climatechangedispatch--2020-07-06--Antarctic Warming Claims Foiled By Actual Temp Measurements

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news At the top of Google News results from this week for “ climate change , ” an article in Treehugger is titled , “ The South Pole is Warming 3 Times Faster Than the Global Average.
” The New York Times , Yahoo News , and many other prominent media outlets published similar articles .
However , the claim is based on computer model estimates that have been contradicted by actual temperature measurements .
In short , the South Pole warming claim is another alarmist fraud promoting the nefarious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week are citing a study in Nature Climate Change , whose authors claim Antarctica has warmed three times faster than the global average over the past three decades .
The authors claim the asserted warming is likely partly due to human-caused global warming .
The article in Treehugger is a perfect example of the media ’ s fawning , fraudulent coverage of the report .
Using weather data run through computer model simulations , the researchers claim Antarctica warmed by 1.8 degrees Celsius between 1989 and 2018 , with large variations across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after 1957 , when measurements were first recorded at the South Pole , average temperatures remained steady or declined .
Near the end of the 20th century , temperatures began to rise , ” writes the author of the Treehugger piece .
This is a lie .
The actual data show just the opposite temperature trends occurred .
In Antarctica , average temperatures as recorded at the weather locations across the continent rose fairly steadily from the 1950s through the late 1990s and then began to fall off .
Indeed , recorded temperatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what the data show is for 20 of the 30 years the Nature study computer simulations show warming , actual temperature readings show either declining or steady temperatures across Antarctica .
Beyond the ground-based measurements , global satellite data recorded from 1979 to 2019 show no warming or cooling trend at all for the South Pole .
Interestingly , the explosive growth of permanent research stations on Antarctica might be a warming influence on the continent .
Of the more than 70 permanent research stations on Antarctica and 8 stations on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature data for the continent are recorded , only two were established before the 1940s .
This means the vast majority of permanent Antarctic stations were established from the 1940s through the 1980s , as recorded temperatures were rising .
During the same time period , outside of Antarctica , the rest of the globe experienced a modest cooling from the 1950s through the early 1980s , sparking speculation by some scientists , and warnings in front-page stories in the mainstream media , the earth could be entering an overdue ice age .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anomalous recorded surface temperature rise during this period could , at least in part , be a result of the heat island effect of the permanent human habitations being established where none previously existed .
In a Climate Realism post from April , James Taylor goes into some detail describing the cooling temperatures and ongoing ice and snow accumulation measured on Antarctica , even as the Nature Climate Change study claims , based on model simulations , Antarctica was warming three times faster than the globe .
Quite simply , the Nature study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual data , and thus the study ’ s claims are provably wrong .
The authors of the Nature Climate Change piece don ’ t stop there , however .
They go well beyond computer model temperature projections to pure speculation .
Although acknowledging in their report that natural factors including large-scale , multi-year and multi-decadal shifts in wind and ocean currents on and around Antarctica are the dominant factors driving climate there , they then go on to assert , without presenting any evidence , “ atmospheric internal variability can induce extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which has masked any anthropogenic warming signal there during the twenty-first century.
” ( emphasis mine ) As reported by Treehugger , Kyle Clem , postdoctoral research fellow in Climate Science at the University of Wellington and lead author of the study , repeated this conjecture in an interview with the Guardian , saying , “ The temperature variability at the South Pole is so extreme it currently masks human-caused effects.
” For Clem , et al , evidently , when you can ’ t find the anthropogenic climate change disaster signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is sound scientific practice to simply assert nature is temporarily hiding it !
The take away is , neither the ground-based nor satellite measurements of temperatures in Antarctica show it has warmed , much less warmed three times faster than the planet as a whole .
Even if Antarctica was warming , however , with the average temperatures ranging from -60 degrees C ( -76 F ) during winter to -20 C ( -4 F ) in summer , no meltdown would in the offing .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jul 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
At the top of Google News results from this week for “climate change,” an article in Treehugger is titled, “The South Pole is Warming 3 Times Faster Than the Global Average.”
The New York Times, Yahoo News, and many other prominent media outlets published similar articles.
