iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--THE CORONAVIRUS SHOWS US WHAT THE GREEN PARTY POLICIES WOULD LOOK LIKE

I would add that the response of Government to both has certain similarities .
For instance they rely on computer @ @ @ @ @ outcome .
They introduce policies which are unlikely to work , but convince the public @ @ @ @ @ doing .
Most people will claim they will follow government guidelines , yet most will @ @ @ @ @ be very costly .
The difference , of course is that coronavirus is real and @ @ @ @ @ climate change is being greatly exaggerated .

This article looks at the similarities between the policies of the Green Party and what is currently happening to the economy. There is a clear similarity in the effect, though not the cause.
I would add that the response of Government to both has certain similarities. For instance they rely on computer models to predict the likely outcome. They introduce policies which are unlikely to work, but convince the public they know what they are doing. Most people will claim they will follow government guidelines, yet most will not. The policies will be very costly. The difference, of course is that coronavirus is real and serious for some, whereas climate change is being greatly exaggerated.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--The Great Wind Delusion: Why Wind Power Is Worse Than Useless

The notion that a nation can run on sunshine and breezes is worse than delusional , it ’ s flat @ @ @ @ @ and reliable electricity generation and delivery systems designed around the certitude of coal , gas @ @ @ @ @ by pure and utter , weather driven chaos .
Rapid and reactionary load shedding ( @ @ @ @ @ and [ … ]

The notion that a nation can run on sunshine and breezes is worse than delusional, it’s flat out dangerous. Once resilient and reliable electricity generation and delivery systems designed around the certitude of coal, gas and hydro have been replaced by pure and utter, weather driven chaos. Rapid and reactionary load shedding (“demand management”) and […]
via STOP THESE THINGS
https://ift.tt/2TThy44
March 16, 2020 at 01:30AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--We Interrupt This Newsletter: March 16, 2020

Editor note : Every few weeks at Master Resource , John Droz of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions publishes an information round-up .
At his suggestion , he is substituting a collection of links relating to the coronavirus epidemic .
The regular Energy & Environmental Newsletter resumes next Monday , March 23 .
COVID-19 and Health Information : Live graphic showing all Coronavirus cases , worldwide Coronavirus Hysteria Worse Than the Disease My recommendations re COVID-19 CDC Coronavirus Disease Webpage A good general Coronavirus overview , answering common questions Good : Dr. Oz ’ s coronavirus survival guide EPA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus symptoms vs Flu symptoms vs Cold symptoms A warming light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel ?
Video : Dennis Prager — Coronavirus : Panic or Pandemic ?
Panic and the Coronavirus : Is There is Better Approach ?
Coronavirus going to hit its peak and start falling sooner than you think Preventing Loneliness in Times of Social Distancing Doctor ’ s tips for a successful Coronavirus self-quarantine Stay Coronavirus-free while flying COVID-19 and China : The Chinese Knew What They Were Doing in Spreading the Wuhan Virus Inside China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Coronavirus China hints at denying Americans life-saving coronavirus drugs China reframes coronavirus narrative Apocalyptic battle of the Viruses : H1N1 vs CORVID-19 COVID-19 and Climate Change : Climate crisis on back-burner as pandemic threat looms Social Changes with COVID-19 are a prelude to life with less fossil fuels Good news : Coronavirus Creates Angst For Clean Energy Developers Bad News : How Coronavirus Makes The Case For Renewable Energy Coronavirus Conflict : Putin to Start a War on America ’ s Shale Oil Industry Green Fanatics Celebrating Coronavirus Epidemic COVID-19 and Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ?
COVID-19 will be used to justify US universal health care COVID-19 Miscellaneous News : COVID-19 Exposes our Societal Failings The Math Of Epidemics Top Coronavirus scams to be aware of What You Need To Know To Start Working From Home Your home computer can now help scientists find a Coronavirus cure

Editor note: Every few weeks at Master Resource, John Droz of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions publishes an information round-up. At his suggestion, he is substituting a collection of links relating to the coronavirus epidemic. The regular Energy & Environmental Newsletter resumes next Monday, March 23.
COVID-19 and Health Information:
Live graphic showing all Coronavirus cases, worldwide
Coronavirus Hysteria Worse Than the Disease
My recommendations re COVID-19
CDC Coronavirus Disease Webpage
A good general Coronavirus overview, answering common questions
Good: Dr. Oz’s coronavirus survival guide
EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products for Coronavirus
Coronavirus symptoms vs Flu symptoms vs Cold symptoms
A warming light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel?
Video: Dennis Prager — Coronavirus: Panic or Pandemic?
Panic and the Coronavirus: Is There is Better Approach?
Coronavirus going to hit its peak and start falling sooner than you think
Preventing Loneliness in Times of Social Distancing
Doctor’s tips for a successful Coronavirus self-quarantine
Stay Coronavirus-free while flying
COVID-19 and China:
The Chinese Knew What They Were Doing in Spreading the Wuhan Virus
Inside China’s high-stakes campaign to smear the US over Coronavirus
China hints at denying Americans life-saving coronavirus drugs
China reframes coronavirus narrative
Apocalyptic battle of the Viruses: H1N1 vs CORVID-19
COVID-19 and Climate Change:
Climate crisis on back-burner as pandemic threat looms
Social Changes with COVID-19 are a prelude to life with less fossil fuels
Good news: Coronavirus Creates Angst For Clean Energy Developers
Bad News: How Coronavirus Makes The Case For Renewable Energy
Coronavirus Conflict: Putin to Start a War on America’s Shale Oil Industry
Green Fanatics Celebrating Coronavirus Epidemic
COVID-19 and Other Politics:
A viral takedown of Donald Trump?
COVID-19 will be used to justify US universal health care
COVID-19 Miscellaneous
News:
COVID-19 Exposes our Societal Failings
The Math Of Epidemics
Top Coronavirus scams to be aware of
What You Need To Know To Start Working
From Home
Your home computer can now help scientists find a Coronavirus
cure


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--Extinction Rebellion Considering Public Suicide Events to Raise Climate Awareness

As the Chinese Coronavirus crisis sucks oxygen from XR ’ s climate campaign , a leaked internal document suggests Extinction Rebellion is considering increasingly desperate measures , including having protestors kill themselves in public , to try to regain public attention .
Extinction Rebellion ( XR ) activists , increasingly overshadowed by the coronavirus , have been discussing new and ever more desperate ways to grab attention for their next big publicity stunt .
Mooted tactics include : committing suicide in public ( perhaps at the UN ’ s next climate summit in Glasgow later this year ) ; hunger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green ; spraying traffic lights black ; blocking every station , airport , and motorway in Britain ; and “ scare the fuck out of people ” .
These are among the actions proposed on a leaked XR discussion document titled ‘ Vital Additions to Action Strategy.
’ They appear in a list under the heading ‘ Top Ideas from the Sessions.
’ The radical ideas seem to be a response to concerns within XR that the public have grown slightly bored with or even irritated by their antics .
There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volunteered to commit suicide or go on hunger strike in order to save the planet .
And the document concedes that “ highly sacrificial actions ” have been vetoed up until now because of “ strong pushback from the movement ” .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
As the Chinese Coronavirus crisis sucks oxygen from XR’s climate campaign, a leaked internal document suggests Extinction Rebellion is considering increasingly desperate measures, including having protestors kill themselves in public, to try to regain public attention.
Delingpole: Kamikaze Greenies – Extinction Rebellion Plots Suicide Stunt
JAMES DELINGPOLE 15 Mar 2020
Extinction Rebellion (XR) activists, increasingly overshadowed by the coronavirus, have been discussing new and ever more desperate ways to grab attention for their next big publicity stunt.
Mooted tactics include: committing suicide in public (perhaps at the UN’s next climate summit in Glasgow later this year); hunger strike to the death; painting parliament green; spraying traffic lights black; blocking every station, airport, and motorway in Britain; and “scare the fuck out of people”.
These are among the actions proposed on a leaked XR discussion document titled ‘Vital Additions to Action Strategy.’ They appear in a list under the heading ‘Top Ideas from the Sessions.’
The radical ideas seem to be a response to concerns within XR that the public have grown slightly bored with or even irritated by their antics.
…
There is no evidence of any XR member having actually volunteered to commit suicide or go on hunger strike in order to save the planet. And the document concedes that “highly sacrificial actions” have been vetoed up until now because of “strong pushback from the movement”.
…


