iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-05--The Scientific Case for Vacating the EPA’s Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ’ s ( EPA ) 2009 “ Endangerment Finding ” from carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) and other greenhouse gases grants the agency a legal mandate that can have profound and far-reaching effects .
The Finding is based largely on a Technical Support Document that relies heavily upon other mandated reports , the so-called National Assessments of global climate change impacts on the United States .
The extant Assessments at the time of the Endangerment Finding suffered from serious flaws .
We document that using the climate models for the first Assessment , from 2000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of random numbers—and that the chief scientist for that work knew of this problem .
All prospective climate impacts in the Endangerment Finding are generated by computer models that , with one exception , made systematic and dramatic errors over the climatically critical tropics .
Best scientific practice would be to emphasize the working model , which has less warming in it than all of the others .
Instead , the EPA relied upon a community of wrong models .
New research compares what has been observed to what is forecast , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be modest—near the lowest extreme of the prospective range given by the United Nations .
The previous administration justified its policy choices by calculating the Social Cost of Carbon [ dioxide ] .
We interfaced their model with climate forecasts consistent with the observed history and enhanced the “ fertilization ” effect of increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 .
We find that making the warming and the vegetation response more consistent with real-world observations yields a negative cost under almost all modeled circumstances .
This constellation of unreliable models , poor scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social Cost of Carbon argue consistently and cogently for the EPA to reopen and then vacate its endangerment finding from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases .
The Environmental Protection Agency ’ s ( EPA ) 2009 “ Endangerment Finding ” is the basis for comprehensive regulations of carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.1 It is based on another EPA report called a Technical Support Document ( TSD ) , which , as this paper will show , is seriously flawed because it is based upon climate models that are making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent impact models based on them are also unreliable .
These project , among other things , changes in crop yields , ecosystems , and social systems caused by changes in climate .
Further , the EPA did not follow best scientific practices in determining either the course of future climate or the cost of current and future carbon dioxide emissions .
Subsequent to the Endangerment Finding , the Obama administration justified its interventionist policies with its calculation of a figure known as the Social Cost of Carbon ( SCC ) .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damages supposedly caused by an incremental ton of carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) , the principal contributor to human-induced climate change , emitted in a given year .
Discernible in neither economic nor meteorological data , social cost values are guesstimates produced by computer programs called “ integrated assessment models ” ( IAMs ) .
What IAMs “ integrate ” is a speculative model of how carbon dioxide emissions will change the climate with a speculative model of how climate change will affect consumption , GDP , and health .
Only one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Framework for Uncertainty , Negotiation , and Distribution ) , contains an explicit term to account for the fertilization effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide .
All of the IAMs are based upon a warming that is too great—in which sensitivity to carbon dioxide is too high—based upon recently observed data .
Here , we will see that more realistic values for climate sensitivity and the fertilization effect of carbon dioxide , along with realistic discount rates , can produce a SCC that is negative , or something that could be considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concept of “ endangerment ” into question .
We will show that multiple and internally consistent lines of evidence , such as an inability to define serious costs with realistic model parameters , and two tragic flaws in the supporting “ science summary ” documents that underpin the original finding , should compel the EPA to reconsider and then vacate its 2009 Endangerment Finding .
The Endangerment Finding was produced in response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision , Massachusetts v. EPA , that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1992 empowered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if the agency found that they endangered human health and welfare .
The case against the EPA was originally brought by 12 states and several environmental advocacy organizations .
It eventually came before the District of Columbia appellate court , which upheld an original decision in favor of the EPA ’ s choice not to regulate CO2 , on the grounds of scientific uncertainty as to the amount and effects of climate change actually caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations .
The appellate court decision was split 2-1 , with a vigorous dissenting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Supreme Court granted a writ of Certiorari to Massachusetts v. EPA on June 26 , 2006 .
Judge Tatel ’ s dissent was highly influential when the case came before the Court , argued on November 29 , 2006 .
The decision , a narrow 5-4 verdict , was announced on April 2 , 2007 .
The majority held that the Clean Air Act did grant the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as “ air pollutants.
” The timing was late in President George W. Bush ’ s second term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Barack Obama did not , placing global warming as his second highest priority in his first inaugural address ( behind national health care ) .
His EPA issued a preliminary “ finding of endangerment ” less than three months later , on April 17 , 2009 , and a final finding was announced on December 7 , 2009.2 That date coincided with the opening of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC ) , also known as the Rio Climate Treaty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adopt a new emissions reduction protocol to replace the failed 1997 Kyoto Protocol , but it failed to do so .
The Endangerment Finding is backed by a Technical Support Document , which itself was largely based on the Fourth Assessment Report ( AR4 ) of global warming by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) 3 and the second National Assessment of climate change impacts on the United States by the U.S .
Global Change Research Program ( USGCRP ) .4 Both of the foundational documents for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future climate—a large series of computer simulations of global climate with enhanced greenhouse gases , known as general circulation models ( GCMs ) or Earth system models ( ESMs ) .
The output of these models is then used to drive “ impact ” models , which apply to the many aspects of life , projecting changes in migration , death , nutrition , mental illness , among others .
If the GCM/ESMs can be shown to be fatally flawed , then their prospective climate forecasts are useless .
Therefore , any forecasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; they may even have negative utility , because impact models have their own error terms and those interact multiplicatively with the errors in the GCM/ESMs .
The application of this error cascade to policy can provoke unneeded suffering and impose grotesque and gargantuan opportunity costs .
In this eventuality , the Endangerment Finding becomes an exercise in expensive rhetoric .
The final version of the Technical Support Document , published on December 7 , 2009 , relied heavily upon a document published by the U.S Global Change Research Program , “ Global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , also known as the Second National Assessment ( NA-2 ) report .
Since then , it has become clear that the models used for prospective climate in that report made significant systematic errors in the three-dimensional tropical atmosphere with significant implications concerning the reliability of subsequent forecasts for temperature and precipitation over large expanses of the planet .
The first National Assessment ( NA-1 ) was published in 2000 .
Thomas Karl , Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ’ s ( NOAA ) National Climatic Data Center ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marine Biological Laboratory , and Thomas R. Peterson , also of NCDC led the National Assessment Synthesis Team ( NAST ) .
Like the subsequent NA-2 , it had a fatal flaw .
The design of the NA-1 was similar to the succeeding Assessments .
All future impacts were generated from the output of general circulation climate models .
At the time NA-1 was under development , NAST had eight GCMs to choose from to describe 21st century climate .
They chose two : a ) the Canadian Climate Centre model , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. of all eight , and b ) the model from the U.K. Hadley Center , a part of the Meteorological Office , which produced the largest precipitation changes .
In our peer review of the draft NA-1 , my then-colleague Chip Knappenberger and I looked at how well those two models could do the simplest of tasks—simulating 10-year running means of coterminous U.S. temperature averages over the 20th century , such as , for example , 1900-1909 , 1901-1910 , and so on .
They could not do it .
The answers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assuming the 20th century average value .
In other words , the models added errors to the raw data .
What they did was ex- actly analogous to a student taking a four-option multiple choice test and getting less than 25 percent correct .
The NA-1 models actually supplied “ negative knowledge ” .
You knew less about 20th century U.S. climate by using them .
I emailed Karl my result , as we were on good professional terms .
He responded that indeed we were correct and that further , the models @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of one , five , 10 ( which we analyzed ) , 20 , and 25 years .
Using climate models that do not work to assess the effects of climate change ( with subsequent policy recommendations ) is a scientific malpractice.5 ( Karl and Melilo were also on the team that assembled NA-2 , along with Anthony Janetos of the environmental advocacy group World Resources Institute .
NA-2 also had systematic problems . )
Systemic Flaws in the Second National Assessment The 2009 Second National Assessment of climate change impacts in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principal U.S-specific reference in the Technical Support Document for the Endanger- ment Finding .
The weakness of NA-2 was apparent in its draft form .
As one of these authors ( Michaels ) and Chip Knappenberger noted in public comments submitted on behalf of the Cato Institute : Of all of the “ consensus ” government or intergovernmental documents of this genre that [ we ] have reviewed in [ our ] 30+ years in this profession , there is no doubt that this is the absolute worst of all .
Virtually every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represent a complete survey of a relevant literature .
There is an overwhelming amount of misleading material in the CCSP ’ s [ Climate Change Science Program ’ s ] “ Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.
” It is immediately obvious that the intent of the report is not to provide an accurate scientific assessment of the current and future impacts of climate change in the United States , but to confuse the reader by a loose handling of normal climate events ( made seemingly more frequent , intense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) presented as climate change events .
Additionally , there is absolutely no effort made by the CCSP authors to include any dissenting opinion to their declarative statements , despite the peer-reviewed literature being full of legitimate and applicable reports that provide contrasting findings .
Yet , quite brazenly , the CCSP authors claim to provide its readers— “ U.S .
policymakers and citizens ” with the “ best available science.
” This proclamation is simply false .
The uniformed reader ( i.e.
, the public , reporters , and policy-makers ) upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] to believe that a terrible disaster is soon to befall the United States from human- induced climate change and that almost all of the impacts will be negative and devastating .
Of course , if the purpose here is really not to produce an unbiased review of the impact of climate change on the United States , but a political document that will give cover for EPA ’ s decision to regulate carbon dioxide , then there is really no reason to go through the ruse of gathering comments from scientists knowledgeable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science that is relevant is selected work that fits the au- thors ’ preexisting paradigm.6 In 2012 we published an addendum in the form of a palimpsest that featured a point-by-point rebuttal of specific faulty statements in the NA-2.7 For example , under “ Key Finding ” # 7 , NA-2 says : 7 .
Risks to human health will increase .
Harmful health impacts are related to increasing heat stress , waterborne diseases , poor air quality , extreme weather events , and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents .
Reduced cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts .
( p.89 ) 8 7 .
Life expectancy and wealth are likely to continue to increase .
There is little relationship between climate and life expectancy and wealth .
Even under the most dire climate scenarios , people will be much healthier and wealthier in the year 2100 than they are today .
( pp .
139-45 , 158-61 ) 9 We urge readers interested in documenting the problems between NA-2 and the endangerment finding to do their own side-by side comparisons of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Appendix 1 .
Despite all of the problems noted above , the Endangerment Finding was declared final on December 7 , 2009 .
The next section looks at some critical findings subsequent to its publication , which will be important to any attempt to vacate it .
Read the rest of the article here .