However, the claim is based on computer model estimates that have been contradicted by actual temperature measurements.
In short, the South Pole warming claim is another alarmist fraud promoting the nefarious Climate Delusion.
The media articles this week are citing a study in Nature Climate Change, whose authors claim Antarctica has warmed three times faster than the global average over the past three decades.
The authors claim the asserted warming is likely partly due to human-caused global warming.
The article in Treehugger is a perfect example of the media’s fawning, fraudulent coverage of the report.
Using weather data run through computer model simulations, the researchers claim Antarctica warmed by 1.8 degrees Celsius between 1989 and 2018, with large variations across the continent.
“In the early decades after 1957, when measurements were first recorded at the South Pole, average temperatures remained steady or declined. Near the end of the 20th century, temperatures began to rise,” writes the author of the Treehugger piece.
This is a lie. The actual data show just the opposite temperature trends occurred.
In Antarctica, average temperatures as recorded at the weather locations across the continent rose fairly steadily from the 1950s through the late 1990s and then began to fall off.
Indeed, recorded temperatures have significantly cooled since 1998. So, what the data show is for 20 of the 30 years the Nature study computer simulations show warming, actual temperature readings show either declining or steady temperatures across Antarctica.
Beyond the ground-based measurements, global satellite data recorded from 1979 to 2019 show no warming or cooling trend at all for the South Pole.
Interestingly, the explosive growth of permanent research stations on Antarctica might be a warming influence on the continent.
Of the more than 70 permanent research stations on Antarctica and 8 stations on the surrounding islands, where most weather and temperature data for the continent are recorded, only two were established before the 1940s.
This means the vast majority of permanent Antarctic stations were established from the 1940s through the 1980s, as recorded temperatures were rising.
During the same time period, outside of Antarctica, the rest of the globe experienced a modest cooling from the 1950s through the early 1980s, sparking speculation by some scientists, and warnings in front-page stories in the mainstream media, the earth could be entering an overdue ice age.
One might wonder if Antarctica’s anomalous recorded surface temperature rise during this period could, at least in part, be a result of the heat island effect of the permanent human habitations being established where none previously existed.
In a Climate Realism post from April, James Taylor goes into some detail describing the cooling temperatures and ongoing ice and snow accumulation measured on Antarctica, even as the Nature Climate Change study claims, based on model simulations, Antarctica was warming three times faster than the globe.
Quite simply, the Nature study’s findings are undermined by the actual data, and thus the study’s claims are provably wrong.
The authors of the Nature Climate Change piece don’t stop there, however. They go well beyond computer model temperature projections to pure speculation.
Although acknowledging in their report that natural factors including large-scale, multi-year and multi-decadal shifts in wind and ocean currents on and around Antarctica are the dominant factors driving climate there, they then go on to assert, without presenting any evidence, “atmospheric internal variability can induce extreme regional climate change over the Antarctic interior, which has masked any anthropogenic warming signal there during the twenty-first century.” (emphasis mine)
As reported by Treehugger, Kyle Clem, postdoctoral research fellow in Climate Science at the University of Wellington and lead author of the study, repeated this conjecture in an interview with the Guardian, saying, “The temperature variability at the South Pole is so extreme it currently masks human-caused effects.”
For Clem, et al, evidently, when you can’t find the anthropogenic climate change disaster signal you believe should be evident, it is sound scientific practice to simply assert nature is temporarily hiding it!
The take away is, neither the ground-based nor satellite measurements of temperatures in Antarctica show it has warmed, much less warmed three times faster than the planet as a whole.
Even if Antarctica was warming, however, with the average temperatures ranging from -60 degrees C (-76 F) during winter to -20 C (-4 F) in summer, no meltdown would in the offing.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-06--Don’t Panic: Leading Scientists See Little Global Warming, Just ‘Natural Variability’

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news A commentary titled “ ‘ Just don ’ t panic – also about climate change ’ ” by Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt appearing at German site achgut.com tells us there ’ s no need for panic with respect to climate change , as leading scientists dial back earlier doomsday projections .
