another good piece of news is that the overwhelming number of tests are negative ( folks are getting sick from the flu and other illnesses ) .
UW Virology have been extreme heroes during this event , providing COVID-19 testing when CDC was failing , as well as revving up to do thousands of tests per day .
Makes one proud to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ web site—and consider providing a donation for their excellent work .

Reposted from The Cliff Mass Weather Blog
To start on a positive note, the Cherry Blossoms are in full bloom on the UW Campus, with the visual effect enhanced by the beautiful, sunny weather. (I should note that the UW is not encouraging folks to visit the blosssoms in person).
There is a lot of interest in the temperature/coronavirus relationship and what the weather forecasts suggest.
During the past several weeks there have been several papers submitted (but not yet reviewed) suggesting that coronavirus flourishes for daily mean temperatures roughly from 32F to 55F. Warmer than that, the virus has problems.
The temperature map for the past month suggests that the only area of the U.S. that has been at sufficiently warm (14C–57F or more) to slow up the virus was the southeast U.S. (see below).
Unfortunately, the latest forecasts do not offer warm-temperature virus relief for much of the country during the next week. Let me show that by presenting the 11 AM PDT temperatures for the next few days. Look for the blue, yellow, orange and red colors for virus-poor conditions.
Saturday morning: SE U.S. is good. Not so good for the NW and NE.
Monday–same thing, but improved (warm) condition in most of Texas.
By Wednesday, warmer temperatures are over the SE, the central plains, and up into the Carolinas.
Fast forwarding to next Sunday (March 29th), little improvement for the NW and NE.
The bottom line is that mother nature is not giving most of us the warm temperatures needed to suppress the virus But April is not far away.
And if you want some good news, the coronavirus testing at the University of Washington (Med School’s Virology department) is now finding a stabilization in the number of positive evaluations (see graphic below). Another good piece of news is that the overwhelming number of tests are negative (folks are getting sick from the flu and other illnesses).
UW Virology have been extreme heroes during this event, providing COVID-19 testing when CDC was failing, as well as revving up to do thousands of tests per day. Makes one proud to be a husky. Check out their web site—and consider providing a donation for their excellent work.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-23--The Biggest CO2 Test

The Biggest CO2 Test

The current global crisis will be a test of just how much economic pain is required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions Some global warming alarmists are celebrating the current economic downturn as just what is needed to avert climate catastrophe .
I ’ ve seen a couple estimates that China ’ s manufacturing and commerce might have seen up at 40 % reduction recently .
The current global crisis will be a test of just how much economic pain is required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions ( assuming there is no reasonably affordable and practical replacement for fossil fuels ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my “ deep skeptic ” acquaintances ( you know who you are ) who believe the global CO2 increase is mostly natural will claim a continuing CO2 rise in the face of a decrease in economic activity supports their case .
I have previously shown that a simple model of the CO2 variations since 1959 forced with anthropogenic emissions accurately explain the Mauna Loa observations ( see Fig .
2 , explanation here ) .
It will take considerable evidence to convince me that the long-term rise in not anthropogenic , and maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide some contrarian evidence .
Of course , for anthropogenic CO2 emissions reductions to have any effect , they actually have to show up in the atmosphere .
The most widely cited monitoring location for CO2 is on Mauna Loa in Hawaii .
It is at high elevation in a persistent subtropical high pressure zone that should be able to detect large emissions changes in several weeks time as weather systems move around the world .
I ’ ve had several requests , and seen numerous social media comments , suggesting this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , I ’ ve analyzed the Mauna Loa CO2 data ( updated monthly ) through February 2020 to see if there is any hint of a CO2 concentration downturn ( or , more accurately , reduced rate of rise ) .
The short answer is : No… at least not yet .
While an anthropogenic source of CO2 can explain the long-term rise in CO2 , the trouble with finding an anthropogenic signal on time scale of a few months to a couple years is that natural variations swamp any anthropogenic changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data ( arbitrarily starting 1996 , below ) shows a continuing long-term rise that has been occurring since monitoring began in 1958 .
Also seen is the strong seasonal cycle as the vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere goes through its normal seasonal variations in growth and decay .
Obviously , not much can be discerned from the raw monthly average data in the above plot because the seasonal cycle is so strong .
So , the first step is to remove the seasonal cycle .
I did this by subtracting out a 4th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seasonal cycle , then adding that statistical fit back in : Next , there are some wiggles in the data due to El Nino and La Nina ( ENSO ) activity , and if we remove an average statistical estimate of that ( a time lag and averaging is involved to increase signal ) , we can get a little better idea of whether the most recent month ( February 2020 ) is out of the ordinary .
I have zeroed in on just the most recent 5 years for clarity .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dotted line ) shows what we might expect for the coming months , and we can see that February is not yet departing from the expected values .
The post The Biggest CO2 Test appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