From The Competitive Enterprise Institute
Patrick J. Michaels • April 21, 2020
View Full Document as PDF
Executive Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 “Endangerment Finding” from carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases grants the agency a legal mandate that can have profound and far-reaching effects. The Finding is based largely on a Technical Support Document that relies heavily upon other mandated reports, the so-called National Assessments of global climate change impacts on the United States.
The extant Assessments at the time of the Endangerment Finding suffered from serious flaws. We document that using the climate models for the first Assessment, from 2000, provided less quantitative guidance than tables of random numbers—and that the chief scientist for that work knew of this problem.
All prospective climate impacts in the Endangerment Finding are generated by computer models that, with one exception, made systematic and dramatic errors over the climatically critical tropics. Best scientific practice would be to emphasize the working model, which has less warming in it than all of the others.
Instead, the EPA relied upon a community of wrong models.
New research compares what has been observed to what is forecast, and finds that warming in this cen- tury will be modest—near the lowest extreme of the prospective range given by the United Nations.
The previous administration justified its policy choices by calculating the Social Cost of Carbon [dioxide]. We interfaced their model with climate forecasts consistent with the observed history and enhanced the “fertilization” effect of increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2. We find that making the warming and the vegetation response more consistent with real-world observations yields a negative cost under almost all modeled circumstances.
This constellation of unreliable models, poor scientific practice, and exaggerated estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon argue consistently and cogently for the EPA to reopen and then vacate its endangerment finding from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 “Endangerment Finding” is the basis for comprehensive regulations of carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.1 It is based on another EPA report called a Technical Support Document (TSD), which, as this paper will show, is seriously flawed because it is based upon climate models that are making large systematic errors. Therefore, the subsequent impact models based on them are also unreliable. These project, among other things, changes in crop yields, ecosystems, and social systems caused by changes in climate. Further, the EPA did not follow best scientific practices in determining either the course of future climate or the cost of current and future carbon dioxide emissions.
Subsequent to the Endangerment Finding, the Obama administration justified its interventionist policies with its calculation of a figure known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The SCC is a monetary estimate of the damages supposedly caused by an incremental ton of carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal contributor to human-induced climate change, emitted in a given year. Discernible in neither economic nor meteorological data, social cost values are guesstimates produced by computer programs called “integrated assessment models” (IAMs). What IAMs “integrate” is a speculative model of how carbon dioxide emissions will change the climate with a speculative model of how climate change will affect consumption, GDP, and health. Only one of these models, known as FUND (for Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation, and Distribution), contains an explicit term to account for the fertilization effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. All of the IAMs are based upon a warming that is too great—in which sensitivity to carbon dioxide is too high—based upon recently observed data.
Here, we will see that more realistic values for climate sensitivity and the fertilization effect of carbon dioxide, along with realistic discount rates, can produce a SCC that is negative, or something that could be considered a net benefit, certainly calling the concept of “endangerment” into question.
We will show that multiple and internally consistent lines of evidence, such as an inability to define serious costs with realistic model parameters, and two tragic flaws in the supporting “science summary” documents that underpin the original finding, should compel the EPA to reconsider and then vacate its 2009 Endangerment Finding.
History of the Endangerment Finding
The Endangerment Finding was produced in response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1992 empowered the EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, if the agency found that they endangered human health and welfare.
The case against the EPA was originally brought by 12 states and several environmental advocacy organizations. It eventually came before the District of Columbia appellate court, which upheld an original decision in favor of the EPA’s choice not to regulate CO2, on the grounds of scientific uncertainty as to the amount and effects of climate change actually caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations.
The appellate court decision was split 2-1, with a vigorous dissenting opinion by Judge David S. Tatel. The Supreme Court granted a writ of Certiorari to Massachusetts v. EPA on June 26, 2006. Judge Tatel’s dissent was highly influential when the case came before the Court, argued on November 29, 2006. The decision, a narrow 5-4 verdict, was announced on April 2, 2007. The majority held that the Clean Air Act did grant the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as “air pollutants.”
The timing was late in President George W. Bush’s second term, which deferred substantive action. Incoming President Barack Obama did not, placing global warming as his second highest priority in his first inaugural address (behind national health care). His EPA issued a preliminary “finding of endangerment” less than three months later, on April 17, 2009, and a final finding was announced on December 7, 2009.2 That date coincided with the opening of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), also known as the Rio Climate Treaty. The 2009 meeting was supposed to adopt a new emissions reduction protocol to replace the failed 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but it failed to do so.
The Endangerment Finding is backed by a Technical Support Document, which itself was largely based on the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of global warming by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)3 and the second National Assessment of climate change impacts on the United States by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).4
Both of the foundational documents for the TSD have only one method to predict future climate—a large series of computer simulations of global climate with enhanced greenhouse gases, known as general circulation models (GCMs) or Earth system models (ESMs). The output of these models is then used to drive “impact” models, which apply to the many aspects of life, projecting changes in migration, death, nutrition, mental illness, among others.
If the GCM/ESMs can be shown to be fatally flawed, then their prospective climate forecasts are useless. Therefore, any forecasts of changed impacts are worse then useless; they may even have negative utility, because impact models have their own error terms and those interact multiplicatively with the errors in the GCM/ESMs. The application of this error cascade to policy can provoke unneeded suffering and impose grotesque and gargantuan opportunity costs. In this eventuality, the Endangerment Finding becomes an exercise in expensive rhetoric.
Are The National Assessments Tainted?
The final version of the Technical Support Document, published on December 7, 2009, relied heavily upon a document published by the U.S Global Change Research Program, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”, also known as the Second National Assessment (NA-2) report. Since then, it has become clear that the models used for prospective climate in that report made significant systematic errors in the three-dimensional tropical atmosphere with significant implications concerning the reliability of subsequent forecasts for temperature and precipitation over large expanses of the planet.
The first National Assessment (NA-1) was published in 2000. Thomas Karl, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Jerry Melilo of the Marine Biological Laboratory, and Thomas R. Peterson, also of NCDC led the National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST). Like the subsequent NA-2, it had a fatal flaw.
The design of the NA-1 was similar to the succeeding Assessments. All future impacts were generated from the output of general circulation climate models. At the time NA-1 was under development, NAST had eight GCMs to choose from to describe 21st century climate. They chose two: a) the Canadian Climate Centre model, which produced the greatest temperature changes over the U.S. of all eight, and b) the model from the U.K. Hadley Center, a part of the Meteorological Office, which produced the largest precipitation changes.
In our peer review of the draft NA-1, my then-colleague Chip Knappenberger and I looked at how well those two models could do the simplest of tasks—simulating 10-year running means of coterminous U.S. temperature averages over the 20th century, such as, for example, 1900-1909, 1901-1910, and so on. They could not do it. The answers the models gave were worse than simply assuming the 20th century average value. In other words, the models added errors to the raw data. What they did was ex- actly analogous to a student taking a four-option multiple choice test and getting less than 25 percent correct. The NA-1 models actually supplied “negative knowledge”. You knew less about 20th century U.S. climate by using them.
I emailed Karl my result, as we were on good professional terms. He responded that indeed we were correct and that further, the models exhibited the same failure on running means of one, five, 10 (which we analyzed), 20, and 25 years. Using climate models that do not work to assess the effects of climate change (with subsequent policy recommendations) is a scientific malpractice.5 (Karl and Melilo were also on the team that assembled NA-2, along with Anthony Janetos of the environmental advocacy group World Resources Institute. NA-2 also had systematic problems.)
— Patrick Michaels
Systemic Flaws in the Second National Assessment
The 2009 Second National Assessment of climate change impacts in the United States (NA-2) is the principal U.S-specific reference in the Technical Support Document for the Endanger- ment Finding. The weakness of NA-2 was apparent in its draft form. As one of these authors (Michaels) and Chip Knappenberger noted in public comments submitted on behalf of the Cato Institute:
Of all of the “consensus” government or intergovernmental documents of this genre that [we] have reviewed in [our] 30+ years in this profession, there is no doubt that this is the absolute worst of all. Virtually every sentence can be contested or does not represent a complete survey of a relevant literature.
There is an overwhelming amount of misleading material in the CCSP’s [Climate Change Science Program’s] “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” It is immediately obvious that the intent of the report is not to provide an accurate scientific assessment of the current and future impacts of climate change in the United States, but to confuse the reader by a loose handling of normal climate events (made seemingly more frequent, intense, and damaging simply by our growing population) presented as climate change events. Additionally, there is absolutely no effort made by the CCSP authors to include any dissenting opinion to their declarative statements, despite the peer-reviewed literature being full of legitimate and applicable reports that provide contrasting findings. Yet, quite brazenly, the CCSP authors claim to provide its readers—“U.S. policymakers and citizens” with the “best available science.” This proclamation is simply false.
The uniformed reader (i.e., the public, reporters, and policy-makers) upon reading this report will be [led] to believe that a terrible disaster is soon to befall the United States from human- induced climate change and that almost all of the impacts will be negative and devastating. Of course, if the purpose here is really not to produce an unbiased review of the impact of climate change on the United States, but a political document that will give cover for EPA’s decision to regulate carbon dioxide, then there is really no reason to go through the ruse of gathering comments from scientists knowledgeable about the issues, as the only science that is relevant is selected work that fits the au- thors’ preexisting paradigm.6
In 2012 we published an addendum in the form of a palimpsest that featured a point-by-point rebuttal of specific faulty statements in the NA-2.7 For example, under “Key Finding” #7, NA-2 says:
7. Risks to human health will increase. Harmful health impacts are related to increasing heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Reduced cold stress provides some benefits. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts. (p.89)8
Our addendum notes:
7. Life expectancy and wealth are likely to continue to increase. There is little relationship between climate and life expectancy and wealth. Even under the most dire climate scenarios, people will be much healthier and wealthier in the year 2100 than they are today. (pp. 139-45, 158-61)9
We urge readers interested in documenting the problems between NA-2 and the endangerment finding to do their own side-by side comparisons of both NA-2 and our response, shown in Appendix 1.
Despite all of the problems noted above, the Endangerment Finding was declared final on December 7, 2009. The next section looks at some critical findings subsequent to its publication, which will be important to any attempt to vacate it.
Read the rest of the article here.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--Net Zero mania threatens to derail our lockdown recovery-Rupert Darwall