Vahrenholt claims a negative Atlantic oscillation is ahead of us and the expected second weak solar cycle in succession will reduce anthropogenic warming in the next 15-30 years .
He cites a recent publication by Judith Curry , who sees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2050 as the most likely scenario .
Vahrenholt and Curry are not alone when it comes to believing natural-variability-watered-down warming is in the works .
Also , IPCC heavyweight Jochem Marotzke from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg takes a similar stand in a publication in the Environmental Research Letters .
In the paper , Marotzke concludes that all locations examined show “ a cooling trend or lack of warming trend ” and that there is “ no warming due to natural cooling effects ” and that in calculations up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large part of the earth will not warm up because of internal variability.
” And recently The Max Planck Institute Director Marotzke said in an interview with Andreas Frey of the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung ( FAZ ) that there was no need to panic , thus clearly splitting from the doomsday scenarios put out by his alarmist colleagues Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf .
In the FAZ interview , Marotzke also said there was no need to worry that the port city of Hamburg would be flooded in 2100 : “ Hamburg will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear.
” Areas not going to be wiped out Marotzke then told the FAZ that the fears that children have today for the future are not absolutely well-founded , and that entire areas are not going to be wiped out , as often suggested by alarmists .
When asked why the French issued a press release warning of worse than expected warming , Marotzke said : “ We thought , my God , what are you doing ?
Because it is very unlikely that the true climate is as sensitive as shown in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FAZ why the French had put out such dramatic numbers , Marotzke said : “ I don ’ t know , ” adding that the climate models are highly complex .
“ Too many calculation steps overlap , and sometimes we ourselves are amazed at what we do not understand.
” Vahrenholt summarizes the growing doubt by scientists such as Curry and Marotzke over the use of alarmist models : Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Jul 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A commentary titled “‘Just don’t panic – also about climate change’” by Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt appearing at German site achgut.com tells us there’s no need for panic with respect to climate change, as leading scientists dial back earlier doomsday projections.
No warming until 2050
Vahrenholt claims a negative Atlantic oscillation is ahead of us and the expected second weak solar cycle in succession will reduce anthropogenic warming in the next 15-30 years.
He cites a recent publication by Judith Curry, who sees a pause in the temperature rise until 2050 as the most likely scenario.
Vahrenholt and Curry are not alone when it comes to believing natural-variability-watered-down warming is in the works.
Also, IPCC heavyweight Jochem Marotzke from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg takes a similar stand in a publication in the Environmental Research Letters.
In the paper, Marotzke concludes that all locations examined show “a cooling trend or lack of warming trend” and that there is “no warming due to natural cooling effects” and that in calculations up to 2049.
The researchers find “a large part of the earth will not warm up because of internal variability.”
Distancing from alarmists Schellnhuber, Rahmstorf
And recently The Max Planck Institute Director Marotzke said in an interview with Andreas Frey of the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung (FAZ) that there was no need to panic, thus clearly splitting from the doomsday scenarios put out by his alarmist colleagues Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf.
In the FAZ interview, Marotzke also said there was no need to worry that the port city of Hamburg would be flooded in 2100: “Hamburg will not be threatened, that is totally clear.”
Areas not going to be wiped out
Marotzke then told the FAZ that the fears that children have today for the future are not absolutely well-founded, and that entire areas are not going to be wiped out, as often suggested by alarmists.
Sensational French models
When asked why the French issued a press release warning of worse than expected warming, Marotzke said: “We thought, my God, what are you doing? Because it is very unlikely that the true climate is as sensitive as shown in the new models.”
When asked by the FAZ why the French had put out such dramatic numbers, Marotzke said: “I don’t know,” adding that the climate models are highly complex. “Too many calculation steps overlap, and sometimes we ourselves are amazed at what we do not understand.”
Speaking up against alarmist models
Vahrenholt summarizes the growing doubt by scientists such as Curry and Marotzke over the use of alarmist models:
One gets the impression someone is speaking out against the alarmist use of models. Perhaps Jochem Marotzke is aware that with the warming coming to an end in the next 30 years, model alarmists (Schellnhuber: “We only have 10 years left“) will have unpleasant questions to answer. When society realizes that the climate modelers have exaggerated in order to make a political difference, we will know who misled the politicians.”