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--Google Home Spreads Panic Gives Wrong Advice

Google incites more panic by placing an animated danger sign and mentioning coronavirus on its homepage .
Google also gives @ @ @ @ @ prevention COVID-19 disease .
Tested in a small city in Texas using a clean state @ @ @ @ @ shows it all over the US , regardless of the presence of the virus in @ @ @ @ @ knows user ’ s location with high precision .
This notice links to a page @ @ @ @ @ unsuitable for the US .
• Wash your hands often .
It is good precaution @ @ @ @ @ .
• Don ’ t cough into the elbow !
If you feel sick or @ @ @ @ @ home and self-quarantine .
CDC publishes the known symptoms and warning signs .
• We @ @ @ @ @ that .
Keep your hands clean and try to touch your face less .
See @ @ @ @ @ you feel sick with any of the COVID-19 symptoms described by CDC , stay home @ @ @ @ @

Google incites more panic by placing an animated danger sign and mentioning coronavirus on its homepage. Google also gives wrong advice for diagnostics and prevention COVID-19 disease.
Tested in a small city in Texas using a clean state browser. Apparently, Google shows it all over the US, regardless of the presence of the virus in the area. Google usually knows user’s location with high precision. This notice links to a page with an advice wrong and unsuitable for the US.
Follow CDC advice, not Google’s advice.
via Science Defies Politics
https://ift.tt/33w66Pf
March 15, 2020 at 09:12PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--US responds to oil price crash by topping off the tank

MARKET PULSE Trump says U.S. to buy oil to fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve By Myra P. Saefong Published : Mar 13 , 2020 President Donald Trump announced Friday that the U.S. will buy large quantities of oil to fill the country ’ s Strategic Petroleum Reserve .
“ We ’ re gon na fill it up .
It ’ s a good time to fill it up , ” Trump said at a press conference , during which he declared a national emergency to access additional aid to cope with the spread of COVID-19 .
As of March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 635 million barrels of crude oil .
Its current storage capacity is 713.5 million barrels .
I don ’ t know how quickly DOE will fill up the SPR .
With about 78.5 million barrels ( bbl ) of available capacity , they could absorb 250,000 bbl/d of excess production for about 10 months .
Russia and Saudi Arabia ( mostly the Saudis ) reportedly will be increasing production by about 3-3.5 million bbl/d .
Totally offsetting that would fill the SPR in less than 1 month .
This already appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The SPR can be drawndown at a maximum rate of 4.4 million bbl/d .
The US currently imports close to 1 million bbl/d from Russia and Saudi Arabia .
The US could consider suspending imports from OPEC+ ( ~2 million bbl/d ) , replacing it with domestic production and SPR releases .
This would have a more significant effect on prices , allowing us to “ hit back ” a bit .

Guest “thank you Mr. President” by David Middleton
MARKET PULSE
Trump says U.S. to buy oil to fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
By Myra P. Saefong
Published: Mar 13, 2020 President Donald Trump announced Friday that the U.S. will buy large quantities of oil to fill the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. “We’re gonna fill it up. It’s a good time to fill it up,” Trump said at a press conference, during which he declared a national emergency to access additional aid to cope with the spread of COVID-19. As of March 6, the SPR held a total of 635 million barrels of crude oil. Its current storage capacity is 713.5 million barrels. […] Market Watch
SPR Quick Facts
I don’t know how quickly DOE will fill up the SPR. With about 78.5 million barrels (bbl) of available capacity, they could absorb 250,000 bbl/d of excess production for about 10 months. Russia and Saudi Arabia (mostly the Saudis) reportedly will be increasing production by about 3-3.5 million bbl/d. Totally offsetting that would fill the SPR in less than 1 month. This already appears to have had a stabilizing effect on prices.
The SPR can be drawndown at a maximum rate of 4.4 million bbl/d. The US currently imports close to 1 million bbl/d from Russia and Saudi Arabia. The US could consider suspending imports from OPEC+ (~2 million bbl/d), replacing it with domestic production and SPR releases. This would have a more significant effect on prices, allowing us to “hit back” a bit.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--The UK’s March 2020 Budget: Red Diesel and the Dawn of Carbon Taxation