When economies emerge from the pandemic , aggressive climate policies should be the priority , according to Dominic Raab , the foreign secretary and Boris Johnson ’ s deputy .
Sounding like a modern day King Canute , he has urged governments to turn the tide on climate change .
`` There ’ s no choice between cutting our emissions and growing our economy , '' Mr. Raab claims .
`` That ’ s a myth the UK has helped to shatter over the past decade . ''
In fact , the last decade saw Britain rack up its worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ministers don ’ t tell us how we cut them by exporting our industrial base – emissions relating to imports from China are 276pc higher compared to 1997 .
The Government can forget about re-shoring vulnerable supply chains as it would push up our emissions .
France ’ s Emmanuel Macron , by contrast , is a good deal more honest , having described the choice on climate as profound and brutal .
Decarbonising inflicts costs on the poorest in society and it shrinks blue-collar job opportunities , worsening the North South regional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero after a mere ninety-minute debate in the House of Commons last June .
Unlike the original 2008 Climate Change Act , the Government did not provide an economic impact assessment of net net and its analysis of the costs , of what it would to do the economy and an estimate of the potential climate benefits to Britain .
Lack of scientific and economic rigour and objectivity is par for the course development of net zero and adoption of the 1.5°C target .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference , the president of the Maldives held the world ’ s first underwater cabinet meeting to dramatise the threat to low-lying islands from rising sea levels and lobby for the 1.5°C limit and incorporated in the 2015 Paris Agreement .
Yet there was no satisfactory scientific basis for the sinking island fable .
As Charles Darwin explained in the 1830s , coral atolls are formed by gentle subsidence of the seabed and , surprise , surprise , islands such as the Maldives have seen their land area expand .
After the politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the shape of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) , were invited to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels .
The IPCC had a problem .
Its existing 1.5°C carbon budget – the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted to keep global warming from rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – was all but used up .
Obviously there was no point in agreeing a limit only to have it busted almost immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too hot and over-predicting warming since 2000 , an IPCC lead author admitted , the IPCC found a way of more than doubling the 1.5°C budget and keeping the climate show on the road .
Although the IPCC only had medium confidence in its revised 1.5°C budget , it claimed high confidence that emissions had to reach net zero by 2050 .
Perhaps that ’ s because the IPCC sees net zero as providing , it says , the opportunity for `` intentional societal transformation '' and makes little secret of its ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like the government , the IPCC doesn ’ t put a price tag on net zero , but the few numbers it produces are eye-popping , with costs ranging up to sixty times the hypothetical climate benefits estimated by the Obama administration .
Indeed , the IPCC concedes that net zero will hit the world ’ s poor hard with higher food prices and delay the transition to clean cooking , one of the biggest causes of avoidable deaths in poorer countries .
There is no ethical , economic or social justification for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of human welfare .
Fortunately net zero isn ’ t going to happen whatever politicians here might think .
The West ’ s pre-pandemic emissions account for around one quarter of global emissions .
Buying into net zero will turn Europe into a continent of zombie economies , but the rest of the world isn ’ t going to follow .
The Prime Minister has only one chance to ensure rapid and sustained economic recovery from the lockdown – and that is to scrap every obstacle that stands in the way of economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the net zero climate noose .
If he fails , he and his government will be toast , his political career be ruined and the Conservatives will be remembered for this policy-made economic disaster .
Keeping Boris ’ s commitment to net zero won ’ t be pretty .
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood
By popular request, Rupert Darwall!!
When economies emerge from the pandemic, aggressive climate policies should be the priority, according to Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary and Boris Johnson’s deputy. Sounding like a modern day King Canute, he has urged governments to turn the tide on climate change. "There’s no choice between cutting our emissions and growing our economy," Mr. Raab claims. "That’s a myth the UK has helped to shatter over the past decade."
In fact, the last decade saw Britain rack up its worst productivity performance since the Industrial Revolution. Ministers don’t tell us how we cut them by exporting our industrial base – emissions relating to imports from China are 276pc higher compared to 1997. The Government can forget about re-shoring vulnerable supply chains as it would push up our emissions.
France’s Emmanuel Macron, by contrast, is a good deal more honest, having described the choice on climate as profound and brutal. Decarbonising inflicts costs on the poorest in society and it shrinks blue-collar job opportunities, worsening the North South regional divide.
Britain legislated its commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero after a mere ninety-minute debate in the House of Commons last June. Unlike the original 2008 Climate Change Act, the Government did not provide an economic impact assessment of net net and its analysis of the costs, of what it would to do the economy and an estimate of the potential climate benefits to Britain.
Lack of scientific and economic rigour and objectivity is par for the course development of net zero and adoption of the 1.5°C target. In the run up to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, the president of the Maldives held the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting to dramatise the threat to low-lying islands from rising sea levels and lobby for the 1.5°C limit and incorporated in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Yet there was no satisfactory scientific basis for the sinking island fable. As Charles Darwin explained in the 1830s, coral atolls are formed by gentle subsidence of the seabed and, surprise, surprise, islands such as the Maldives have seen their land area expand.
After the politicians had decided on the policy, scientists, in the shape of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), were invited to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.
The IPCC had a problem. Its existing 1.5°C carbon budget – the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted to keep global warming from rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – was all but used up.
Obviously there was no point in agreeing a limit only to have it busted almost immediately. Helped by computer climate models running too hot and over-predicting warming since 2000, an IPCC lead author admitted, the IPCC found a way of more than doubling the 1.5°C budget and keeping the climate show on the road. Although the IPCC only had medium confidence in its revised 1.5°C budget, it claimed high confidence that emissions had to reach net zero by 2050.
Perhaps that’s because the IPCC sees net zero as providing, it says, the opportunity for "intentional societal transformation" and makes little secret of its ideological hostility to capitalism and economic growth. Like the government, the IPCC doesn’t put a price tag on net zero, but the few numbers it produces are eye-popping, with costs ranging up to sixty times the hypothetical climate benefits estimated by the Obama administration.
Indeed, the IPCC concedes that net zero will hit the world’s poor hard with higher food prices and delay the transition to clean cooking, one of the biggest causes of avoidable deaths in poorer countries. There is no ethical, economic or social justification for such policy overkill and its immense destruction of human welfare.
Fortunately net zero isn’t going to happen whatever politicians here might think. The West’s pre-pandemic emissions account for around one quarter of global emissions. Buying into net zero will turn Europe into a continent of zombie economies, but the rest of the world isn’t going to follow.
The Prime Minister has only one chance to ensure rapid and sustained economic recovery from the lockdown – and that is to scrap every obstacle that stands in the way of economic growth, the biggest of all being the net zero climate noose. If he fails, he and his government will be toast, his political career be ruined and the Conservatives will be remembered for this policy-made economic disaster. Keeping Boris’s commitment to net zero won’t be pretty.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/05/net-zero-mania-threatens-derail-lockdown-recovery/
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/2YDewUk
May 6, 2020 at 05:33AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--OFGEM Backs £600 Subsea Cable–To Connect One Wind Farm In Shetlands!