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-06--Obama Judge Orders Shutdown Of Dakota Access Pipeline

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news A federal judge Monday ordered the shut down of the Dakota Access Pipeline while federal regulators conduct a review of the multi-billion dollar pipeline .
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and three other Native American tribes requested the shutdown , arguing that the pipeline harms the environment and tramples on tribal lands .
North Dakota officials believe shuttering the pipeline could damage the state ’ s economy , which is highly dependent on gas and oil production .
The pipeline has been shipping North Dakota oil to Illinois for the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pair of executive orders in 2017 advancing the construction of the pipeline , along with another oil project that former President Barack Obama scuttled in 2015 .
Trump asked the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline to resubmit its application for a cross-border permit bringing oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries .
Obama argued that approving the pipeline would tarnish the U.S. ’ s image as a global warming crusader .
He blocked the Dakota Access Pipeline in November 2016 shortly before leaving office for similar reasons .
U.S. District Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rock ’ s lawsuit , ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in March to complete a full review .
The pipeline ’ s future has been in limbo ever since , stuck between an activist-led lawsuit that threatens to disrupt the flow of oil and a presidential decree keeping the project online .
“ Given the seriousness of the Corps ’ … error , the impossibility of a simple fix , the fact that Dakota Access did assume much of its economic risk knowingly , and the potential harm each day the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conclude that the flow of oil must cease , ” Boasberg wrote in his opinion Monday .
The judge acknowledged that the move “ will cause significant disruption to DAPL , the North Dakota oil industry , and potentially other states.
” Boasberg is directing the Army Corps of Engineers to complete a thorough Environmental Impact Statement on the pipeline , which could take upward of 13 months to complete and is more time consuming than the Environmental Assessment the corp completed before the project was completed .
The Dakota Access Pipeline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country , representing roughly 40 % of North Dakota ’ s daily productive capacity before the pandemic resulted in an oil crunch and economic destruction , according to a Monday report from the Bismarck Tribune .
Supporters of the project lashed out at the judge Monday , with Grow America ’ s Infrastructure Now ( GAIN ) spokesman Craig Stevens hitting Boasberg ’ s decision to “ side with environmental activists to shut in our nation ’ s critical natural resources.
” “ While we are disappointed with the judge ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopeful that common sense will prevail and this decision will be stayed or overturned , ” Stevens wrote in a press statement addressing the move .
“ We remain confident the Corps ’ additional review will affirm its previous findings on DAPL .
”

Written by Chris White on Jul 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A federal judge Monday ordered the shut down of the Dakota Access Pipeline while federal regulators conduct a review of the multi-billion dollar pipeline.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and three other Native American tribes requested the shutdown, arguing that the pipeline harms the environment and tramples on tribal lands. North Dakota officials believe shuttering the pipeline could damage the state’s economy, which is highly dependent on gas and oil production.
The pipeline has been shipping North Dakota oil to Illinois for the past three years. President Donald Trump signed a pair of executive orders in 2017 advancing the construction of the pipeline, along with another oil project that former President Barack Obama scuttled in 2015.
Trump asked the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline to resubmit its application for a cross-border permit bringing oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries.
Obama argued that approving the pipeline would tarnish the U.S.’s image as a global warming crusader. He blocked the Dakota Access Pipeline in November 2016 shortly before leaving office for similar reasons.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who is overseeing Standing Rock’s lawsuit, ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in March to complete a full review. The pipeline’s future has been in limbo ever since, stuck between an activist-led lawsuit that threatens to disrupt the flow of oil and a presidential decree keeping the project online.
“Given the seriousness of the Corps’ … error, the impossibility of a simple fix, the fact that Dakota Access did assume much of its economic risk knowingly, and the potential harm each day the pipeline operates, the Court is forced to conclude that the flow of oil must cease,” Boasberg wrote in his opinion Monday.
The judge acknowledged that the move “will cause significant disruption to DAPL, the North Dakota oil industry, and potentially other states.”