The Chancellor ’ s Budget shows clear signs that the UK government is now moving towards general carbon taxation .
As a taste of things to come , government is increase fuel tax on diesel for 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 local authorities and taxpayers through the costs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry .
It is inevitable that there will be further impacts on the costs of national infrastructure projects such as HS2 .
It is almost impossible for a modern Chancellor to approach the despatch box with a Budget that is anything other than ostensibly committed to the mitigation of climate change , and in spite of the extraordinary measures announced to buffer the economy against the effects of Covid-19 , Rishi Sunak ’ s debut is no exception , the first page of his Budget telling us that So far so anodyne .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the document is empty , and that the reader can safely ignore it .
Green lobbyists may be just a little disappointed , but overall they will be satisfied that the ratchet has been turned a few clicks further on , in spite of the almost overwhelming distractions of a genuine crisis in public health .
Not only are the gestures green , but the few bigger ticket items in climate policy that are actually costed are indicative of the direction of travel , which is towards general carbon taxation .
This has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treasury , and they are now reaffirming extant promises and beginning to provide details .
The Budget informs us that : The possibility of synchronisation with the EU ETS will presumably be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations , but since this would put the UK behind the EU ’ s emerging carbon tariff barrier , a Customs Union in all but name , it seems unlikely that the UK will agree to it .
The Chancellor ’ s decision to freeze Carbon Price Support at £18/tCO2e ( para 2.218 ) is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses when facing severe economic difficulties as the result of Covid-19 , but a fairly clear hint that the UK is willing to dispense with emissions trading , whether synchronised with the EU or not , on the 1st of January 2021 .
It therefore seems much more probable , though far from certain , that the eventual outcome will be the straightforward system of taxation indicated briefly but pregnantly above .
The consultation on this Carbon Emissions Tax will tell us more , and we don ’ t have long to wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue .
In spite of its political hazards , carbon taxation is and probably always shas been the preference of the Treasury , purely on the grounds of economic efficiency .
After all , they tried and failed in 2012 to make major cuts in income support subsidies to renewables , replacing them with the Carbon Price Floor .
As it happens the turf war between George Osborne ’ s Treasury and Ed Davey ’ s Department of Energy ended up with Treasury conceding ground in order to preserve the Coalition , leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the Price Floor and the subsidies to wind farms .
But the Treasury is single-minded and implacable , and they are back .
The Carbon Price Floor was only a step towards carbon taxation , but they are now ready to go whole hog .
This doesn ’ t mean that subsidies and levies are quite absent in the current Budget .
It is proposed , for example , to compel consumers to subsidise a Carbon Capture and Sequestration ( CCS ) Infrastructure Fund of “ at least £800 million ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas fired power stations with CCS , the first by the mid 2020s and a second by 2030 ( para 2.103 ) .
The details of this , like many other key policies , is not fully stated , being left for determination at a later date , this particular endeavour being included in the Comprehensive Spending Review which will conclude in July in time for announcement at and around the COP26 climate meeting in Glasgow in November .
There is also a proposal , a foolish proposal in my view , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( RHI ) with a specific levy on consumer heating fuels to support the further expansion of renewable biomethane ( para 2.105 ) .
This was probably the result of lobbying from landed interests , and is unlikely to proceed except at a small scale , since the levy would fall on extremely vulnerable consumers creating the opportunity for political controversy .
Indeed , the original proposals for the RHI involved just such a domestic fuel levy , but this idea was discarded because it would hit low income households living off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LPG .
If the current bright idea went the same way no one would be surprised .
So subsidies and levies survive , but these are clearly now exceptions .
From this time onward the central core of British climate policy will be driven by carbon taxation , flanked by many other indirect coercions nudging consumers , particularly corporate and public sector consumers , towards private contracts with expensive energy sources .
This “ tax and nudge ” strategy will mean that climate policy costs will be buried deep within the costs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mrs May ’ s Plastic Packaging Tax , which dates back to 2018 , is now firmly slated by this Budget for April 2022 .
Small businesses , those generating under 10 tonnes of plastic waste per year are excepted , but others will pay £200 per tonne for plastic waste that contains less than 30 % recycled material .
Government expects this to cost the economy £240m a year in 2022/3 and approximately the same in the two subsequent years .
It will be interesting to see if businesses can find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losing the benefits of high grade , unrecycled plastics , in sterile packaging for example .
Time will tell .
The Budget also increases the Climate Change Levy ( CCL ) on natural gas used by commercial users , a reannouncement that has its roots in the promise in the Budget of 2016 to equalize the levies on gas and electricity .
Treasury estimates that this will increase costs to the economy by £130 million in 2022/3 , £260 million in 2023/4 , and £270m in 2024/5 ( p. 67 ) , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate Change Agreement discounts to CCL offered to consumers adopting energy efficiency measures will offset these additional costs by £5 million in the first year and £190 million in each of the two succeeding years .
Whether this is realistic is anyone ’ s guess .
But the most significant , and immediately costly act of carbon taxation is the removal from April 2022 of the permission for several large classes of consumers to use diesel taxed at a lower rate and stained red to distinguish it , hence the name “ Red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The tax differential is large , standard diesel being taxed at 57.95 pence per litre , while Red Diesel is taxed at only 11.14 pence per litre .
This discount on fuel tax is currently permitted on about 15 % of UK diesel sales and amounts to approximately £2.4 billion in foregone revenue for the Treasury .
Restricting the exemption will , according to the Treasury ’ s own calculations , reduce this foregone revenue to £800,000 a year and so add approximately £1.575 billion per year to the UK ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £1.645 billion in 2024/5 .
These monies will pass to the Exchequer .
The Budget is , unsurprisingly , not specific about who will pay for this dramatic increase in fuel taxation , describing only those who will retain permission to use Red Diesel , namely agriculture , horticulture forestry , pisciculture , rail and non-domestic heating ( including domestic heating ) ( para 2.231 ) .
However , Her Majesty ’ s Revenue and Customs ( HMRC ) provides clear descriptions of the current exemption , from which we can infer that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exempted by Mr Sunak above , the new higher rate of taxation on diesel will affect consumers using the following currently Excepted Vehicles : As will be immediately apparent from this list the removal of the red diesel discount is focused generally on the construction industry , who are already warning that the cost of house building will rise by £5,000 a house , and rather also specifically on the road repair and maintenance sector .
Many of these road-related vehicles , snow clearers , gritters , road surfacing machines , are used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or their contractors .
The Treasury itself admits in the supplementary Budget 2020 : Policy Costings document that about £150 million a year will have to be added to the “ resource Departmental Expenditure Limit ” ( RDEL ) because of an increase in the tax on diesel ( Policy Costings , p. 20 ) .
However , the Treasury analysis does not appear to take into account the full impact on Local Authorities , will now find not only their direct expenditure on diesel rising , but will also see an increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contractors , such as Balfour Beatty , employed for road maintenance and construction , or for gritting and snow clearing .
The impact on other infrastructure projects , major and minor , flood defences for example or HS2 , will also clearly be significant .
There will consequently be a pressure to either increase local authority revenue from council tax and central government grant funding , or to cut back on infrastructure development and maintenance .
Neither of these options will be popular , but that is is the character of carbon taxation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full cost of climate policies .
Everything becomes visibly more expensive .
The Treasury ’ s preference is certainly likely to be more economically efficient , but it may not be good politics .
The post The UK ’ s March 2020 Budget : Red Diesel and the Dawn of Carbon Taxation appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