Energy regulator Ofgem has approved plans for a subsea power cable which would take energy from Shetland to the Scottish mainland .
Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks ( SSEN ) wants to build a 600MW electricity transmission link .
Ofgen said this would allow new wind farms on Shetland to export renewable electricity to the rest of Britain .
The regulator said the scheme would also help ensure the supply of electricity on the islands .
However , the approval of SSEN ’ s revised proposals is subject to evidence that a Viking Energy wind farm project will go ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cable project would cost more than £600m .
It would connect Kergord in Shetland to Noss Head on the Scottish mainland , near Wick in Caithness .
There is one thing the BBC forgot to mention , the fact that energy consumers throughout the UK will end up paying this cost , as OFGEM explain : Ofgem regulates network companies including SSEN , which is a subsidiary of SSE .
All energy consumers pay for the cost of investment in new network capacity through their energy bills and the regulator ensures that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The only reason for the cable is to connect up the proposed wind farm .
Although it may be used to import power from the mainland , OFGEM again make this clear : Ofgem ’ s approval is subject to receiving sufficient evidence by the end of 2020 that the 457MW Viking Energy Wind Farm project planned for Shetland is likely to go ahead .
Currently most of Shetland ’ s electricity comes from Lerwick Power Station , a 66 MW diesel plant , which is nearing the end of its life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this would be a much cheaper option .
It is interesting that Shetland would still need to import power when Lerwick is shut , rather than relying on the Viking Wind Farm !
Incidentally , Viking were hoping to wind a CfD contract last autumn , but could not compete on price , suggesting that wind power is not as cheap as we are told .
Construction of the proposed Viking project along with the £600m cable can not possibly be justified economically .
It is no more than green virtue signalling .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ THAT

By Paul Homewood
Energy regulator Ofgem has approved plans for a subsea power cable which would take energy from Shetland to the Scottish mainland.
Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN) wants to build a 600MW electricity transmission link.
Ofgen said this would allow new wind farms on Shetland to export renewable electricity to the rest of Britain.
The regulator said the scheme would also help ensure the supply of electricity on the islands.
However, the approval of SSEN’s revised proposals is subject to evidence that a Viking Energy wind farm project will go ahead.
It is estimated that the subsea cable project would cost more than £600m.
It would connect Kergord in Shetland to Noss Head on the Scottish mainland, near Wick in Caithness.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-52397784
There is one thing the BBC forgot to mention, the fact that energy consumers throughout the UK will end up paying this cost, as OFGEM explain:
Ofgem regulates network companies including SSEN, which is a subsidiary of SSE. All energy consumers pay for the cost of investment in new network capacity through their energy bills and the regulator ensures that it obtains the best deal possible for them.
The only reason for the cable is to connect up the proposed wind farm. Although it may be used to import power from the mainland, OFGEM again make this clear:
Ofgem’s approval is subject to receiving sufficient evidence by the end of 2020 that the 457MW Viking Energy Wind Farm project planned for Shetland is likely to go ahead.
Currently most of Shetland’s electricity comes from Lerwick Power Station, a 66 MW diesel plant, which is nearing the end of its life. OFGEM consider that direct replacement of this would be a much cheaper option.
It is interesting that Shetland would still need to import power when Lerwick is shut, rather than relying on the Viking Wind Farm!
Incidentally, Viking were hoping to wind a CfD contract last autumn, but could not compete on price, suggesting that wind power is not as cheap as we are told.
Construction of the proposed Viking project along with the £600m cable cannot possibly be justified economically. It is no more than green virtue signalling.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3bcGqZY
May 6, 2020 at 04:27AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--New Paper: Body condition of Barents Sea polar bears increased since 2004 despite sea ice loss

A recent paper that attempted to correlate pollution levels and body condition in Barents Sea polar bears reports it found body condition of female bears had increased between 2004 and 2017 despite a pronounced decline in summer and winter sea ice extent .
This result explains all the fat female polar bear photos coming out of the Svalbard region in recent years .
However , it is totally at odds with predictions of catastrophic declines in polar bear numbers in the Barents Sea and assertions that Barents Sea bears are one of the most vulnerable to the effects of global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Hamiltion and Derocher 2019 ; Regehr et al .
2016 ; Stern and Laidre 2016 ) due to a dramatic loss of sea ice ( see map below ) .
And that is before the high levels of sea ice in the region I ’ ve been reporting on here , here , here , here , and here .
Prior to this 2019 publication , all we have been provided with are body condition values for adult males ( 1993-2019 ) – showing them to have been doing well in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , after years of loud public hand-wringing from polar bear activists , we find out that all along , adult females have been doing even better in recent years than they were before 2005 when there was more summer and winter ice .
Therefore , contrary to expectations , Barents Sea and Chukchi Sea bears have been shown to be thriving with less sea ice – and for Barents Sea bears it ’ s a lot less ice .
This map shows compares recent ( 1979-2014 ) declines in ‘ summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Laidre 2016 , Fig .
12 ) .
Western and Southern Hudson Bay bears ( green ) are claimed to be doing poorly despite the smallest change in summer sea ice while Chukchi Sea bears are thriving under the same low ice loss ; in contrast , Barents Sea bears are thriving ( numbers increasing , body condition improving ) despite living through the most dramatic summer ice declines in the Arctic ( purple on the map ) .
See also Regehr et al .
2016 and here .
Oddly , the 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a paper published last month about ‘ space-use ’ of polar bears in the Barents Sea ( Blanchet et al .
2020 ) , cites Lippold et al .
2019 as evidence that Barents Sea polar bears have not shown signs of “ decreases in overall body condition “ .
Watch the pea… What Lippold et al .
actually say , in their abstract , is this [ my bold ] : Later in the paper ( pg .
988 ) , they had this to say [ my bold ] : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005 , although sea ice has retreated by ∼50 % since the late 1990s in the area , and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013 .
These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas .
Despite the declining sea ice in the Barents Sea , polar bears are likely not lacking food as long as sea ice is present during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feed extensively from April to June when ringed seals have pups and are particularly vulnerable to predation , whereas the predation rate during the rest of the year is likely low.
” Note this statement : “ Despite the declining sea ice in the Barents Sea , polar bears are likely not lacking food as long as sea ice is present during their peak feeding period.
” Martyn Obbard and colleagues ( 2016 : 29 ) said essentially the same thing to explain why the body condition of Southern Hudson Bay polar bears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ice declines in recent years .
And I have said something very similar – many times – to explain why summer sea ice decline has not had a devastating effect on polar bears ( Crockford 2017 , 2019 , 2020 ) , a conclusion I arrived at from my review of the polar bear literature ( including Obbard ’ s paper ) .
Probably more than any other statement , it has been my insistence that summer sea ice is not essential polar bear habitat that I have been publicly disparaged and denigrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvey et al .
2018 ) .
It was undoubtedly also instrumental in the loss of my adjunct professor status .
Yet it is what the evidence shows .
Bottom line : Contrary to predictions , this new paper documents that the body condition of Barents Sea polar bears has improved significantly between 2005 and 2017 despite the most profound decline in summer sea ice of any polar bear subpopulation , which is consistent with a marked but non-statistically significant increase ( 42 % ) in population size ( Aars 2018 ; Aars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2019 , 2020 ) .
Aars , J .
2018 .
Population changes in polar bears : protected , but quickly losing habitat .
Fram Forum Newsletter 2018 .
Fram Centre , Tromso .
Download pdf here ( 32 mb ) .
Aars , J. , Marques , T.A , Lone , K. , Anderson , M. , Wiig , Ø. , Fløystad , I.M.B.
, Hagen , S.B .
and Buckland , S.T .
2017 .
The number and distribution of polar bears in the western Barents Sea .
Polar Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Marcot , B.G .
& Douglas , D.C. 2007 .
Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century .
US Geological Survey .
Reston , VA. Pdf here Crockford , S.J .
2017 .
Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30 % decline in population size of polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) .
PeerJ Preprints 19 January 2017 .
Doi : 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v1 Open access .
https : //peerj.com/preprints/2737/ Crockford , S.J .
2019 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Global Warming Policy Foundation , London .
Available in paperback and ebook formats .
Crockford , S.J .
2020 .
State of the Polar Bear Report 2019 .
Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39 , London .
PDF here .
Hamilton , S. and Derocher , A.E .
2019 .
Assessment of global polar bear abundance and vulnerability .
Animal Conservation 22 ( 1 ) :83-95. doi:10.1111/acv.12439 Harvey , J.A.
, van den Berg , D. , Ellers , J. , Kampen , R. , Crowther , T.W.
, Roessingh , P. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ J. M. , Post , E. , Lewandowsky , S. , Stirling , I. , Balgopal , M. , Amstrup , S.C. , and Mann , M.E .
2017 .
Internet blogs , polar bears , and climate-change denial by proxy .
Bioscience 68 : 281-287 .
DOI : 10.1093/biosci/bix133 Open Access , available here .
Supplementary data file available here and the data for the principal component analysis is available here and ( h/t to R. Tol ) , the R code is available here Corrigendum here ( issued 28 March 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue .
Lippold , A. , Bourgeon , S. , Aars , J. , Andersen , M. , Polder , A. , Lyche , J.L.
, Bytingsvik , J. , Jenssen , B.M.
, Derocher , A.E.
, Welker , J.M .
and Routti , H. 2019 .
Temporal trends of persistent organic pollutants in Barents Sea polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) in relation to changes in feeding habits and body condition .
Environmental Science and Technology 53 ( 2 ) :984-995 .
Obbard , M.E.
, Cattet , M.R.I.
, Howe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newton , E.J.
, Kolenosky , G.B.
, Abraham , K.F .
and Greenwood , C.J .
2016 .
Trends in body condition in polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) from the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation in relation to changes in sea ice .
Arctic Science 2:15-32 Doi 10.1139/AS-2015-0027 http : //www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/AS-2015-0027 # .VvFtlXpUq50 Regehr , E.V.
, Laidre , K.L , Akçakaya , H.R.
, Amstrup , S.C. , Atwood , T.C.
, Lunn , N.J. , Obbard , M. , Stern , H. , Thiemann , G.W.
, & Wiig , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) in relation to projected sea-ice declines .
Biology Letters 12 : 20160556. http : //rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556