Boasberg is directing the Army Corps of Engineers to complete a thorough Environmental Impact Statement on the pipeline, which could take upward of 13 months to complete and is more time consuming than the Environmental Assessment the corp completed before the project was completed.
The Dakota Access Pipeline carries more than half-a-million barrels of oil across the country, representing roughly 40% of North Dakota’s daily productive capacity before the pandemic resulted in an oil crunch and economic destruction, according to a Monday report from the Bismarck Tribune.
Supporters of the project lashed out at the judge Monday, with Grow America’s Infrastructure Now (GAIN) spokesman Craig Stevens hitting Boasberg’s decision to “side with environmental activists to shut in our nation’s critical natural resources.”
“While we are disappointed with the judge’s decision, the GAIN Coalition is hopeful that common sense will prevail and this decision will be stayed or overturned,” Stevens wrote in a press statement addressing the move. “We remain confident the Corps’ additional review will affirm its previous findings on DAPL.”
Read rest at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-06--Why Does Boris The ‘Builder’ Have A Problem With Coal?

Written by Dominic Lawson on .
Posted in Latest news The Chancellor , Rishi Sunak , says his priority is : ‘ Jobs , jobs , jobs.
’ For Boris Johnson , it is : ‘ Build , build , build.
’ Last week , the Prime Minister declared his commitment to end unwarranted delays in the decision-making process , so as to make sure the planning system delivers the infrastructure and employment we all want .
Yet the Conservative Government has been deliberately obstructing a project that would safeguard hundreds of jobs in one of the most depressed areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary of state now responsible for the continued prevarication is Robert Jenrick — which is particularly ironic given his speedy go-ahead for a housing project proposed by the Conservative party donor Richard Desmond , a development that Jenrick ’ s own department had advised him to reject .
But the project over which Jenrick has been demonstrating masterly inactivity is not a property development in increasingly trendy East London : it is in Northumberland and involves the development , not of fashionable flats for yuppies working in the City of London , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be less fashionable or trendy than that ?
This is the Highthorn scheme , put before Northumberland County Council in 2015 , and approved by both Conservative and Labour elected officials .
Their decision was later backed by the national Planning Inspector , who declared that ‘ the national benefits of the proposal would clearly outweigh the likely adverse impacts ’ .
But in 2018 , the then Housing and Communities Secretary , Sajid Javid ( in the job now occupied by Jenrick ) , rejected the national Planning Inspector ’ s report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Banks Mining , took the matter to the High Court .
The judge quashed the secretary of state ’ s objections ( which were based on ‘ the very considerable weight he gave to the adverse effects of the emissions of greenhouse gases ’ ) declaring them to be ‘ significantly inadequate ’ .
In a forensic demolition of the Government ’ s arguments , Mr. Justice Ouseley declared : ‘ The Planning Inspector thought the evidence and his reasoning merited the grant of permission … The secretary of state does not indicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusion he reached , or by what reasoning he arrived at it.
’ That was in November 2018 .
But Sajid Javid didn ’ t comply with the judgment .
Neither did his successor , James Brokenshire .
And nor has the latest incumbent , the increasingly beleaguered Robert Jenrick .
For a Government that declares its determination to speed up planning decisions , this is hypocrisy on an industrial scale .
Jenrick ’ s officials had promised that its response would finally be made in April of this year , but we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Covid-19 crisis for the continued delay , but this , of course , is a mere excuse .
There is nothing in the effects of the virus that has the slightest relevance to this case , and nor are there any new ‘ facts ’ to be discovered .
No , the reason behind the Government ’ s obstruction and ill-will is that it likes to portray itself as the ‘ world leader ’ in the ‘ battle against climate change ’ : and coal , of all forms of mass-energy production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions .
In particular , Downing Street has been obsessed with its role as host of COP26 ( the next meeting of the UN ’ s climate change intergovernmental conference ) which had been scheduled for November this year in Glasgow .