As a taste of things to come, government is increase fuel tax on diesel for 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 local authorities and taxpayers through the costs of road maintenance Framework contractors with the construction industry. It is inevitable that there will be further impacts on the costs of national infrastructure projects such as HS2.
It is almost impossible for a modern Chancellor to approach the despatch box with a Budget that is anything other than ostensibly committed to the mitigation of climate change, and in spite of the extraordinary measures announced to buffer the economy against the effects of Covid-19, Rishi Sunak’s debut is no exception, the first page of his Budget telling us that
In the year that the UK hosts the COP26 UN climate summit, the Budget takes steps to decarbonise the economy and protect the UK’s natural habitats, ensuring that every part of the UK economy is ready for the challenges of decarbonisation, and ready to capitalise on the opportunities to become leaders in the green markets of the future. (Budget, p. 1)
So far so anodyne. But that doesn’t mean that the document is empty, and that the reader can safely ignore it. Green lobbyists may be just a little disappointed, but overall they will be satisfied that the ratchet has been turned a few clicks further on, in spite of the almost overwhelming distractions of a genuine crisis in public health.
Not only are the gestures green, but the few bigger ticket items in climate policy that are actually costed are indicative of the direction of travel, which is towards general carbon taxation. This has long been the preferred instrument of the Treasury, and they are now reaffirming extant promises and beginning to provide details. The Budget informs us that:
The UK will continue to apply an ambitious carbon price from 1 January 2021 to support progress towards reaching net zero. The government will legislate at Finance Bill 2020 to prepare for a UK Emissions Trading System (ETS), which could be linked to the EU ETS. The government will also legislate for a carbon emissions tax as an alternative carbon pricing policy and consult on the design of a tax in spring 2020. (para 2.219)
The possibility of synchronisation with the EU ETS will presumably be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations, but since this would put the UK behind the EU’s emerging carbon tariff barrier, a Customs Union in all but name, it seems unlikely that the UK will agree to it. The Chancellor’s decision to freeze Carbon Price Support at £18/tCO2e (para 2.218) is not only an entirely understandable relief for businesses when facing severe economic difficulties as the result of Covid-19, but a fairly clear hint that the UK is willing to dispense with emissions trading, whether synchronised with the EU or not, on the 1st of January 2021.
It therefore seems much more probable, though far from certain, that the eventual outcome will be the straightforward system of taxation indicated briefly but pregnantly above. The consultation on this Carbon Emissions Tax will tell us more, and we don’t have long to wait.
This is no bolt from the blue. In spite of its political hazards, carbon taxation is and probably always shas been the preference of the Treasury, purely on the grounds of economic efficiency. After all, they tried and failed in 2012 to make major cuts in income support subsidies to renewables, replacing them with the Carbon Price Floor. As it happens the turf war between George Osborne’s Treasury and Ed Davey’s Department of Energy ended up with Treasury conceding ground in order to preserve the Coalition, leaving the consumer saddled with the costs of both the Price Floor and the subsidies to wind farms. But the Treasury is single-minded and implacable, and they are back. The Carbon Price Floor was only a step towards carbon taxation, but they are now ready to go whole hog.
This doesn’t mean that subsidies and levies are quite absent in the current Budget. It is proposed, for example, to compel consumers to subsidise a Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Infrastructure Fund of “at least £800 million” to support the “construction” of two gas fired power stations with CCS, the first by the mid 2020s and a second by 2030 (para 2.103). The details of this, like many other key policies, is not fully stated, being left for determination at a later date, this particular endeavour being included in the Comprehensive Spending Review which will conclude in July in time for announcement at and around the COP26 climate meeting in Glasgow in November.
There is also a proposal, a foolish proposal in my view, to supplement the centrally funded Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) with a specific levy on consumer heating fuels to support the further expansion of renewable biomethane (para 2.105). This was probably the result of lobbying from landed interests, and is unlikely to proceed except at a small scale, since the levy would fall on extremely vulnerable consumers creating the opportunity for political controversy. Indeed, the original proposals for the RHI involved just such a domestic fuel levy, but this idea was discarded because it would hit low income households living off the gas grid and using bottled gas or LPG. If the current bright idea went the same way no one would be surprised.
So subsidies and levies survive, but these are clearly now exceptions. From this time onward the central core of British climate policy will be driven by carbon taxation, flanked by many other indirect coercions nudging consumers, particularly corporate and public sector consumers, towards private contracts with expensive energy sources. This “tax and nudge” strategy will mean that climate policy costs will be buried deep within the costs of all goods and services.
For example, Mrs May’s Plastic Packaging Tax, which dates back to 2018, is now firmly slated by this Budget for April 2022. Small businesses, those generating under 10 tonnes of plastic waste per year are excepted, but others will pay £200 per tonne for plastic waste that contains less than 30% recycled material. Government expects this to cost the economy £240m a year in 2022/3 and approximately the same in the two subsequent years. It will be interesting to see if businesses can find any way to avoid this tax without losing the benefits of high grade, unrecycled plastics, in sterile packaging for example. Time will tell.
The Budget also increases the Climate Change Levy (CCL) on natural gas used by commercial users, a reannouncement that has its roots in the promise in the Budget of 2016 to equalize the levies on gas and electricity. Treasury estimates that this will increase costs to the economy by £130 million in 2022/3, £260 million in 2023/4, and £270m in 2024/5 (p. 67), though they hope that the extension of the Climate Change Agreement discounts to CCL offered to consumers adopting energy efficiency measures will offset these additional costs by £5 million in the first year and £190 million in each of the two succeeding years. Whether this is realistic is anyone’s guess.
But the most significant, and immediately costly act of carbon taxation is the removal from April 2022 of the permission for several large classes of consumers to use diesel taxed at a lower rate and stained red to distinguish it, hence the name “Red Diesel” (para. 1.247).
The tax differential is large, standard diesel being taxed at 57.95 pence per litre, while Red Diesel is taxed at only 11.14 pence per litre.
This discount on fuel tax is currently permitted on about 15% of UK diesel sales and amounts to approximately £2.4 billion in foregone revenue for the Treasury.
Restricting the exemption will, according to the Treasury’s own calculations, reduce this foregone revenue to £800,000 a year and so add approximately £1.575 billion per year to the UK’s fuel costs in 2022/3, rising to £1.645 billion in 2024/5. These monies will pass to the Exchequer.
The Budget is, unsurprisingly, not specific about who will pay for this dramatic increase in fuel taxation, describing only those who will retain permission to use Red Diesel, namely agriculture, horticulture forestry, pisciculture, rail and non-domestic heating (including domestic heating) (para 2.231).
However, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) provides clear descriptions of the current exemption, from which we can infer that unless they fall into the categories still exempted by Mr Sunak above, the new higher rate of taxation on diesel will affect consumers using the following currently Excepted Vehicles:
Unlicensed vehicles not on public roads
Mowing machines
Snow Clearing Vehicles
Gritters
Mobile Cranes
Mobile Pumping Vehicles
Digging Machines
Works Trucks
Road Rollers
Road surfacing machines
Tar Sprayers
As will be immediately apparent from this list the removal of the red diesel discount is focused generally on the construction industry, who are already warning that the cost of house building will rise by £5,000 a house, and rather also specifically on the road repair and maintenance sector.
Many of these road-related vehicles, snow clearers, gritters, road surfacing machines, are used by local authorities and other governmental agents or their contractors. The Treasury itself admits in the supplementary Budget 2020: Policy Costings document that about £150 million a year will have to be added to the “resource Departmental Expenditure Limit” (RDEL) because of an increase in the tax on diesel (Policy Costings, p. 20).
However, the Treasury analysis does not appear to take into account the full impact on Local Authorities, will now find not only their direct expenditure on diesel rising, but will also see an increase in the cost of “Framework” contractors, such as Balfour Beatty, employed for road maintenance and construction, or for gritting and snow clearing. The impact on other infrastructure projects, major and minor, flood defences for example or HS2, will also clearly be significant.
There will consequently be a pressure to either increase local authority revenue from council tax and central government grant funding, or to cut back on infrastructure development and maintenance. Neither of these options will be popular, but that is is the character of carbon taxation. It brings out and identifies the full cost of climate policies. Everything becomes visibly more expensive. The Treasury’s preference is certainly likely to be more economically efficient, but it may not be good politics.
Dr John Constable, GWPF Energy Editor
The post The UK’s March 2020 Budget: Red Diesel and the Dawn of Carbon Taxation appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/3d1O8Iv
March 15, 2020 at 06:58PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--How exactly do they plan to replace fossil fuels?