From Polar Bear Science
Posted on May 5, 2020 |
A recent paper that attempted to correlate pollution levels and body condition in Barents Sea polar bears reports it found body condition of female bears had increased between 2004 and 2017 despite a pronounced decline in summer and winter sea ice extent.
“Unexpectedly, body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005, although sea ice has retreated by ∼50% since the late 1990s in the area, and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013. These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas” [Lippold et al. 2019:988]
This result explains all the fat female polar bear photos coming out of the Svalbard region in recent years. However, it is totally at odds with predictions of catastrophic declines in polar bear numbers in the Barents Sea and assertions that Barents Sea bears are one of the most vulnerable to the effects of global warming (Amstrup et al. 2007; Hamiltion and Derocher 2019; Regehr et al. 2016; Stern and Laidre 2016) due to a dramatic loss of sea ice (see map below). And that is before the high levels of sea ice in the region I’ve been reporting on here, here, here, here, and here.
Prior to this 2019 publication, all we have been provided with are body condition values for adult males (1993-2019) – showing them to have been doing well in recent years with no trend in body condition. Now, after years of loud public hand-wringing from polar bear activists, we find out that all along, adult females have been doing even better in recent years than they were before 2005 when there was more summer and winter ice. Therefore, contrary to expectations, Barents Sea and Chukchi Sea bears have been shown to be thriving with less sea ice – and for Barents Sea bears it’s a lot less ice.
This map shows compares recent (1979-2014) declines in ‘summer’ sea ice extent (Stern and Laidre 2016, Fig. 12). Western and Southern Hudson Bay bears (green) are claimed to be doing poorly despite the smallest change in summer sea ice while Chukchi Sea bears are thriving under the same low ice loss; in contrast, Barents Sea bears are thriving (numbers increasing, body condition improving) despite living through the most dramatic summer ice declines in the Arctic (purple on the map). See also Regehr et al. 2016 and here.
Oddly, the 2019 Lippold paper came to my attention because a paper published last month about ‘space-use’ of polar bears in the Barents Sea (Blanchet et al. 2020), cites Lippold et al. 2019 as evidence that Barents Sea polar bears have not shown signs of “decreases in overall body condition“. Watch the pea…
What Lippold et al. actually say, in their abstract, is this [my bold]:
“Body condition [of adult females], based on morphometric measurements, had a nonsignificant decreasing tendency between 1997 and 2005, and increased significantly between 2005 and 2017.“
Later in the paper (pg. 988), they had this to say [my bold]:
“Unexpectedly, body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005, although sea ice has retreated by ∼50% since the late 1990s in the area, and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013. These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas. Despite the declining sea ice in the Barents Sea, polar bears are likely not lacking food as long as sea ice is present during their peak feeding period. Polar bears feed extensively from April to June when ringed seals have pups and are particularly vulnerable to predation, whereas the predation rate during the rest of the year is likely low.”
Note this statement: “Despite the declining sea ice in the Barents Sea, polar bears are likely not lacking food as long as sea ice is present during their peak feeding period.”
Martyn Obbard and colleagues (2016: 29) said essentially the same thing to explain why the body condition of Southern Hudson Bay polar bears had not declined in lock-step with sea ice declines in recent years. And I have said something very similar – many times – to explain why summer sea ice decline has not had a devastating effect on polar bears (Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020), a conclusion I arrived at from my review of the polar bear literature (including Obbard’s paper).
Probably more than any other statement, it has been my insistence that summer sea ice is not essential polar bear habitat that I have been publicly disparaged and denigrated by journalists and colleagues (see also Harvey et al. 2018). It was undoubtedly also instrumental in the loss of my adjunct professor status. Yet it is what the evidence shows.
Bottom line: Contrary to predictions, this new paper documents that the body condition of Barents Sea polar bears has improved significantly between 2005 and 2017 despite the most profound decline in summer sea ice of any polar bear subpopulation, which is consistent with a marked but non-statistically significant increase (42%) in population size (Aars 2018; Aars et al. 2017; Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020).
References
Aars, J. 2018. Population changes in polar bears: protected, but quickly losing habitat. Fram Forum Newsletter 2018. Fram Centre, Tromso. Download pdf here (32 mb).
Aars, J., Marques,T.A, Lone, K., Anderson, M., Wiig, Ø., Fløystad, I.M.B., Hagen, S.B. and Buckland, S.T. 2017. The number and distribution of polar bears in the western Barents Sea. Polar Research 36:1. 1374125. doi:10.1080/17518369.2017.1374125
Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. & Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. US Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Pdf here
Blanchet, M.A., Aars, J., Andersen, M., Routti, H. 2020. Space-use strategy affects energy requirements in Barents Sea polar bears. Marine Ecology Progress Series 639:1-19. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13290
Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 19 January 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v1 Open access. https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/
Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.
Crockford, S.J. 2020. State of the Polar Bear Report 2019. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39, London. PDF here.
Hamilton, S. and Derocher, A.E. 2019. Assessment of global polar bear abundance and vulnerability. Animal Conservation 22(1):83-95. doi:10.1111/acv.12439
Harvey, J.A., van den Berg, D., Ellers, J., Kampen, R., Crowther, T.W., Roessingh, P., Verheggen, B., Nuijten, R. J. M., Post, E., Lewandowsky, S., Stirling, I., Balgopal, M., Amstrup, S.C., and Mann, M.E. 2017. Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy. Bioscience 68: 281-287. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/bix133 Open Access, available here. Supplementary data file available here and the data for the principal component analysis is available here and (h/t to R. Tol), the R code is available here Corrigendum here (issued 28 March 2018). Scheduled for the April print issue.
Lippold, A., Bourgeon, S., Aars, J., Andersen, M., Polder, A., Lyche, J.L., Bytingsvik, J., Jenssen, B.M., Derocher, A.E., Welker, J.M. and Routti, H. 2019. Temporal trends of persistent organic pollutants in Barents Sea polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to changes in feeding habits and body condition. Environmental Science and Technology 53(2):984-995.
Obbard, M.E., Cattet, M.R.I., Howe, E.J., Middel, K.R., Newton, E.J., Kolenosky, G.B., Abraham, K.F. and Greenwood, C.J. 2016. Trends in body condition in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation in relation to changes in sea ice. Arctic Science 2:15-32 Doi 10.1139/AS-2015-0027 http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/AS-2015-0027#.VvFtlXpUq50
Regehr, E.V., Laidre, K.L, Akçakaya, H.R., Amstrup, S.C., Atwood, T.C., Lunn, N.J., Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, G.W., & Wiig, Ø. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556
Stern, H.L. and Laidre, K.L. 2016. Sea-ice indicators of polar bear habitat. Cryosphere 10: 2027-2041.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--Siberian Fires And The Temperature of 2020

