iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-15--Climatologist’s Cloud Confusion Continues: Catastrophists Claims Completely Confounded.

For decades we ’ ve been told that net cloud radiative forcing is positive .
This means that the the amount by which clouds cool the surface , by reflecting solar radiation back to space , is outweighed by the amount that clouds warm the surface , by re-radiating surface emitted IR back towards the ground .
So cloud increase equals warmer surface See e.g IPCC AR5 on the subject : The net radiative feedback is the sum of the warming and cooling feedbacks ; the executive summary states “ The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive .
Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds.
” They estimate the cloud feedback from all cloud types to be +0.6 W/m2°C ( with an uncertainty band of −0.2 to +2.0 ) , and continue , “ All global models continue to produce a near-zero to moderately strong positive net cloud feedback.
” [ 18 ] The closely related effective climate sensitivity has increased substantially in the latest generation of global climate models .
Differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ models drive this enhanced sensitivity relative to the previous generation of models .
[ 20 ] But now a new article on NASA ’ s climate website has thrown this into doubt .
It tells us : ◆Understanding how greenhouse gases will affect clouds is crucial to forecasting climate change .
But current computer climate models can ’ t handle the high resolution needed to simulate cloud dynamics worldwide .
◆A recent study suggests that if greenhouse gases raise the atmosphere ’ s temperature enough , stratocumulus clouds could disappear , causing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is partnering with Caltech , MIT and the Naval Postgraduate School to build a new climate model that can take full advantage of Earth-observing satellites , with thousands of sub-models capable of simulating the dynamics of clouds and other small-scale phenomena .
That second point tells us that this new climate model has cloud radiative forcing as net negative , not positive .
If cloud decreases , letting more sunlight to the surface , that will cause surface temperature to rise .
Watch the pea carefully here .
Climate models have only been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global warming by assuming a large and positive water vapour feedback .
Warming caused by extra CO2 causes more evaporation and increased amounts of airbourne water vapour , a more potent and prevalent ‘ greenhouse gas ’ .
If global warming caused by more CO2 and WV feedback is going to raise the temperature to the point where clouds disappear , allowing the Sun to warm the surface making things even hotter , then there will be more evaporation of water from the surface .
But it won ’ t be forming clouds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switchover point where positive cloud radiative forcing becomes negative ?
It all seems very confused .
I think the modelers have painted themselves into a corner with positive cloud radiative feedback and are now trying to escape with this ‘ new model ’ .
The fundamental problem is that they think extra CO2 has caused the warming and cloud reduction as measured by satellites over the last 40 years , and are now trying to reconcile this .
But what if it was the reduction in cloud which caused the warming , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , that ’ s what they ’ re now proposing as the outcome of reduced cloud , so why wouldn ’ t it have been the cause of the warming in the first place ?
Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller are writing up a new paper on cloud albedo and climate which will explore that possibility .
Here ’ s a sneak preview : See more at Ned Nikolov ’ s twitter moments .