“ How would they handle a COVID-27 outbreak ?
” asks Paul Driessen .
“ How would they manufacture cars , airplanes , wind turbines , toilet paper , pharmaceuticals or much of anything else with intermittent energy ?
It hasn ’ t worked in Europe ( see below ) , and it won ’ t work here.
” “ A lot of US cities and states have announced that they intend to banish oil , natural gas and coal within 10 , 20 or 30 years , ” writes Driessen .
“ They claim this has worked in Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , be role models , in ushering in a clean , green , renewable American and world energy future .
“ How exactly do they intend to do this ?
Have they thought this through at all ?
Do they have a clue about how many millions of wind turbines and billions of solar panels this would take ?
Have they paid any attention to how this Green New Deal scheme has actually worked out in Europe and other places it ’ s been tried ?
” “ The only way this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through totalitarian government at the local , state and federal level.
” How exactly do they plan to replace fossil fuels ?
They want to ban coal , oil and gas .
Exactly how will they replace them ?
Who wins ?
Who loses ?
Paul Driessen Berkeley , CA , Takoma Park , MD and other cities ; California , Connecticut , New York , Virginia and other states ; Germany , England and other countries ; the European Union – all plan to banish oil , natural gas and coal within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A number of US states have joined Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives and proudly say We Are Still In … the Paris climate treaty , no matter what President Trump says or does .
Forget the headlines and models , and look at hurricane , tornado , sea level and other historic records .
There is no crisis , no unprecedented warming or weather events , certainly nothing that proves humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate changes and weather events .
But for now , let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly will they make this happen ?
Where do they plan to get the turbines , panels and batteries ?
the raw materials to manufacture them ?
How do they plan to function as modern societies with pricey , erratic energy and frequent power disruptions ?
How would they – or America , if the entire USA goes Green New Deal – handle a COVID-27 outbreak ?
How would they manufacture cars , airplanes , wind turbines , toilet paper , pharmaceuticals or much of anything else with intermittent energy ?
It hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below ) , and it won ’ t work here .
Moreover , it ’ s not just replacing today ’ s coal and gas power plant megawatts .
It ’ s doubling today ’ s electricity generation , because Green New Dealers want to replace all fossil fuel use : gasoline and diesel cars , trucks and buses , home and water heating , factory power , hospital emergency power , and more .
It ’ s tripling current megawatt generation , because they don ’ t like nuclear or hydroelectric power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more electricity to charge enough batteries to ensure backup power for all the fossil and other power they want to eliminate .
That will require a lot of wind turbines , solar panels and batteries .
Where do they plan to put all of them ?
Some of those states and countries have lots of rural land , wildlife habitats and shallow waters off their coasts that they can turn into huge industrial energy zones .
But what are those self-righteous cities going to do ?
Where within their city limits do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tall turbines and tens of thousands of panels ?
Or do they plan to just impose those facilities on their rural neighbors ?
Or tap into regional power grids and use electricity that someone else is generating – with coal , gas , nuclear , hydro , and maybe wind or solar ?
How will they separate “ good ” and “ bad ” electrons ?
All of these GND cities and states will have to deal with frustrated rural families who don ’ t want the ruined scenery , desecrated ridge lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light flicker and excruciating infrasound that towering turbines would bring .
Don ’ t want millions of rural acres blanketed with solar panels .
Don ’ t want hundreds of miles of new high voltage transmission lines crossing their backyards .
Don ’ t want their lands seized via eminent domain , virtually at the point of a gun if they still resist .
They don ’ t want the 25-50-100 % higher household electricity bills , the soaring price tags for products and services that go with soaring electricity costs for every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They don ’ t want more good manufacturing jobs destroyed by skyrocketing energy prices – and sent overseas .
Do they have the foggiest notion ?
Do Green New Deal politicians have the foggiest idea how many turbines , panels , batteries and miles of transmission lines they will need to replace all fossil fuels ?
How few years those energy systems last before they have to be replaced ?
Do they have any idea what they ’ re going to do with the defunct turbine blades and solar panels that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How many cubic miles of landfills they will need ?
Will communities want those landfills ?
Will urban pols just employ more eminent domain ?
It would take hundreds of 850-foot-tall 12-MW offshore turbines to supply the green new world electricity demands of a major city – or thousands of 2- or 3-MW onshore turbines .
Tens of millions of solar panels .
Millions of acres of former crop , scenic and wildlife habitat land would be impacted .
They ’ d need millions of half-ton 85-kWh Tesla battery packs as backup for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Where do they intend to get the millions of tons of steel , copper , cobalt , lithium , aluminum , rare earths , carbon-fiberglass-plastic composites , limestone and other raw materials to build all those electricity generation and storage systems , and all the new transmission lines ?
Will they now support opening more US lands to mining ?
How do they plan to mine and process the materials without fossil fuels ?
If the mining is not to take place here in United States , under our tough laws and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be done ?
In China and Russia ?
or maybe in Africa and South America , where many mines are operated by Chinese and Russian companies that don ’ t give a tinker ’ s damn about child labor , slave labor , workplace safety , air and water pollution , toxic and radioactive wastes , mined land reclamation – or the soaring rates of lung , heart , skin and intestinal diseases , osteoporosis , cancers and other maladies .
All these squalid places and horrific stories are far away – out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Environmentalists love to say : Think globally ; act locally .
This would be a good time to start practicing that ethical code .
The more honest politicians promoting a GND future admit it would eliminate a lot of oil , gas , coal , petrochemical , manufacturing and other high-paying jobs .
But , they claim , their ( pseudo- ) renewable energy world would create millions of new jobs .
A look behind The Great Oz ’ s curtain is very revealing .
Coal-fired power plants generate 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural gas generates 3,812 MWh per oil and gas field and utility worker .
That super high efficiency and resultant low-cost electricity sustain millions of jobs in manufacturing and countless other industries .
In stark contrast , wind turbines produce a measly 836 MWh for every employee , while solar panels generated an abysmal 98 MWh per worker .
Put another way , it takes 79 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as one coal worker or two natural gas workers .
Not only will this expensive , intermittent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs ; the GND wind and solar jobs will mostly be lower-wage positions installing , maintaining , repairing and replacing turbines and panels , and hauling huge dilapidated blades , panels , hulks and concrete foundations to monster landfills .
Residential electricity prices are already outrageous in New York ( 17¢ a kilowatt-hour ) , California ( 19¢ per kWh ) , Connecticut ( 20¢ ) and Hawaii ( 31¢ ) – versus 9¢ a kWh in Arkansas , Georgia and Oklahoma .
Going 50-100 % wind and solar would send family rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kWh .
At the 8¢ per kWh in 2019 , Virginia ’ s Inova Fairfax Women ’ s and Children ’ s Hospital pays about $ 1.6 million annually for electricity ( based on typical hospital costs per square foot ) .
At California ’ s ( 15¢ per kWh ) , or Germany ’ s business rate ( 22¢ ) , Inova would have to shell out an extra $ 1.4-2.8 million a year for electricity .
That would mean employee layoffs , higher medical bills , reduced patient care , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wind and solar actually working in Europe and Britain ?
In 2017 , German families and businesses were pummeled by 172,000 localized blackouts .
Last year , some 350,000 German families had their electricity cut off because they couldn ’ t pay their power bills .
In Britain , millions of elderly people have to choose between heating and eating decent food ; many spend their days in libraries to keep warm ; and more than 3,000 die every year because they can not heat their homes properly , making them more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , flu or other diseases .
Across Europe , 11 million jobs are “ at risk ” because of an EU “ green deal ” that many say is suicidal .
Meanwhile , China and India are still building coal and gas power plants , making products for the USA and Europe , creating jobs , building airports , and sending billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere .
GND politicians have dodged these issues for years – while steering billions of taxpayer dollars to the green activist groups , crony capitalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in office .
Even worse , they and their media allies neatly dodge the most glaring reality .
The only way this energy and economic transformation will happen is through totalitarian government at the local , state and federal level : liberal urban voters and politicians against the rest of America .
Those are the seeds of resentment , anger , societal division , endless litigation , and violence .
We need to head that grim future off at the pass .
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author of books and articles on energy , environment , climate and human rights issues .
The post How exactly do they plan to replace fossil fuels ?
appeared first on Ice Age Now .