The current global crisis will be a test of just how much economic pain is required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions
Some global warming alarmists are celebrating the current economic downturn as just what is needed to avert climate catastrophe. I’ve seen a couple estimates that China’s manufacturing and commerce might have seen up at 40% reduction recently.
The current global crisis will be a test of just how much economic pain is required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions (assuming there is no reasonably affordable and practical replacement for fossil fuels).
I already know that some of my “deep skeptic” acquaintances (you know who you are) who believe the global CO2 increase is mostly natural will claim a continuing CO2 rise in the face of a decrease in economic activity supports their case. I have previously shown that a simple model of the CO2 variations since 1959 forced with anthropogenic emissions accurately explain the Mauna Loa observations (see Fig. 2 , explanation here). It will take considerable evidence to convince me that the long-term rise in not anthropogenic, and maybe the current “coronavirus experiment” will provide some contrarian evidence.
Of course, for anthropogenic CO2 emissions reductions to have any effect, they actually have to show up in the atmosphere. The most widely cited monitoring location for CO2 is on Mauna Loa in Hawaii. It is at high elevation in a persistent subtropical high pressure zone that should be able to detect large emissions changes in several weeks time as weather systems move around the world.
I’ve had several requests, and seen numerous social media comments, suggesting this is something that should be looked at. So, I’ve analyzed the Mauna Loa CO2 data (updated monthly) through February 2020 to see if there is any hint of a CO2 concentration downturn (or, more accurately, reduced rate of rise).
The short answer is: No… at least not yet.
The Mauna Loa Data: Removing Seasonal and ENSO Effects
While an anthropogenic source of CO2 can explain the long-term rise in CO2, the trouble with finding an anthropogenic signal on time scale of a few months to a couple years is that natural variations swamp any anthropogenic changes on short time scales.
The monthly data (arbitrarily starting 1996, below) shows a continuing long-term rise that has been occurring since monitoring began in 1958. Also seen is the strong seasonal cycle as the vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere goes through its normal seasonal variations in growth and decay.
Obviously, not much can be discerned from the raw monthly average data in the above plot because the seasonal cycle is so strong. So, the first step is to remove the seasonal cycle. I did this by subtracting out a 4th order polynomial fit before removing the average seasonal cycle, then adding that statistical fit back in:
Next, there are some wiggles in the data due to El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) activity, and if we remove an average statistical estimate of that (a time lag and averaging is involved to increase signal), we can get a little better idea of whether the most recent month (February 2020) is out of the ordinary. I have zeroed in on just the most recent 5 years for clarity.
The polynomial fit to the data (thin dotted line) shows what we might expect for the coming months, and we can see that February is not yet departing from the expected values.
The post The Biggest CO2 Test appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2QDIv9U
March 23, 2020 at 05:22AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-23--Notions of a US hydrogen economy

Notions of a US hydrogen economy

The most optimistic estimate of the advocates is 14 % of total US energy supply from ( manufactured ) hydrogen by 2050 .
But why would it be worth the cost and effort , even if it could be done ?
Claims it would ‘ strengthen the economy ’ seem hard to justify , as hydrogen production is more expensive than that of fuels in use now .
A coalition of major oil & gas , power , automotive , fuel cell , and hydrogen companies have developed and released the full new report , a “ Road Map to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green Car Congress .
The Road Map stresses the versatility of hydrogen as an enabler of the renewable energy system ; an energy vector that can be transported and stored ; and a fuel for the transportation sector , heating of buildings and providing heat and feedstock to industry .
It can reduce both carbon and local emissions , increase energy security and strengthen the economy , as well as support the deployment of renewable power generation such as wind , solar , nuclear and hydro .
This Road Map shows how critically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy mix , and with the right actions now , can reinforce US energy leadership and strengthen our economy by generating $ 140 billion per year in revenue and 700,000 jobs by 2030 , and $ 750 billion per year in revenue and 3.4 million jobs by 2050 .
In addition , if the right actions are taken now a competitive hydrogen industry can meet 14 percent of US energy demand by 2050 .
Fourteen percent of US final energy demand in 2050 is estimated to be the equivalent of more the 2,468 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The most optimistic estimate of the advocates is 14% of total US energy supply from (manufactured) hydrogen by 2050. But why would it be worth the cost and effort, even if it could be done? Claims it would ‘strengthen the economy’ seem hard to justify, as hydrogen production is more expensive than that of fuels in use now.
A coalition of major oil & gas, power, automotive, fuel cell, and hydrogen companies have developed and released the full new report, a “Road Map to a US Hydrogen Economy”, reports Green Car Congress.
The Road Map stresses the versatility of hydrogen as an enabler of the renewable energy system; an energy vector that can be transported and stored; and a fuel for the transportation sector, heating of buildings and providing heat and feedstock to industry.
It can reduce both carbon and local emissions, increase energy security and strengthen the economy, as well as support the deployment of renewable power generation such as wind, solar, nuclear and hydro.
This Road Map shows how critically important hydrogen is to achieve a lower-carbon energy mix, and with the right actions now, can reinforce US energy leadership and strengthen our economy by generating $140 billion per year in revenue and 700,000 jobs by 2030, and $750 billion per year in revenue and 3.4 million jobs by 2050. In addition, if the right actions are taken now a competitive hydrogen industry can meet 14 percent of US energy demand by 2050. —Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) President Morry Markowitz
Fourteen percent of US final energy demand in 2050 is estimated to be the equivalent of more the 2,468 TWh or 8.4 billion MMBTU per year.
Full report here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/2xmueaE
March 23, 2020 at 05:18AM