For decades we’ve been told that net cloud radiative forcing is positive. This means that the the amount by which clouds cool the surface, by reflecting solar radiation back to space, is outweighed by the amount that clouds warm the surface, by re-radiating surface emitted IR back towards the ground. So cloud increase equals warmer surface See e.g IPCC AR5 on the subject:
The net radiative feedback is the sum of the warming and cooling feedbacks; the executive summary states “The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is less certain but likely positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds.” They estimate the cloud feedback from all cloud types to be +0.6 W/m2°C (with an uncertainty band of −0.2 to +2.0), and continue, “All global models continue to produce a near-zero to moderately strong positive net cloud feedback.”[18] The closely related effective climate sensitivity has increased substantially in the latest generation of global climate models. Differences in the physical representation of clouds in models drive this enhanced sensitivity relative to the previous generation of models.[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_feedback
But now a new article on NASA’s climate website has thrown this into doubt. It tells us:
◆Understanding how greenhouse gases will affect clouds is crucial to forecasting climate change. But current computer climate models can’t handle the high resolution needed to simulate cloud dynamics worldwide. ◆A recent study suggests that if greenhouse gases raise the atmosphere’s temperature enough, stratocumulus clouds could disappear, causing a large spike in global temperature. ◆JPL is partnering with Caltech, MIT and the Naval Postgraduate School to build a new climate model that can take full advantage of Earth-observing satellites, with thousands of sub-models capable of simulating the dynamics of clouds and other small-scale phenomena.
That second point tells us that this new climate model has cloud radiative forcing as net negative, not positive. If cloud decreases, letting more sunlight to the surface, that will cause surface temperature to rise.
Watch the pea carefully here. Climate models have only been able to get any exciting amounts of global warming by assuming a large and positive water vapour feedback. Warming caused by extra CO2 causes more evaporation and increased amounts of airbourne water vapour, a more potent and prevalent ‘greenhouse gas’.
If global warming caused by more CO2 and WV feedback is going to raise the temperature to the point where clouds disappear, allowing the Sun to warm the surface making things even hotter, then there will be more evaporation of water from the surface. But it won’t be forming clouds apparently. Somehow there must be a switchover point where positive cloud radiative forcing becomes negative? It all seems very confused.
I think the modelers have painted themselves into a corner with positive cloud radiative feedback and are now trying to escape with this ‘new model’. The fundamental problem is that they think extra CO2 has caused the warming and cloud reduction as measured by satellites over the last 40 years, and are now trying to reconcile this.
But what if it was the reduction in cloud which caused the warming, rather than the other way round? After all, that’s what they’re now proposing as the outcome of reduced cloud, so why wouldn’t it have been the cause of the warming in the first place?
Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller are writing up a new paper on cloud albedo and climate which will explore that possibility. Here’s a sneak preview:
See more at Ned Nikolov’s twitter moments.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/3aYr5MZ
March 15, 2020 at 11:03AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-15--Four Lessons from a Century of Pandemics

“ Scientists can fall into the trap of thinking that once we have a certain amount of knowledge , we really understand how things work , we don ’ t need to question it anymore .
But the lesson of these epidemics is that , as much as we ’ ve learned and as much as we know , there were always these unknowns out there , or these partial understandings , and we only learned what we ’ re missing when the next epidemic comes along.
” The Spanish flu infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , we have vaccines , antibiotics , advanced life support , and high-tech monitoring networks .
And , yet , disease outbreaks – from Ebola , to Zika , to measles – continue to surprise even experts .
Medical historian Mark Honigsbaum has chronicled the outbreaks and epidemics of the twentieth century in his new book , The Pandemic Century : One Hundred Years of Panic , Hysteria , and Hubris .
He says there are four lessons we should have learned , but haven ’ t , necessarily .
• Biomedical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I don ’ t think we should necessarily be reassured by the fact that we have medical technologies that weren ’ t available in 1918 because everything that scientists have discovered about the Spanish Flu tell them this was an unusually virulent virus and we might find that it ’ s just as hard to contain it now as it was then.
” • Think big picture : “ If you narrowly focus on the pathogen or the epidemiology of the disease and don ’ t take sufficient time to understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , microbes , and other animals in which those microbes might be harbored – you really miss a chance to understand the complexities of these epidemics.
” • Question what ’ s known : “ Scientists – not the scientists , anyone – can fall into the trap of thinking that once we have a certain amount of knowledge , we really understand how things work , we don ’ t need to question it anymore .
But the lesson of these epidemics is that , as much as we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there were always these unknowns out there , or these partial understandings , and we only learned what we ’ re missing when the next epidemic comes along.
” • Keep it in perspective : “ It ’ s too easy to just blame the media for hyping something that turns out not to be as fearful as people thought .
But the reason why the media reports things that way is they pick up those messages from health professionals , from scientists , themselves .
And often [ that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our knowledge and there is often a level of uncertainty .
It always comes back to this idea of how much we know and how much more there is to know.
” Listen to the interview here The post Four Lessons from a Century of Pandemics appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