“How would they handle a COVID-27 outbreak?” asks Paul Driessen. “How would they manufacture cars, airplanes, wind turbines, toilet paper, pharmaceuticals or much of anything else with intermittent energy? It hasn’t worked in Europe (see below), and it won’t work here.”
“A lot of US cities and states have announced that they intend to banish oil, natural gas and coal within 10, 20 or 30 years,” writes Driessen. “They claim this has worked in Europe, and they want to lead the way, be role models, in ushering in a clean, green, renewable American and world energy future.
“How exactly do they intend to do this? Have they thought this through at all? Do they have a clue about how many millions of wind turbines and billions of solar panels this would take? Have they paid any attention to how this Green New Deal scheme has actually worked out in Europe and other places it’s been tried?”
“The only way this energy and economic transformation will happen is through totalitarian government at the local, state and federal level.”
_____________
How exactly do they plan to replace fossil fuels?
They want to ban coal, oil and gas. Exactly how will they replace them? Who wins? Who loses?
Paul Driessen
Berkeley, CA, Takoma Park, MD and other cities; California, Connecticut, New York, Virginia and other states; Germany, England and other countries; the European Union – all plan to banish oil, natural gas and coal within 10, 20 or 30 years. A number of US states have joined Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives and proudly say We Are Still In … the Paris climate treaty, no matter what President Trump says or does.
Forget the headlines and models, and look at hurricane, tornado, sea level and other historic records. There is no crisis, no unprecedented warming or weather events, certainly nothing that proves humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate changes and weather events.
But for now, let’s just examine their zero-carbon plans. How exactly will they make this happen? Where do they plan to get the turbines, panels and batteries? the raw materials to manufacture them? How do they plan to function as modern societies with pricey, erratic energy and frequent power disruptions?
How would they – or America, if the entire USA goes Green New Deal – handle a COVID-27 outbreak? How would they manufacture cars, airplanes, wind turbines, toilet paper, pharmaceuticals or much of anything else with intermittent energy? It hasn’t worked in Europe (see below), and it won’t work here.
Moreover, it’s not just replacing today’s coal and gas power plant megawatts. It’s doubling today’s electricity generation, because Green New Dealers want to replace all fossil fuel use: gasoline and diesel cars, trucks and buses, home and water heating, factory power, hospital emergency power, and more.
It’s tripling current megawatt generation, because they don’t like nuclear or hydroelectric power either, and they’ll need far more electricity to charge enough batteries to ensure backup power for all the fossil and other power they want to eliminate. That will require a lot of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.
Where do they plan to put all of them? Some of those states and countries have lots of rural land, wildlife habitats and shallow waters off their coasts that they can turn into huge industrial energy zones. But what are those self-righteous cities going to do? Where within their city limits do they plan to put dozens of 650-foot tall turbines and tens of thousands of panels? Or do they plan to just impose those facilities on their rural neighbors? Or tap into regional power grids and use electricity that someone else is generating – with coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, and maybe wind or solar? How will they separate “good” and “bad” electrons?
All of these GND cities and states will have to deal with frustrated rural families who don’t want the ruined scenery, desecrated ridge lines, dead birds and bats, maddening light flicker and excruciating infrasound that towering turbines would bring. Don’t want millions of rural acres blanketed with solar panels. Don’t want hundreds of miles of new high voltage transmission lines crossing their backyards. Don’t want their lands seized via eminent domain, virtually at the point of a gun if they still resist.
They don’t want the 25-50-100% higher household electricity bills, the soaring price tags for products and services that go with soaring electricity costs for every business, farm, factory and hospital. They don’t want more good manufacturing jobs destroyed by skyrocketing energy prices – and sent overseas.
Do they have the foggiest notion?
Do Green New Deal politicians have the foggiest idea how many turbines, panels, batteries and miles of transmission lines they will need to replace all fossil fuels? How few years those energy systems last before they have to be replaced? Do they have any idea what they’re going to do with the defunct turbine blades and solar panels that can’t be recycled or burned? How many cubic miles of landfills they will need? Will communities want those landfills? Will urban pols just employ more eminent domain?
It would take hundreds of 850-foot-tall 12-MW offshore turbines to supply the green new world electricity demands of a major city – or thousands of 2- or 3-MW onshore turbines. Tens of millions of solar panels. Millions of acres of former crop, scenic and wildlife habitat land would be impacted. They’d need millions of half-ton 85-kWh Tesla battery packs as backup for a week of windless or sunless days.
Where do they intend to get the millions of tons of steel, copper, cobalt, lithium, aluminum, rare earths, carbon-fiberglass-plastic composites, limestone and other raw materials to build all those electricity generation and storage systems, and all the new transmission lines? Will they now support opening more US lands to mining? How do they plan to mine and process the materials without fossil fuels?
If the mining is not to take place here in United States, under our tough laws and regulations – then where exactly will it be done? In China and Russia? or maybe in Africa and South America, where many mines are operated by Chinese and Russian companies that don’t give a tinker’s damn about child labor, slave labor, workplace safety, air and water pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, mined land reclamation – or the soaring rates of lung, heart, skin and intestinal diseases, osteoporosis, cancers and other maladies.
All these squalid places and horrific stories are far away – out of sight, out of mind. Environmentalists love to say: Think globally; act locally. This would be a good time to start practicing that ethical code.
The more honest politicians promoting a GND future admit it would eliminate a lot of oil, gas, coal, petrochemical, manufacturing and other high-paying jobs. But, they claim, their (pseudo-) renewable energy world would create millions of new jobs. A look behind The Great Oz’s curtain is very revealing.
Coal-fired power plants generate 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity per mine and power plant worker; natural gas generates 3,812 MWh per oil and gas field and utility worker. That super high efficiency and resultant low-cost electricity sustain millions of jobs in manufacturing and countless other industries.
Killing millions of good jobs
In stark contrast, wind turbines produce a measly 836 MWh for every employee, while solar panels generated an abysmal 98 MWh per worker. Put another way, it takes 79 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as one coal worker or two natural gas workers. Not only will this expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent electricity kill millions of good American jobs; the GND wind and solar jobs will mostly be lower-wage positions installing, maintaining, repairing and replacing turbines and panels, and hauling huge dilapidated blades, panels, hulks and concrete foundations to monster landfills.
Quadrupling energy costs
Residential electricity prices are already outrageous in New York (17¢ a kilowatt-hour), California (19¢ per kWh), Connecticut (20¢) and Hawaii (31¢) – versus 9¢ a kWh in Arkansas, Georgia and Oklahoma. Going 50-100% wind and solar would send family rates skyrocketing to German levels: 37¢ per kWh.
At the 8¢ per kWh in 2019, Virginia’s Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital pays about $1.6 million annually for electricity (based on typical hospital costs per square foot). At California’s (15¢ per kWh), or Germany’s business rate (22¢), Inova would have to shell out an extra $1.4-2.8 million a year for electricity. That would mean employee layoffs, higher medical bills, reduced patient care, more deaths.
How is the vaunted transition to wind and solar actually working in Europe and Britain? In 2017, German families and businesses were pummeled by 172,000 localized blackouts. Last year, some 350,000 German families had their electricity cut off because they couldn’t pay their power bills. In Britain, millions of elderly people have to choose between heating and eating decent food; many spend their days in libraries to keep warm; and more than 3,000 die every year because they cannot heat their homes properly, making them more likely to succumb to respiratory, heart, flu or other diseases.
Across Europe, 11 million jobs are “at risk” because of an EU “green deal” that many say is suicidal. Meanwhile, China and India are still building coal and gas power plants, making products for the USA and Europe, creating jobs, building airports, and sending billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
GND politicians have dodged these issues for years – while steering billions of taxpayer dollars to the green activist groups, crony capitalists and industrialist rent seekers that help keep them in office.
Even worse, they and their media allies neatly dodge the most glaring reality. The only way this energy and economic transformation will happen is through totalitarian government at the local, state and federal level: liberal urban voters and politicians against the rest of America. Those are the seeds of resentment, anger, societal division, endless litigation, and violence. We need to head that grim future off at the pass.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.
The post How exactly do they plan to replace fossil fuels? appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/2UbptIP
March 16, 2020 at 05:33PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--Polar Ice Loss Accelerating- FACTCHECK