The warm start to 2020 is mostly the product of one region – Siberia .
And Siberia is on fire as never before .
It has been reported widely that as far as the global temperature goes 2020 has gotten off to a very warm start with a temperature possibly second only to the strong El Nino year 2016 .
This has led to speculation that this year might even be the warmest on record and a strong indicator of ongoing global warming particularly as there is no El Nino this year to boost temperatures temporarily .
A strong claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at the data reveals that the situation is somewhat more complicated .
Looking at the global distribution of temperature change produced by NOAA one can see that this warm start to 2020 is the product of one region – Siberia .
It seems that since last December there has been a particularly strong temperature increase in that region .
As such it clearly mathematically contributes to monthly average global temperatures but care should be exercised when interpreting it as a global event .
It ’ s a regional warming and on timescale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change .
In short , it is misleading to describe what is happening using only the global average temperature .
Parts of Siberia – home to the world ’ s largest forrest , The Taiga – are under many types of stress and there could be many factors contributing to this regional warmth .
Fire is one of them because much of Siberia is on fire as never before .
Sergei Anoprienko , the head of the Federal Forest Agency , told the Siberian Times , “ In total , on April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recorded .
In comparison only 1,960 were recorded last year.
” Fire is an annual Springtime event in South Eastern Siberia but this year it is much worse leading Russia ’ s Emergencies Minister Yevgeny Zinichev described as a “ critical situation.
” About five million acres of forest are ablaze destroying woodland , property and polluting the air for hundreds of miles .
Indeed its effects can be felt over continental distances .
Many of the blazes are cause by humans – unauthorised and uncontrolled agricultural fires .
In addition it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their homes and lived outside being careless with open fires as they did .
But the heatwave has dried out soils and the snow disappeared quickly .
Some believe that this Spring the Taiga is burning at a rate unseen in 10,000 years .
Carbon dioxide is released contributing to the warming .
Deforestation is also rife in the region , frequently illegally for the growing Chinese market .
Pirate loggers especially like the Cedar and when stripped out all that is left behind are scrawny pines and lifeless soil .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bans in China ’ s forests have generated a demand for foreign timber .
Estimates are that up to 30 % of all felling volume is illegal .
Russia ’ s federal government has tried to impose tariffs on exported wood but it hasn ’ t been a discouragement .
Corruption is widespread amongst state officials and some have been jailed .
The practice of chopping down diseased trees to prevent wider contamination is also being abused .
Officials give a contract to clear sick trees which are then chopped down and sold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a permit because they were healthy .
New research published in Science Journal says that carbon dioxide release by boreal fires could considerably accelerate global warming although the scientists concerned caution that there is still a lot about the characteristics of boreal fires occurrence mechanisms that we do not know .
The researchers looked at fire activity and found that the annual burned area increased when a positive Arctic Oscillation ( AO ) takes place in early months of the year , despite the peak fire season occurring 1 to 2 months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriate fire management strategies to prevent massive carbon release and accelerated global warming .
The fires are not a new problem .
Russian and Chinese historical records reveal a positive trend of fires over the past few decades of which it is speculated that man-made fires have contributed significantly .
Arctic warming has produced long-term spring warming and earlier snow melt .
It seems clear that human fires that become out of control and forest clearance will only amplify the problems for the region as well as being a significant influence in rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what could be done .
A recent paper in Nature Communications found that when a region returns to forest and tree cover , cooling results .
Another new paper suggests that reforestation can counter the “ deleterious effects of climate warming .
” Cooling due to reforestation can reach 2-3°C for the air above the surface and 4-6°C for the surface it concludes .
So next time you see a climate change headline consider that the story behind is rather more complicated than implied , with implications quite different from those suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Temperature of 2020 appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

The warm start to 2020 is mostly the product of one region – Siberia. And Siberia is on fire as never before.
It has been reported widely that as far as the global temperature goes 2020 has gotten off to a very warm start with a temperature possibly second only to the strong El Nino year 2016. This has led to speculation that this year might even be the warmest on record and a strong indicator of ongoing global warming particularly as there is no El Nino this year to boost temperatures temporarily.
A strong claim and a good headline but a closer look at the data reveals that the situation is somewhat more complicated.
Looking at the global distribution of temperature change produced by NOAA one can see that this warm start to 2020 is the product of one region – Siberia. It seems that since last December there has been a particularly strong temperature increase in that region. As such it clearly mathematically contributes to monthly average global temperatures but care should be exercised when interpreting it as a global event. It’s a regional warming and on timescale far too short to be related to climate change. In short, it is misleading to describe what is happening using only the global average temperature.
Parts of Siberia – home to the world’s largest forrest, The Taiga – are under many types of stress and there could be many factors contributing to this regional warmth. Fire is one of them because much of Siberia is on fire as never before. Sergei Anoprienko, the head of the Federal Forest Agency, told the Siberian Times, “In total, on April 28 this year, 3,339 outbreaks were recorded. In comparison only 1,960 were recorded last year.”
Fire is an annual Springtime event in South Eastern Siberia but this year it is much worse leading Russia’s Emergencies Minister Yevgeny Zinichev described as a “critical situation.” About five million acres of forest are ablaze destroying woodland, property and polluting the air for hundreds of miles. Indeed its effects can be felt over continental distances.
This satellite image was collected on April 27, 2020 by the Terra satellite using its Moderate Resolution Imaging System (MODIS) instrument. Source: NASA
Many of the blazes are cause by humans – unauthorised and uncontrolled agricultural fires. In addition it was warm in the region so people left their homes and lived outside being careless with open fires as they did. But the heatwave has dried out soils and the snow disappeared quickly. Some believe that this Spring the Taiga is burning at a rate unseen in 10,000 years. Carbon dioxide is released contributing to the warming.
Deforestation is also rife in the region, frequently illegally for the growing Chinese market. Pirate loggers especially like the Cedar and when stripped out all that is left behind are scrawny pines and lifeless soil. It’s getting worse each year as logging bans in China’s forests have generated a demand for foreign timber. Estimates are that up to 30% of all felling volume is illegal. Russia’s federal government has tried to impose tariffs on exported wood but it hasn’t been a discouragement. Corruption is widespread amongst state officials and some have been jailed.
Widespread Abuse
The practice of chopping down diseased trees to prevent wider contamination is also being abused. Officials give a contract to clear sick trees which are then chopped down and sold for more than ten times the cost of a permit because they were healthy.
New research published in Science Journal says that carbon dioxide release by boreal fires could considerably accelerate global warming although the scientists concerned caution that there is still a lot about the characteristics of boreal fires occurrence mechanisms that we do not know. The researchers looked at fire activity and found that the annual burned area increased when a positive Arctic Oscillation (AO) takes place in early months of the year, despite the peak fire season occurring 1 to 2 months later. They state that Siberia requires appropriate fire management strategies to prevent massive carbon release and accelerated global warming.
The fires are not a new problem. Russian and Chinese historical records reveal a positive trend of fires over the past few decades of which it is speculated that man-made fires have contributed significantly. Arctic warming has produced long-term spring warming and earlier snow melt.
It seems clear that human fires that become out of control and forest clearance will only amplify the problems for the region as well as being a significant influence in rising temperatures. But there is some indication of what could be done.
A recent paper in Nature Communications found that when a region returns to forest and tree cover, cooling results. Another new paper suggests that reforestation can counter the “deleterious effects of climate warming. ” Cooling due to reforestation can reach 2-3°C for the air above the surface and 4-6°C for the surface it concludes.
So next time you see a climate change headline consider that the story behind is rather more complicated than implied, with implications quite different from those suggested.
Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.com
The post Siberian Fires And The Temperature of 2020 appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2YBYw52
May 6, 2020 at 03:48AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--Power Poor: Reliable & Affordable Electricity The Critical Path To Economic Salvation

The path out of poverty is always and everywhere about reliable and affordable energy .
And entrenched poverty is best @ @ @ @ @ Want to know how important electricity is to modern life ?
Try living a comfortable @ @ @ @ @ .
More than a billion humans struggle through daily life without access to power [ @ @

The path out of poverty is always and everywhere about reliable and affordable energy. And entrenched poverty is best explained by its absence. Want to know how important electricity is to modern life? Try living a comfortable and civilised life without it. More than a billion humans struggle through daily life without access to power […]
via STOP THESE THINGS
https://ift.tt/2yveJy8
May 6, 2020 at 02:31AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--RUSSIA TO BE WORLD’S TOP COAL PRODUCER WITHIN A DECADE

According to a draft document on issued by Russia ’ s Ministry of Energy , production will grow to 448-530 million tons annually until 2024 and up to 485-668 million tons annually until 2035 .
Domestic coal consumption will increase by over 12 percent ; it currently stands at around 196 million tons annually .
The Asia-Pacific states , Southeast Asia , the Middle East and Africa will continue to be the major markets for Russian coal .
Russia is already exporting substantial amounts of coal to China ( some 30 million tons per year ) yet there remains great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coming years .
The energy ministry expects exports to China to almost double within the next 10 years to 55 million tons , from their current level .
Another Asian market , India , also plans “ significantly increasing ” coking coal imports from Russia ’ s Far Eastern ports .
Vietnam has already tripled its purchases of Russian coal on the back of the commissioning of several new coal-fired power plants .
Meanwhile , the US Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) expects Russia to overtake Indonesia as the leading thermal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mining has been a key industry in Russia for a long time , with the costs of production among the world ’ s lowest .