“Scientists can fall into the trap of thinking that once we have a certain amount of knowledge, we really understand how things work, we don’t need to question it anymore. But the lesson of these epidemics is that, as much as we’ve learned and as much as we know, there were always these unknowns out there, or these partial understandings, and we only learned what we’re missing when the next epidemic comes along.”
The Spanish flu infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide, and killed tens of millions. A century later, we have vaccines, antibiotics, advanced life support, and high-tech monitoring networks. And, yet, disease outbreaks – from Ebola, to Zika, to measles – continue to surprise even experts.
Medical historian Mark Honigsbaum has chronicled the outbreaks and epidemics of the twentieth century in his new book, The Pandemic Century: One Hundred Years of Panic, Hysteria, and Hubris.
He says there are four lessons we should have learned, but haven’t, necessarily.
Biomedical advances are only part of the story: “I don’t think we should necessarily be reassured by the fact that we have medical technologies that weren’t available in 1918 because everything that scientists have discovered about the Spanish Flu tell them this was an unusually virulent virus and we might find that it’s just as hard to contain it now as it was then.”
“I don’t think we should necessarily be reassured by the fact that we have medical technologies that weren’t available in 1918 because everything that scientists have discovered about the Spanish Flu tell them this was an unusually virulent virus and we might find that it’s just as hard to contain it now as it was then.” Think big picture: “If you narrowly focus on the pathogen or the epidemiology of the disease and don’t take sufficient time to understand the wider ecology – the interactions between people, microbes, and other animals in which those microbes might be harbored – you really miss a chance to understand the complexities of these epidemics.”
“If you narrowly focus on the pathogen or the epidemiology of the disease and don’t take sufficient time to understand the wider ecology – the interactions between people, microbes, and other animals in which those microbes might be harbored – you really miss a chance to understand the complexities of these epidemics.” Question what’s known: “ Scientists – not the scientists, anyone – can fall into the trap of thinking that once we have a certain amount of knowledge, we really understand how things work, we don’t need to question it anymore. But the lesson of these epidemics is that, as much as we’ve learned and as much as we know, there were always these unknowns out there, or these partial understandings, and we only learned what we’re missing when the next epidemic comes along.”
Scientists – not the scientists, anyone – can fall into the trap of thinking that once we have a certain amount of knowledge, we really understand how things work, we don’t need to question it anymore. But the lesson of these epidemics is that, as much as we’ve learned and as much as we know, there were always these unknowns out there, or these partial understandings, and we only learned what we’re missing when the next epidemic comes along.” Keep it in perspective: “It’s too easy to just blame the media for hyping something that turns out not to be as fearful as people thought. But the reason why the media reports things that way is they pick up those messages from health professionals, from scientists, themselves. And often [that’s] because there are these gaps in our knowledge and there is often a level of uncertainty. It always comes back to this idea of how much we know and how much more there is to know.”
The post Four Lessons from a Century of Pandemics appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/39UdpSZ
March 15, 2020 at 10:05AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-15--German Public Television Satire: Corona Virus Is Good “Because It’s Ravaging The Elderly”