Polar Ice Loss Accelerating- FACTCHECK

Earth ’ s great ice sheets , Greenland and Antarctica , are now losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s thanks to warming conditions .
A comprehensive review of satellite data acquired at both poles is unequivocal in its assessment of accelerating trends , say scientists .
Between them , Greenland and Antarctica lost 6.4 trillion tonnes of ice in the period from 1992 to 2017 .
This was sufficient to push up global sea-levels by 17.8mm .
Of that combined 17.8mm contribution to sea-level rise , 10.6mm ( 60 % ) was due to Greenland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) was due to Antarctica .
The combined rate of ice loss for the pair was running at about 81 billion tonnes per year in the 1990s .
By the 2010s , it had climbed to 475 billion tonnes per year .
According to the IPCC , its mid-range simulations ( RCP4.5 ) suggested global sea-levels might rise by 53cm by 2100 .
But the Imbie team ’ s studies show that ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland are actually heading to much more pessimistic outcomes , and will likely add another 17cm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Danish Meteorological Institute ( DMI ) , melting of the Greenland ice cap contributed about 0.6mm/yr to global sea level rise between 2003 and 2017 ( Fig 1 ) .
This rise has been largely at a constant rate , except between 2010 and 2012 .
Figure 1 – Changes in the Greenland Ice Cap Mass Most of the ice loss is the result of receding glacier fronts , but the DMI confirmed in Nov 2018 that glaciers have more or less maintained their area since 2012 .
( 1 ) There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss since 2003 .
The claim that the Greenland icecap has been losing ice at a faster rate than in the 1990s is true , but it is also a red herring and has no bearing on future rates of loss .
In 2003 , scientists reported that Greenland had cooled significantly between 1958 and 2001 ( 2 ) .
Unsurprisingly during this period of cooling ice loss slowed markedly .
Since 2001 , temperatures have recovered to levels generally seen in the 1930s and 40s ( Fig 2 ) , with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise and fall in Greenland temperatures is linked to natural cycles , including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation , which runs on a 50 to 60 year pattern , meaning that a colder climate will likely return in the next decade or so .
Ice cores prove that Greenland was colder during the 19thC than any era since the end of the ice age .
( 4 ) .
It is therefore highly likely then that the Greenland icecap will continue to lose mass for the rest of this century at least .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extrapolate future trends from only the upward part of a cycle .
It is even worse when it is used to project accelerating trends .
Far from ice loss increasing in the Antarctic , scientists can not even agree whether the ice cap is even shrinking at all .
According to a recent NASA study , the ice sheet has actually been growing , with snowfall in East Antarctica exceeding ice loss in West Antarctica .
( 5 ) .
The NASA study shows that Antarctica gained 82 billion tons of ice per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course we have tide gauges to tell us what is happening with sea levels , and the picture is consistently clear .
Globally , sea levels have been rising steadily at a rate of about 2mm a year since the late 19thC , with a slow down between the 1960s and 90s .
And , as the IPCC ’ s latest Assessment Report pointed out , the recent rate of rise has been similar to that between 1920 and 1950 .
( 6 ) Sea levels provide no evidence that the poles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than in the first half of the 20thC .
They certainly do not support the theory that ice loss will significantly accelerate in the rest of the 21stC .
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood
Earth’s great ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, are now losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s thanks to warming conditions.
A comprehensive review of satellite data acquired at both poles is unequivocal in its assessment of accelerating trends, say scientists.
Between them, Greenland and Antarctica lost 6.4 trillion tonnes of ice in the period from 1992 to 2017.
This was sufficient to push up global sea-levels by 17.8mm.
Of that combined 17.8mm contribution to sea-level rise, 10.6mm (60 %) was due to Greenland ice losses and 7.2mm (40%) was due to Antarctica.
The combined rate of ice loss for the pair was running at about 81 billion tonnes per year in the 1990s. By the 2010s, it had climbed to 475 billion tonnes per year.
According to the IPCC, its mid-range simulations (RCP4.5) suggested global sea-levels might rise by 53cm by 2100. But the Imbie team’s studies show that ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland are actually heading to much more pessimistic outcomes, and will likely add another 17cm to those end-of-century forecasts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51846468`
FACTCHECK
GREENLAND
According to the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), melting of the Greenland ice cap contributed about 0.6mm/yr to global sea level rise between 2003 and 2017 (Fig 1).
This rise has been largely at a constant rate, except between 2010 and 2012.
Figure 1 – Changes in the Greenland Ice Cap Mass
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/
Most of the ice loss is the result of receding glacier fronts, but the DMI confirmed in Nov 2018 that glaciers have more or less maintained their area since 2012.(1)
There is therefore no evidence of accelerating ice loss since 2003.
The claim that the Greenland icecap has been losing ice at a faster rate than in the 1990s is true, but it is also a red herring and has no bearing on future rates of loss. In 2003, scientists reported that Greenland had cooled significantly between 1958 and 2001 (2).
Unsurprisingly during this period of cooling ice loss slowed markedly. Since 2001, temperatures have recovered to levels generally seen in the 1930s and 40s (Fig 2), with a resultant increase in ice loss.
The rise and fall in Greenland temperatures is linked to natural cycles, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which runs on a 50 to 60 year pattern, meaning that a colder climate will likely return in the next decade or so.
Ice cores prove that Greenland was colder during the 19thC than any era since the end of the ice age. (4). It is therefore highly likely then that the Greenland icecap will continue to lose mass for the rest of this century at least.
However, it is extremely poor science to extrapolate future trends from only the upward part of a cycle. It is even worse when it is used to project accelerating trends.
Figure 2 – SW Greenland Temperature Anomalies
DMI (3)
ANTARCTIC
Far from ice loss increasing in the Antarctic, scientists cannot even agree whether the ice cap is even shrinking at all.
According to a recent NASA study, the ice sheet has actually been growing, with snowfall in East Antarctica exceeding ice loss in West Antarctica. (5).
The NASA study shows that Antarctica gained 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
SEA LEVEL
Ultimately of course we have tide gauges to tell us what is happening with sea levels, and the picture is consistently clear.
Globally, sea levels have been rising steadily at a rate of about 2mm a year since the late 19thC, with a slow down between the 1960s and 90s. And, as the IPCC’s latest Assessment Report pointed out, the recent rate of rise has been similar to that between 1920 and 1950. (6)
It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. Tide gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate during the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.
IPCC AR5 (6)
Sea levels provide no evidence that the poles are losing ice at a faster rate than in the first half of the 20thC. They certainly do not support the theory that ice loss will significantly accelerate in the rest of the 21stC.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750?via%3Dihub
References
1) DMI – http://polarportal.dk/en/news/2018-season-report/
2) Hanna & Cappelen – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2840137.stm 3) DMI – https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/dmirep20-04.pdf 4) Steffensen – https://vimeo.com/14366077 5) NASA – https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses 6) IPCC AR5 – https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_observedchanges.php#node11
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3deDkqK
March 16, 2020 at 04:36PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--Greta preaches many of the first Earth Day’s failed predictions