According to a draft document on
issued by Russia’s Ministry of Energy, production will grow to 448-530 million tons annually until 2024 and up to 485-668 million tons annually until 2035.
Domestic coal consumption will increase by over 12 percent; it currently stands at around 196 million tons annually. The Asia-Pacific states, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa will continue to be the major markets for Russian coal.
Russia is already exporting substantial amounts of coal to China (some 30 million tons per year) yet there remains great potential for a boost in exports in the coming years. The energy ministry expects exports to China to almost double within the next 10 years to 55 million tons, from their current level.
Another Asian market, India, also plans “significantly increasing” coking coal imports from Russia’s Far Eastern ports. Vietnam has already tripled its purchases of Russian coal on the back of the commissioning of several new coal-fired power plants. Meanwhile, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects Russia to overtake Indonesia as the leading thermal coal exporter within this decade.
Coal mining has been a key industry in Russia for a long time, with the costs of production among the world’s lowest.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--BROKEN PROMISES: WHY RENEWABLES OFFER NO RESILIENT RECOVERY – PART 1

Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2020 .
Lyman ’ s bio can be read here .
Those who believe that @ @ @ @ @ causing catastrophic global warming see the eventual recovery from … Continue reading

Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2020. Lyman’s bio can be read here.
Those who believe that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic global warming see the eventual recovery from … Continue reading
via Friends of Science Calgary
https://ift.tt/2SDRYyW
May 6, 2020 at 12:59AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--Many Effects of Hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19

This is a scientific review , published to inform health care professionals and public officials , and for an open peer review .
It is not medical advice .
Hydroxycholoroquine ( HCQ ) is effective against COVID-19 in a variety of roles – the main two being antiviral and immunomodulator .
This “ silver bullet ” effect may have caused confusion between different effects .
It is better to start HCQ-based treatment as early as possible .
Hydroxycholoroquine ( HCQ ) has many mechanisms against COVID-19 .
This diversity of mechanisms may have created confusion , even among medical professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combinations are effective antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 , the coronavirus causing COVID-19 .
As all antivirals , HCQ combinations should be taken early , before the virus overwhelms the body .
Therefore , and because current COVID-19 tests have a large rate of false negatives , Dr. Zelenko recommends starting an HCQ-based treatment immediately upon suspicion of COVID-19 [ 1 ] : “ Given the urgency of the situation , I recommend initiating treatment based on clinical suspicion as soon as possible , even without confirmatory testing.
” I can understand the theoretical basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is treated with antivirals , the CDC recommends starting within 48 hours of symptoms onset [ 2 ] : “ treatment is most effective when given as early as possible after symptoms develop , and its effectiveness diminishes markedly after 48 hours.
” Those antivirals , like oseltamivir , begin acting immediately upon entering the bloodstream [ 3 ] .
HCQ , however , is different .
It needs to accumulate in the tissues , and that takes time .
Thus , there seems to be no 48 hours window .
HCQ ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that treatment is delayed .
The most tested HCQ-based treatment for COVID-19 is HCQ+AZ ( Azithromycin ) .
This drug combination treatment is associated with Didier Raoult , head of the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection ( IHU ) [ 4 ] , [ 5 ] .
He and his colleagues cited earlier experience of doctors in China .
The two drugs , HCQ+AZ , are considered synergetic in suppressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike — ACE2 interaction , which the coronavirus uses to enter the cell [ 5 ] , [ 6 ] .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or “ corona ” , which gives this type of virus its name .
AZ is also an antibiotic , necessary to protect the body from any opportunistic bacterial infection during treatment .
To suppress the SARS-CoV-2 spike – ACE2 interaction , HCQ must accumulate in the lungs .
This process begins when HCQ enters the bloodstream and proceeds slowly from there .
This is explained in [ 7 ] ( on chloroquine ) : Zinc ( Zn ) prevents viruses from multiplying within cells , however , little Zn is found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross cell membranes .
HCQ is known as Zn ionophore – it crosses cell membranes and carries Zinc with it [ 8 ] .
This antiviral mechanism is entirely distinct from HCQ+AZ ability to suppress the SARS-CoV-2 spike – ACE2 interaction .
Unfortunately , HCQ does not shuttle back and forth through cell membranes carrying Zn but tends to enter the cells and stay there .
Some level of tissue saturation is needed for HCQ to be effective as an ionophore .
I am not aware of any reported results on HCQ + @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for COVID-19 .
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko and Dr. Anthony Cardillo ( Thousand Oaks , CA ) give their patients HCQ + Zn + AZ , so it is hard to say whether HCQ + Zn works .
Dr. Zelenko has just registered a clinical trial [ 9 ] , in which he will compare HCQ + Zn + AZ vs. HCQ + Zn + Doxycycline .
Doxycycline is a milder antibiotic with no known activity against the coronavirus .
When used on its own , HCQ does exhibit antiviral effect against COVID-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
HCQ is most known as an immunomodulator ( mild immunosuppressant ) .
Hence , its use against auto-immune diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis .
The main direct cause of death from COVID-19 , like many other pulmonary diseases , is a cytokinetic storm and related acute respiratory distress syndrome ( ADRS ) .
This is caused by excessive immune reaction to the infection , which leads to multiple organ failure and death .
HCQ decreases this excessive reaction and can do so at any time in the development of COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against COVID-19 were done in the late stages of the disease .
HCQ combinations are being used for COVID-19 treatment all over the world , from India to Czechia , with excellent results .
Random population sampling is needed to evaluate the spread of the coronavirus infection and immunity to it .
Chloroquine was noticed for its antiviral and immunomodulatory effects in context of SARS epidemic in 2003 [ 11 ] :

This is a scientific review, published to inform health care professionals and public officials, and for an open peer review. It is not medical advice.
Abstract
Hydroxycholoroquine (HCQ) is effective against COVID-19 in a variety of roles – the main two being antiviral and immunomodulator. This “silver bullet” effect may have caused confusion between different effects. It is better to start HCQ-based treatment as early as possible.
Introduction
Hydroxycholoroquine (HCQ) has many mechanisms against COVID-19. This diversity of mechanisms may have created confusion, even among medical professionals. Most importantly, HCQ and its combinations are effective antivirals against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus causing COVID-19. As all antivirals, HCQ combinations should be taken early, before the virus overwhelms the body. Therefore, and because current COVID-19 tests have a large rate of false negatives, Dr. Zelenko recommends starting an HCQ-based treatment immediately upon suspicion of COVID-19 [1]: “Given the urgency of the situation, I recommend initiating treatment based on clinical suspicion as soon as possible, even without confirmatory testing.”
I can understand the theoretical basis for starting immediately. If common flu is treated with antivirals, the CDC recommends starting within 48 hours of symptoms onset [2]: “treatment is most effective when given as early as possible after symptoms develop, and its effectiveness diminishes markedly after 48 hours.” Those antivirals, like oseltamivir, begin acting immediately upon entering the bloodstream [3]. HCQ, however, is different. It needs to accumulate in the tissues, and that takes time. Thus, there seems to be no 48 hours window. HCQ’s anti-viral effect diminishes with every day that treatment is delayed.
HCQ as anti-viral
HCQ+AZ
The most tested HCQ-based treatment for COVID-19 is HCQ+AZ (Azithromycin). This drug combination treatment is associated with Didier Raoult, head of the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection (IHU) [4], [5]. He and his colleagues cited earlier experience of doctors in China.
The two drugs, HCQ+AZ, are considered synergetic in suppressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike — ACE2 interaction, which the coronavirus uses to enter the cell [5], [6]. These “spikes” make up the crown, or “corona”, which gives this type of virus its name. AZ is also an antibiotic, necessary to protect the body from any opportunistic bacterial infection during treatment.
To suppress the SARS-CoV-2 spike – ACE2 interaction, HCQ must accumulate in the lungs. This process begins when HCQ enters the bloodstream and proceeds slowly from there. This is explained in [7] (on chloroquine):
Drug disposition proceeds in three phases—distribution from blood to tissues, equilibration between blood and tissues, and release from tissues back into blood. These phases have half-lives of 3–8, 40–216 h, and 30–60 days, respectively
The times vary by tissue.
HCQ+Zn+antibiotic
Zinc (Zn) prevents viruses from multiplying within cells, however, little Zn is found within cells. Zn ions cannot cross cell membranes. HCQ is known as Zn ionophore – it crosses cell membranes and carries Zinc with it [8]. This antiviral mechanism is entirely distinct from HCQ+AZ ability to suppress the SARS-CoV-2 spike – ACE2 interaction.
Unfortunately, HCQ does not shuttle back and forth through cell membranes carrying Zn but tends to enter the cells and stay there. Some level of tissue saturation is needed for HCQ to be effective as an ionophore.
I am not aware of any reported results on HCQ + Zn + (non-AZ antibiotic) treatment for COVID-19. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko and Dr. Anthony Cardillo (Thousand Oaks, CA) give their patients HCQ + Zn + AZ, so it is hard to say whether HCQ + Zn works. Dr. Zelenko has just registered a clinical trial [9], in which he will compare HCQ + Zn + AZ vs. HCQ + Zn + Doxycycline. Doxycycline is a milder antibiotic with no known activity against the coronavirus.
HCQ
When used on its own, HCQ does exhibit antiviral effect against COVID-19, but not strong enough [10].
HCQ as an Immunosuppressant
HCQ is most known as an immunomodulator (mild immunosuppressant). Hence, its use against auto-immune diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. The main direct cause of death from COVID-19, like many other pulmonary diseases, is a cytokinetic storm and related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ADRS). This is caused by excessive immune reaction to the infection, which leads to multiple organ failure and death. HCQ decreases this excessive reaction and can do so at any time in the development of COVID-19. Apparently, early attempts to use HCQ against COVID-19 were done in the late stages of the disease.
Remarks
HCQ combinations are being used for COVID-19 treatment all over the world, from India to Czechia, with excellent results. Random population sampling is needed to evaluate the spread of the coronavirus infection and immunity to it.
Chloroquine was noticed for its antiviral and immunomodulatory effects in context of SARS epidemic in 2003 [11]:
Chloroquine exerts direct antiviral effects, inhibiting pH-dependent steps of the replication of several viruses including members of the flaviviruses, retroviruses, and coronaviruses.
… chloroquine has immunomodulatory effects … which mediate the inflammatory complications of several viral diseases.
… the tolerability, low cost, and immunomodulatory properties of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine are associated with biochemical effects that suggest a potential use in viral infections, some of whose symptoms may result from the inflammatory response.
As regards viral diseases, what is clear is that the drug has antiviral and immunomodulatory effects that warrant particular consideration.
References


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--Shutting Down Incompetent Academic Modelers

On March 22 , modeling geniuses at the University of Arizona forecast massive overcrowding at Arizona hospitals by April 13 @ @ @ @ @ Arizona and Pima County , March 22 | Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public @ @ @ @ @ .
There was never a COVID surge , and hospitals are running at record low @ @ @ @ @ being furloughed .
The State of Arizona just furloughed the modelers who destroyed the state @ @ @ @ @ huge numbers of people out of work .
Hopefully they will be held accountable for @ @ @ @ @ done .