Many of us have been noticing there ’ s a not-so-subtle hate-campaign against the elderly going on .
Not long ago we saw a German production which featured kids singing “ my mother is old environmental scumbag “ or how Brexit voters were portrayed as incontinent scum .
At a recent performance in Dortmund , Leftist hip-hop band K.I.Z .
told a cheering crowd of predominantly women : Now we have a production again by ARD/ZDF German Public Television , Browser Ballet , that tops it all .
The satire is titled : “ Corona is rescuing the planet ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by telling viewers : We here at Browser Ballet say ‘ yes ’ to Corona because this virus is practically healing the planet by itself .
Interesting is how fair this virus is .
It ’ s ravaging the elderly , but the youth are withstanding this infection almost without effort .
That ’ s only just because it is the generation 65 and over that has run this planet into a wall over the past 50 years.
” Especially responsible , says the moderator , are the overweight and ill adult Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ turbo capitalism ” : Maybe the Corona virus is merely a response to turbo capitalism , and it is working .
Air travel has collapsed , production has been cranked back , consumption is declining .
There couldn ’ t be better news for this planet .
Air pollution in China , thanks to Corona , has decreased in a very short time .
If that continues , then we may experience a new green paradise !
” And isn ’ t it the problem that there are just too many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of resources , which means less hunger , which means less war , and that means less causes for refugees .
So , probably the Corona virus is simply a nice reflex of nature to tell people who ’ s the boss here .
That ’ s why : enough with this silly egoism .
Corona is here simply because we don ’ t deserve anything better .
“

Many of us have been noticing there’s a not-so-subtle hate-campaign against the elderly going on.
Not long ago we saw a German production which featured kids singing “my mother is old environmental scumbag“or how Brexit voters were portrayed as incontinent scum.
At a recent performance in Dortmund, Leftist hip-hop band K.I.Z. told a cheering crowd of predominantly women:
People are scared of some stupid virus. The truth is, only old white men die!”
“Corona is practically healing the planet”
Now we have a production again by ARD/ZDF German Public Television, Browser Ballet, that tops it all. The satire is titled: “Corona is rescuing the planet”.
In the skit the moderator begins by telling viewers:
We here at Browser Ballet say ‘yes’ to Corona because this virus is practically healing the planet by itself. Interesting is how fair this virus is. It’s ravaging the elderly, but the youth are withstanding this infection almost without effort. That’s only just because it is the generation 65 and over that has run this planet into a wall over the past 50 years.”
Especially responsible, says the moderator, are the overweight and ill adult Americans, who have been recklessly practicing earth-destroying “turbo capitalism”:
Maybe the Corona virus is merely a response to turbo capitalism, and it is working. Air travel has collapsed, production has been cranked back, consumption is declining. There couldn’t be better news for this planet. Air pollution in China, thanks to Corona, has decreased in a very short time. If that continues, then we may experience a new green paradise!”
He adds:
And isn’t it the problem that there are just too many of us? Less people means less shortages of resources, which means less hunger, which means less war, and that means less causes for refugees. So, probably the Corona virus is simply a nice reflex of nature to tell people who’s the boss here. That’s why: enough with this silly egoism. Corona is here simply because we don’t deserve anything better. “
Donate – choose an amount
via NoTricksZone
https://ift.tt/3d3naQE
March 15, 2020 at 08:46AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-15--The Guardian: Patriotic “New Nationalism” is Required to Drive Solidarity and Acceptance of Climate

The Guardian: Patriotic “New Nationalism” is Required to Drive Solidarity and Acceptance of Climate Action

According to Guardian author , we need to re-awaken the spirit of social imperialism , like Bismark ’ s German social security programmes or Theodore Roosevelt ’ s “ New Nationalism ” , to create broad acceptance of big government green new deal style efforts to rescue Capitalism from itself .
Patriotism could be the unlikely answer to solving the climate crisis Last week ’ s budget was a missed opportunity : we need to mobilise our attachment to country This need for social solidarity links the green new deal to the patriotic origins of the welfare state .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the welfare state to socialism ; conservatives because they have come to dislike it , the left because they want to claim all credit for it .
In fact , the origins of the British welfare state lie very largely in the social imperialism movement in the years before 1914 .
The supporters of this movement were an extraordinarily varied bunch : H G Wells , George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb on the left ; liberal imperialists such as Winston Churchill and William Beveridge ; patriotic writers including Rudyard Kipling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as Lord Milner and John Buchan ; and soldiers including Field Marshal Lord Roberts .
Their thinking echoed , in key respects , Bismarck ’ s social security programme in Germany and the reformist “ new nationalism ” of Theodore Roosevelt in the US .
What all these figures had in common was a fear of social disintegration and revolution ; a belief ( right or wrong ) in the British Empire as a force for progress ; and a belief that social solidarity , “ national efficiency ” , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survive what they ( correctly ) saw would be the colossal social , economic and political strains of a new European war .
The task then is to mobilise patriotism by convincing national populations that global heating is a threat , not just to humanity and the planet but to the interests and the future survival of their own countries ; and that society , as a whole , will pull together , alleviate suffering and make sacrifices as part of a common effort .
If we can ’ t manage this I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survive what is coming at us down the line .
Anatol Lieven is the author of Climate Change and the Nation State : The Realist Case