More than three decades before Greta Thunberg was born — the Swedish environmental activist on climate change , diagnosed with Asperger ’ s — more than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22 , 1970 .
We now look back at quotes from Earth Day , Then and Now , ” by Ronald Bailey , Reason.com .
May 1 , 2000 of the spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions from Earth Day 1970 .
Considering the current doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictions are being reincarnated on today ’ s social and news media outlets .
Many of the same are being regurgitated today , but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago , yes 50 years ago , was that the “ the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 and that the temperature would be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000 ” .
The 1970 ’ s were a lousy decade .
and reflected the national doomsday mood following an unpopular war , endless political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970— okay , “ celebrated ” doesn ’ t capture the funereal tone of the event .
The events ( organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer ) predicted death , destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded .
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day , 1970 : • “ Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.
” — Harvard biologist George Wald • “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatens the survival of this nation , and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.
” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner • “ Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources , not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.
” — New York Times editorial • “ Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make .
The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich • “ Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [ By 1975 ] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions .
Other experts , more optimistic , think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
” — Paul Ehrlich • “ It is already too late to avoid mass starvation , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth Day • “ Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable : by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India ; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India , Pakistan , China and the Near East , Africa .
By the year 2000 , or conceivably sooner , South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… .
By the year 2000 , thirty years from now , the entire world , with the exception of Western Europe , North America , and Australia , will be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor Peter Gunter • “ In a decade , urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.
” — Life magazine • “ At the present rate of nitrogen buildup , it ’ s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.
” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt • “ Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — Paul Ehrlich • “ By the year 2000 , if present trends continue , we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won ’ t be any more crude oil .
You ’ ll drive up to the pump and say , ‘ Fill ‘ er up , buddy , ’ and he ’ ll say , ‘ I am very sorry , there isn ’ t any.
’ ” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt • “ [ One ] theory assumes that the earth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more dust , fumes , and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes .
Screened from the sun ’ s heat , the planet will cool , the water vapor will fall and freeze , and a new Ice Age will be born.
” — Newsweek magazine • “ The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years .
If present trends continue , the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 , but eleven degrees colder in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it would take to put us into an ice age.
” — Kenneth Watt History seems to repeat itself as there will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak .
I guess we ’ ll need to critique the 2020 doomsday predictions in the year 2050 and see if they were any better than those from the first Earth Day 50 years ago .
• Ronald SteinRon Stein is an engineer who , drawing upon 25 years of project management and business development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is an author , engineer , and energy expert who writes frequently on issues of energy and economics .

By Ronald Stein |March 13th, 2020|Environment
More than three decades before Greta Thunberg was born — the Swedish environmental activist on climate change, diagnosed with Asperger’s — more than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970.
We now look back at quotes from Earth Day, Then and Now,” by Ronald Bailey, Reason.com. May 1, 2000 of the spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions from Earth Day 1970.
Considering the current doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next decade, many of those unscientific 1970 predictions are being reincarnated on today’s social and news media outlets.
Many of the same are being regurgitated today, but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago, yes 50 years ago, was that the “the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 and that the temperature would be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000”.
The 1970’s were a lousy decade. Embarrassing movies and dreadful music reflected the national doomsday mood following an unpopular war, endless political scandals, and a faltering economy.
The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970— okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn ) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt
History seems to repeat itself as there will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak. I guess we’ll need to critique the 2020 doomsday predictions in the year 2050 and see if they were any better than those from the first Earth Day 50 years ago.
Author


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--UN Should Change Course On Climate

UN Should Change Course On Climate

The UN ’ s climate action machinery is on the verge to collapse , beginning this November in Glasgow , @ @ @ @ @ annual climate summit , called COP 26 , is most likely to end in complete @ @ @ @ @ COP 25 did last year in Madrid , Spain .
The failure of COP 25 @ @ @ @ @ , but Madrid was a minor COP , with little of substance on the table @ @ @ @ @ is hugely important .
When it fails , the UN has to rethink its entire @ @ @ @ @ One of the six principles stated in CLINTEL ’ s World Climate Declaration captures the @ @ @ @ @ says “ Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
” If it does not @ @ @ @ @ fail .
See https : //clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/ .
The scientific reality is that , as CLINTEL @ @ @ @ @ climate emergency .
The radicals insist that there…

PA Pundits – International
By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~
The UN’s climate action machinery is on the verge to collapse, beginning this November in Glasgow, Scotland. This time the annual climate summit, called COP 26, is most likely to end in complete disarray, even more than COP 25 did last year in Madrid, Spain.
The failure of COP 25 was widely noted with sadness, but Madrid was a minor COP, with little of substance on the table. In contrast COP 26 is hugely important. When it fails, the UN has to rethink its entire approach to climate action.
One of the six principles stated in CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration captures the situation very succinctly. It says “Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.” If it does not, such a policy must fail. See https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/.
The scientific reality is that, as CLINTEL emphasizes, there is no climate emergency. The radicals insist that there…


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-16--New research first to relate Antarctic sea ice melt to weather change in tropics

Diminishing sea ice translates to warmer ocean , more rain , and stronger trade winds Arctic and Antarctic ice loss will account for about one-fifth of the warming that is projected to happen in the tropics , according to a new study led by Mark England , a polar climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego , and Lorenzo Polvani , the Maurice Ewing and J. Lamar Worzel Professor of Geophysics at Columbia Engineering , England ’ s doctoral supervisor .
While there is a growing body of research showing how the loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the planet , this study is the first to also consider the long-range effect of Antarctic sea ice melt , the research team said .
“ We think this is a game-changer as it shows that ice loss at both poles is crucial to understanding future tropical climate change , ” England said of the study funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation .
“ Our study will open a hitherto unexplored direction and motivate the science community to study the large effects that Antarctic sea ice loss will have on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 2018 set records for minimum sea ice extent in Antarctica .
England and colleagues from Columbia University ’ s School of Engineering , Colorado State University , and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado used computer simulations to see what scenarios play out near the equator if that decline continues through the end of the century .
They found that Antarctic sea ice loss combines with Arctic sea ice loss to create unusual wind patterns in the Pacific Ocean that will suppress the upward movement of deep cold ocean water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean .
Warming there is a well-known hallmark of the El Niño climate pattern that often brings intense rains to North and South America and droughts to Australia and other western Pacific countries .
As that surface ocean water warms , it will also create more precipitation .
Overall , the researchers believe the ice loss at both poles will translate to a warming of the surface ocean of 0.5 ?
( 0.9 ? )
at the equator and add more than 0.3 millimeters ( 0.01 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same region .
This study joins several new analyses of the global impact of polar ice loss , including a January analysis by Scripps Oceanography physicist Charles Kennel suggesting that shrinking Arctic ice might change key characteristics of El Niño in the future .

Diminishing sea ice translates to warmer ocean, more rain, and stronger trade winds
University of California – San Diego
Arctic and Antarctic ice loss will account for about one-fifth of the warming that is projected to happen in the tropics, according to a new study led by Mark England, a polar climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego, and Lorenzo Polvani, the Maurice Ewing and J. Lamar Worzel Professor of Geophysics at Columbia Engineering, England’s doctoral supervisor.
While there is a growing body of research showing how the loss of Arctic sea ice affects other parts of the planet, this study is the first to also consider the long-range effect of Antarctic sea ice melt, the research team said.
“We think this is a game-changer as it shows that ice loss at both poles is crucial to understanding future tropical climate change,” England said of the study funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation. “Our study will open a hitherto unexplored direction and motivate the science community to study the large effects that Antarctic sea ice loss will have on the climate system.”
The years 2017 and 2018 set records for minimum sea ice extent in Antarctica. England and colleagues from Columbia University’s School of Engineering, Colorado State University, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado used computer simulations to see what scenarios play out near the equator if that decline continues through the end of the century. They found that Antarctic sea ice loss combines with Arctic sea ice loss to create unusual wind patterns in the Pacific Ocean that will suppress the upward movement of deep cold ocean water. This will trigger surface ocean warming, especially in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. Warming there is a well-known hallmark of the El Niño climate pattern that often brings intense rains to North and South America and droughts to Australia and other western Pacific countries.
As that surface ocean water warms, it will also create more precipitation. Overall, the researchers believe the ice loss at both poles will translate to a warming of the surface ocean of 0.5? (0.9?) at the equator and add more than 0.3 millimeters (0.01 inches) of rain per day in the same region.
This study joins several new analyses of the global impact of polar ice loss, including a January analysis by Scripps Oceanography physicist Charles Kennel suggesting that shrinking Arctic ice might change key characteristics of El Niño in the future.
###
From EurekAlert!