The pandemic has caused that to be postponed , but the Government continues to be fixated on its image on that stage , and the need ( as No 10 sees it ) to have some sort of ‘ brand leadership ’ in the drive to reduce CO2 emissions .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ con trick , at least in carbon accounting terms .
The Government ’ s ‘ net zero carbon ’ commitment makes no account of the emissions created elsewhere to supply the energy-intensive manufactured goods that we no longer produce .
As Dieter Helm , Oxford University ’ s Professor of Energy Policy , told the BBC last year : ‘ The story of the past 20 years is that … we have been de-industrializing , and we ’ ve been swapping home production for imports , so even though it looks to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been increasing global warming… There are no plans in the net-zero carbon target which address that.
’ Professor Helm ’ s point is that China , in particular , has a high proportion of coal in energy used for manufacture — much higher than we do — so our offshoring of production actually increases global emissions .
Indeed , China is now building almost 260 gigawatts of new coal-fired power generating capacity — in itself about the size of the entire existing U.S. coal-fired capacity .
Perhaps even more absurdly , blocking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not talking about men going down pits ) means that we will simply be importing more of the coal we still need for what ’ s left of our steel industry .
Coal remains an essential mineral in the production of steel , acting as a chemical reductant in blast furnaces which reach temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees centigrade : roughly , one tonne of coal is required to produce 1.25 tonnes of crude steel .
Tata Steel , our biggest remaining producer , has declared that coal from the Highthorn project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its requirements .
As it is , the coal we still need is being , to an ever-greater extent , imported .
Last year , 86 percent of our coal was brought in from overseas — compared with an import component of 46 percent as recently as 2016 .
The blocking of new domestic mines has led to 6.8 million tonnes of coal being imported in 2019 , of which over a third came from Russia .
So not only is the world ’ s CO2 not reduced , emissions are actually increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Russia , the U.S. , and even as far away as Australia .
And it means saving the jobs of miners in those countries , not our own .
In the case of Banks Mining ( a diverse energy business , operating 14 wind farms ) this is an entirely British owned company , set up by Harry Banks in 1976 .
Over the years he has run 115 surface mines in the North of England .
Yet Banks , who was awarded an OBE for services to industry , will next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s — last one .
It is especially infuriating to the newly-elected Tory MPs who in last December ’ s election seized seats from Labour ’ s former ‘ Red Wall ’ in the North-East .
They describe this battle as ‘ broke versus woke ’ — and broke the 250 people who currently work in Banks Mining will certainly be if the Government continues to block the Highthorn scheme ( which would be worth an estimated £100 million to the area ) .
One of Banks ’ miners , Graham Henderson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives our jobs to Russian miners , we would be livid about the betrayal .
‘ Most of the lads on site voted Conservative for the first time last year because they believed them when they said they would look after the North .
The ones we sent to Westminster haven ’ t forgotten those promises , but the others in Westminster don ’ t care about us .
‘ We need a Prime Minister with the guts to tell the privileged fools of Extinction Rebellion that importing coal creates more carbon dioxide.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ me : ‘ Northumberland is a long way from the Savoy Hotel , where Robert Jenrick had his nice dinner with Richard Desmond.
’ But this isn ’ t just a northern thing .
Last week , a national opinion poll by Kantar ( commissioned by Banks Mining ) showed that no fewer than 87 percent of Britons believed we should still produce steel , cement , and bricks in the UK ( all of which require coal in their manufacture ) .
And asked what they thought should be the Government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 percent ticked the box which said ‘ reducing CO2 emissions ’ .
I am sure the PM ’ s chief adviser , Dominic Cummings , understands this very well .
He is a Durham man — and Banks Mining is headquartered in County Durham .
So what ’ s it to be ?
Jobs , jobs , jobs ?
Or dole , dole , dole ?
Build , build , build ?
Or block , block , block ?
Is Boris Johnson on the side of the broke or the woke ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister .

Written by Dominic Lawson on Jul 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, says his priority is: ‘Jobs, jobs, jobs.’ For Boris Johnson, it is: ‘Build, build, build.’
Last week, the Prime Minister declared his commitment to end unwarranted delays in the decision-making process, so as to make sure the planning system delivers the infrastructure and employment we all want.