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Guardian author, we need to re-awaken the spirit of social imperialism, like Bismark’s German social security programmes or Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism”, to create broad acceptance of big government green new deal style efforts to rescue Capitalism from itself.
Patriotism could be the unlikely answer to solving the climate crisis
Anatol Lieven
Sun 15 Mar 2020 06.00 AEDT
Last week’s budget was a missed opportunity: we need to mobilise our attachment to country
…
This need for social solidarity links the green new deal to the patriotic origins of the welfare state. Both conservatives and socialists have agreed in attributing the welfare state to socialism; conservatives because they have come to dislike it, the left because they want to claim all credit for it.
In fact, the origins of the British welfare state lie very largely in the social imperialism movement in the years before 1914. The supporters of this movement were an extraordinarily varied bunch: H G Wells, George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb on the left; liberal imperialists such as Winston Churchill and William Beveridge; patriotic writers including Rudyard Kipling and Arthur Conan Doyle; imperial bureaucrats such as Lord Milner and John Buchan; and soldiers including Field Marshal Lord Roberts. Their thinking echoed, in key respects, Bismarck’s social security programme in Germany and the reformist “new nationalism” of Theodore Roosevelt in the US.
…
What all these figures had in common was a fear of social disintegration and revolution; a belief (right or wrong) in the British Empire as a force for progress; and a belief that social solidarity, “national efficiency”, and a degree of national self-sufficiency were essential to survive what they (correctly) saw would be the colossal social, economic and political strains of a new European war.
…
The task then is to mobilise patriotism by convincing national populations that global heating is a threat, not just to humanity and the planet but to the interests and the future survival of their own countries; and that society, as a whole, will pull together, alleviate suffering and make sacrifices as part of a common effort.
If we can’t manage this I very much doubt that liberal democracy will survive what is coming at us down the line.
Anatol Lieven is the author of Climate Change and the Nation State: The Realist Case


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-15--Like Polar Bears, Coral Reefs Are Doing Fine