On March 22, modeling geniuses at the University of Arizona forecast massive overcrowding at Arizona hospitals by April 13.
COVID-19 Forecast Model, Arizona and Pima County, March 22 | Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health
The exact opposite occurred. There was never a COVID surge, and hospitals are running at record low occupancy. Hospital staff are being furloughed.
The State of Arizona just furloughed the modelers who destroyed the state’s economy and put huge numbers of people out of work. Hopefully they will be held accountable for the massive damage they have done.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--I’m From The Government And I’m Here To Help

Like in New York , COVID-19 patients in Lombardy , Italy were sent to nursing homes , where they infected @ @ @ @ @ used the deaths of elderly people in Lombardy and New York as rationale to destroy @ @ @ @ @ of the world .

Like in New York, COVID-19 patients in Lombardy, Italy were sent to nursing homes, where they infected the elderly. Government then used the deaths of elderly people in Lombardy and New York as rationale to destroy the economy of the rest of the world.
The ‘massacre’ of Italy’s elderly nursing home residents


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--COVID discussion thread VI

COVID discussion thread VI

A new , experimental wearable device is capable of catching early signs and symptoms associated with the coronavirus .
[ link ] Lets have an honest debate about herd immunity [ link ] 47 old drugs that might treat coronavirus [ link ] New York researcher says preliminary results of hydroxychloroquine study are ready , but state hasn ’ t released them [ link ] Italian scientist says she discovered main mechanism behind COVID19 [ link ] The odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment .
[ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimates the fatality rate of the SARS-CoV-2 infection to be 0.36 % and poses new question marks .
https : //ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/ $ FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf This paper finds nursing home residents comprise 57 % of all COVID-19 deaths in Spain , 53 % in Italy , and 45 % in France .
https : //ltccovid.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mortality-associated-with-COVID-12-April-3.pdf Individual variation in the likelihood of COVID-19 infection may mean we ’ ll reach herd immunity sooner than expected [ Preprint ] https : //medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1… Scientists learned that the coronavirus needs two particular proteins to take over our cells .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective drug treatment ?
[ link ] From Iceland , which has the most extensive testing in the world : “ We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.
” https : //sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/hunting-down-covid-19/ The underground doctors ’ movement questioning the use of ventilators [ link ] Bill Gates sees RNA vaccines as best options for quick coronavirus treatment http : //hill.cm/RFKbK7Z Five things to know as intelligence community probes coronavirus ’ s origins http : //hill.cm/aI8t8ea New publication on the ‘ Flow Physics of COVID-19 ’ looking at what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t – know about the fluid mechanics of disease spread .
https : //doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2020.330 What the coronavirus models can ’ t see [ link ] Serum 25 ( OH ) D ( =Vitamin D ) level was *lowest* in critical cases , but *highest* in mild cases .
Vitamin D status is significantly associated with clinical outcomes .
https : //papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ?
abstract_id=3571484 The info war on Chloroquine has slowed COVID-19 science [ link ] First data out of Iran .
Looks like a very careful randomized cluster sample that finds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21 % ) infection in Guilan Province , Iran .
69 % asymptomatic https : //medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079244v1.full.pdf Comparing COVID-19 deaths to flu deaths is like comparing apples to oranges [ link ] Treat the patient , not the virus [ link ] Efficient # testing has enabled # Germany—Europe ’ s most populous country , with almost twice as many inhabitants as Spain , to avoid the worst of the # coronavirus scourge .
How did Germany do it ?
By minimizing bureaucratic impediments .
[ link ] Why weren ’ t we ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China was in violation of International Health Regulations .
What do we do now ?
[ link ] Competing Science : Coronavirus Red-Team to make case for use of facemasks and quicker end to lockdown [ link ] How we can prevent the next pandemic [ link ] UK scientists being drawn into very unpleasant political situation [ link ] The Coronavirus Is Rewriting Our Imaginations https : //newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-coronavirus-and-our-future ?
utm_source=twitter & utm_medium=social & utm_campaign=onsite-share & utm_brand=the-new-yorker & utm_social-type=earned…

by Judith Curry
A roundup of interesting articles on COVID-19.
A new, experimental wearable device is capable of catching early signs and symptoms associated with the coronavirus. [link]
Lets have an honest debate about herd immunity [link]
47 old drugs that might treat coronavirus [link]
COVID19 deaths analyzed by race and ethnicity [link]
The mystery of India’s low COVID-19 death rate [link]
New York researcher says preliminary results of hydroxychloroquine study are ready, but state hasn’t released them [link]
Italian scientist says she discovered main mechanism behind COVID19 [link]
Face masks against COVID-19: An evidence review [link]
The odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment. [link]
Just released German antibody study estimates the fatality rate of the SARS-CoV-2 infection to be 0.36% and poses new question marks. https://ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
This paper finds nursing home residents comprise 57% of all COVID-19 deaths in Spain, 53% in Italy, and 45% in France. https://ltccovid.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mortality-associated-with-COVID-12-April-3.pdf
Individual variation in the likelihood of COVID-19 infection may mean we’ll reach herd immunity sooner than expected [Preprint] https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1…
Scientists learned that the coronavirus needs two particular proteins to take over our cells. Could they be the key to an effective drug treatment? [link]
From Iceland, which has the most extensive testing in the world: “We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.” https://sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/hunting-down-covid-19/
The underground doctors’ movement questioning the use of ventilators [link]
Bill Gates sees RNA vaccines as best options for quick coronavirus treatment http://hill.cm/RFKbK7Z
Five things to know as intelligence community probes coronavirus’s origins http://hill.cm/aI8t8ea
New publication on the ‘Flow Physics of COVID-19’ looking at what we do – and perhaps more importantly don’t – know about the fluid mechanics of disease spread. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2020.330
What the coronavirus models can’t see [link]
Bombshell dossier lays out coronavirus case against China [link]
Serum 25(OH)D (=Vitamin D) level was *lowest* in critical cases, but *highest* in mild cases. Vitamin D status is significantly associated with clinical outcomes. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3571484
The info war on Chloroquine has slowed COVID-19 science [link]
First data out of Iran. Looks like a very careful randomized cluster sample that finds 14-29% (with central tendency at 21%) infection in Guilan Province, Iran. 69% asymptomatic https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079244v1.full.pdf
Comparing COVID-19 deaths to flu deaths is like comparing apples to oranges [link]
Giving blood thinners to severely ill covid19 patients gaining ground [link]
Policy
Treat the patient, not the virus [link]
The great price of America’s great lockdown [link]
Efficient #testing has enabled #Germany—Europe’s most populous country, with almost twice as many inhabitants as Spain, to avoid the worst of the #coronavirus scourge. How did Germany do it? By minimizing bureaucratic impediments. [link]
Gilead’s lobbying rose as interest in COVID-19 treatment climbed [link]
Why weren’t we ready for the coronavirus? [link]
China was in violation of International Health Regulations. What do we do now? [link]
Competing Science: Coronavirus Red-Team to make case for use of facemasks and quicker end to lockdown [link]
How we can prevent the next pandemic [link]
Sociology
UK scientists being drawn into very unpleasant political situation [link]
Americans have to accept uncertainty [link]
Independent SAGE group is an oxymoron [link]
The Coronavirus Is Rewriting Our Imaginations https://newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-coronavirus-and-our-future?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=the-new-yorker&utm_social-type=earned…
via Climate Etc.
https://ift.tt/2WbHI3h
May 6, 2020 at 07:38PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-06--May snow in Romania

May snow in Romania

“ VIDEO – Snow in Romania , at the beginning of May , ” reads the headline .
Thanks to @ @ @ @ @ The post May snow in Romania appeared first on Ice Age Now .

“VIDEO – Snow in Romania, at the beginning of May,” reads the headline.
https://m.dcnews.ro/ninsoare-in-romania-la-inceput-de-mai_747163.html
Thanks to Alexandru Tanase for this link
The post May snow in Romania appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/35HmfSL
May 6, 2020 at 05:08PM