Corals are animals , actually closely related to jelly fish but of course differing in that they have a limestone skeleton made up of calcium carbonate .
Their growth rates can be studied to give us knowledge of the ocean and its sea level over thousands of years .
They have lived throughout the oceans of our planet for many thousand years .
Over those many years they have experienced both much warmer and much colder periods of geologic time .
The bleaching that they have experienced in the view of many climate alarmists is not a sign of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is not a sign that the end of the world as we know it is in sight .
The simple truth is that when a coral experiences any number of environmental changes which could be the chemistry of its surrounding water or its local temperature , the algae that inhabit and feed a coral are likely to find the environment less suitable and leave for greener pastures .
The change in color of the coral which alarmists call “ bleaching “ is a result of one group of bacteria leaving and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When the first resident group is leaving the coral becomes whiter and as a new group moves in the coral takes on a new color .
This new color is often mistaken as the corals death nell .
The algae that moves in not only provides it a new color but is also the corals source of the food it needs to live .
While the Polar Bear has been the face of the global warming delusion , coral reefs have been close behind as an animal that will eventually go extinct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuels , emitting carbon dioxide and warming the planet , its atmosphere and its oceans .
The reality is anything but that .
The Great Barrier Reef , stretching 1400 miles along the coast of Queensland , Australia is also a prominent “ poster child “ for the supposed damage mankind is doing to our Earth .
It is actually composed of nearly 3000 separate coral reefs , can be seen from space and is perhaps Australia ’ s greatest tourist attraction .
It ’ s ultimate destruction by man-caused global warming ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is used regularly to pull at the heartstrings of those who sadly buy into the delusion .
In fact , it is probable that no reef has received greater scrutiny , and been the subject of more research than the Great Barrier Reef ( GBR ) , especially since the clamor to save it hit warp speed .
The late Robert M. Carter , Emeritus Fellow of the Australian Institute of Public Affairs , who was considered the world ’ s leading expert on the reef , wrote extensively about it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He explained that to quantify the trend in live coral cover of the GBR between 1995 and 2009 , which the International Panel on Climate Change contends was the warmest decade and a half experienced by the planet in the past thousand years , annual surveys were performed .
Marine biologists surveyed coastal communities each year on 47 reefs in six latitudes across about 700 miles of the GBR .
They took samples at varying depths between 20 and 30 feet .
They found that coral cover increased in about half the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as one would expect when nature operates without human intervention .
Overall they concluded that coral cover was stable and that there was no evidence of “ consistent system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995 ” .
Other research throughout the world has confirmed that corals are capable of reproductive activities under extreme environmental conditions .
There is now a growing body of evidence to support the notion that corals inhabiting more thermally unstable habitats outperform reefs characterized by more stable temperatures .
In sum and a little more erudite : coral bleaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genotypes to create associations better adapted to new environmental conditions , as opposed to a breakdown of stable relationships that serves as a symptom of degenerating environmental conditions .
In the words of the late Robert Carter “ the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle ” .
Dr Jay Lehr contributes posts at the CFACT site .
Jay Lehr is a Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition , and he is the author of more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 36 books .

Posted on PAPundits
By Dr. Jay Lehr ~
Corals are animals, actually closely related to jelly fish but of course differing in that they have a limestone skeleton made up of calcium carbonate. Their growth rates can be studied to give us knowledge of the ocean and its sea level over thousands of years.
They have lived throughout the oceans of our planet for many thousand years. Over those many years they have experienced both much warmer and much colder periods of geologic time. The bleaching that they have experienced in the view of many climate alarmists is not a sign of their destruction or in fact ill health. It is not a sign that the end of the world as we know it is in sight.
The simple truth is that when a coral experiences any number of environmental changes which could be the chemistry of its surrounding water or its local temperature, the algae that inhabit and feed a coral are likely to find the environment less suitable and leave for greener pastures.
The change in color of the coral which alarmists call “bleaching “ is a result of one group of bacteria leaving and then another group of bacteria taking its place. When the first resident group is leaving the coral becomes whiter and as a new group moves in the coral takes on a new color. This new color is often mistaken as the corals death nell. The algae that moves in not only provides it a new color but is also the corals source of the food it needs to live.
While the Polar Bear has been the face of the global warming delusion, coral reefs have been close behind as an animal that will eventually go extinct if we do not stop using fossil fuels, emitting carbon dioxide and warming the planet, its atmosphere and its oceans. The reality is anything but that.
The Great Barrier Reef, stretching 1400 miles along the coast of Queensland, Australia is also a prominent “poster child “ for the supposed damage mankind is doing to our Earth. It is actually composed of nearly 3000 separate coral reefs, can be seen from space and is perhaps Australia’s greatest tourist attraction. It’s ultimate destruction by man-caused global warming (now called Climate Change of course), is used regularly to pull at the heartstrings of those who sadly buy into the delusion.
In fact, it is probable that no reef has received greater scrutiny, and been the subject of more research than the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), especially since the clamor to save it hit warp speed.
The late Robert M. Carter, Emeritus Fellow of the Australian Institute of Public Affairs, who was considered the world’s leading expert on the reef, wrote extensively about it in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. He explained that to quantify the trend in live coral cover of the GBR between 1995 and 2009, which the International Panel on Climate Change contends was the warmest decade and a half experienced by the planet in the past thousand years, annual surveys were performed. Marine biologists surveyed coastal communities each year on 47 reefs in six latitudes across about 700 miles of the GBR. They took samples at varying depths between 20 and 30 feet.
They found that coral cover increased in about half the regions and decreased in the other half as one would expect when nature operates without human intervention. Overall they concluded that coral cover was stable and that there was no evidence of “consistent system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995”.
Other research throughout the world has confirmed that corals are capable of reproductive activities under extreme environmental conditions. There is now a growing body of evidence to support the notion that corals inhabiting more thermally unstable habitats outperform reefs characterized by more stable temperatures.
In sum and a little more erudite: coral bleaching is an adaptive strategy for shuffling symbiont genotypes to create associations better adapted to new environmental conditions, as opposed to a breakdown of stable relationships that serves as a symptom of degenerating environmental conditions.
In the words of the late Robert Carter “the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle”.
NOTE: Portions of this article were excerpted from the excellent book Climate Change A Convenient Truth with permission of the author Jim Hollingsworth. His book is highly recommended for its brief treatment of the many issues misunderstood by the general public.
Dr Jay Lehr contributes posts at the CFACT site. Jay Lehr is a Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition, and he is the author of more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 36 books.
Read more excellent articles at CFACT http://www.cfact.org/
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/38XIofT
March 15, 2020 at 08:15AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--New Carbon Tax Will Cost Local Councils And House Buyers £1.6 Billion

London , 16 March : Local councils and house buyers have been warned that they are the first to feel the £1.6 billion cost of the Chancellor ’ s new carbon tax which was buried in the small print of his Budget .
According to a cost analysis by the Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) , the Budget shows clear signs that the UK government is now moving towards general carbon taxation .
As a taste of things to come , government is increasing fuel tax on diesel to the parts of the construction industry , amongst others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently discounted level of 11.14 pence per litre to the standard 57.95 pence per litre , resulting in an increase in annual fuel costs to the UK of about £1.6 billion per year .
Much of this burden will fall on the construction industry , and particularly on Local Authorities through the costs of road maintenance contractors , and also the cost of running gritters and snow clearers , formerly exempted but now required to pay full fuel duty .
Housebuyers will also be affected .
The construction industry is reported as estimating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cost of house building by £5000 per house .
Further impacts on the costs of national infrastructure projects , such as HS2 , are inevitable .
Dr Benny Peiser , director of the GWPF said : The post New Carbon Tax Will Cost Local Councils And House Buyers £1.6 Billion appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

London, 16 March: Local councils and house buyers have been warned that they are the first to feel the £1.6 billion cost of the Chancellor’s new carbon tax which was buried in the small print of his Budget.
According to a cost analysis by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), the Budget shows clear signs that the UK government is now moving towards general carbon taxation.
As a taste of things to come, government is increasing fuel tax on diesel to the parts of the construction industry, amongst others, by 400%, from the currently discounted level of 11.14 pence per litre to the standard 57.95 pence per litre, resulting in an increase in annual fuel costs to the UK of about £1.6 billion per year.
Much of this burden will fall on the construction industry, and particularly on Local Authorities through the costs of road maintenance contractors, and also the cost of running gritters and snow clearers, formerly exempted but now required to pay full fuel duty.
Housebuyers will also be affected. The construction industry is reported as estimating that the new carbon tax will increase the cost of house building by £5000 per house.
Further impacts on the costs of national infrastructure projects, such as HS2, are inevitable.
Dr Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF said:
Increasing tax on diesel fuel used by the construction sector, and others, has far-reaching consequences for Local Authorities, the cost of national infrastructure projects such as HS2 and for house buyers. But that’s carbon taxation for you.”
Carbon taxes reveal the true and rising cost of climate policies, making everything more expensive and will become politically toxic.”
The post New Carbon Tax Will Cost Local Councils And House Buyers £1.6 Billion appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/39TBvxp
March 16, 2020 at 04:18AM