Yet the Conservative Government has been deliberately obstructing a project that would safeguard hundreds of jobs in one of the most depressed areas of the North of England.
The secretary of state now responsible for the continued prevarication is Robert Jenrick — which is particularly ironic given his speedy go-ahead for a housing project proposed by the Conservative party donor Richard Desmond, a development that Jenrick’s own department had advised him to reject.
But the project over which Jenrick has been demonstrating masterly inactivity is not a property development in increasingly trendy East London: it is in Northumberland and involves the development, not of fashionable flats for yuppies working in the City of London, but a coal mine.
And what could be less fashionable or trendy than that?
Quashed
This is the Highthorn scheme, put before Northumberland County Council in 2015, and approved by both Conservative and Labour elected officials.
Their decision was later backed by the national Planning Inspector, who declared that ‘the national benefits of the proposal would clearly outweigh the likely adverse impacts’.
But in 2018, the then Housing and Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid (in the job now occupied by Jenrick), rejected the national Planning Inspector’s report.
The company behind the project, Banks Mining, took the matter to the High Court. The judge quashed the secretary of state’s objections (which were based on ‘the very considerable weight he gave to the adverse effects of the emissions of greenhouse gases’) declaring them to be ‘significantly inadequate’.
In a forensic demolition of the Government’s arguments, Mr. Justice Ouseley declared: ‘The Planning Inspector thought the evidence and his reasoning merited the grant of permission … The secretary of state does not indicate … what evidence he had for any conclusion he reached, or by what reasoning he arrived at it.’
That was in November 2018. But Sajid Javid didn’t comply with the judgment. Neither did his successor, James Brokenshire.
And nor has the latest incumbent, the increasingly beleaguered Robert Jenrick. For a Government that declares its determination to speed up planning decisions, this is hypocrisy on an industrial scale.
Jenrick’s officials had promised that its response would finally be made in April of this year, but we are now in July.
They blame the Covid-19 crisis for the continued delay, but this, of course, is a mere excuse. There is nothing in the effects of the virus that has the slightest relevance to this case, and nor are there any new ‘facts’ to be discovered.
No, the reason behind the Government’s obstruction and ill-will is that it likes to portray itself as the ‘world leader’ in the ‘battle against climate change’: and coal, of all forms of mass-energy production, produces the greatest amount of CO2 emissions.
In particular, Downing Street has been obsessed with its role as host of COP26 (the next meeting of the UN’s climate change intergovernmental conference) which had been scheduled for November this year in Glasgow.
The pandemic has caused that to be postponed, but the Government continues to be fixated on its image on that stage, and the need (as No 10 sees it) to have some sort of ‘brand leadership’ in the drive to reduce CO2 emissions.
But this whole business is an elaborate British con trick, at least in carbon accounting terms.
The Government’s ‘net zero carbon’ commitment makes no account of the emissions created elsewhere to supply the energy-intensive manufactured goods that we no longer produce.
As Dieter Helm, Oxford University’s Professor of Energy Policy, told the BBC last year: ‘The story of the past 20 years is that … we have been de-industrializing, and we’ve been swapping home production for imports, so even though it looks to the contrary, [our policies] have been increasing global warming… There are no plans in the net-zero carbon target which address that.’
Essential
Professor Helm’s point is that China, in particular, has a high proportion of coal in energy used for manufacture — much higher than we do — so our offshoring of production actually increases global emissions.
Indeed, China is now building almost 260 gigawatts of new coal-fired power generating capacity — in itself about the size of the entire existing U.S. coal-fired capacity.
Perhaps even more absurdly, blocking the Northumberland open-cast mining project (we are not talking about men going down pits) means that we will simply be importing more of the coal we still need for what’s left of our steel industry.
Coal remains an essential mineral in the production of steel, acting as a chemical reductant in blast furnaces which reach temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees centigrade: roughly, one tonne of coal is required to produce 1.25 tonnes of crude steel.
Tata Steel, our biggest remaining producer, has declared that coal from the Highthorn project would be ‘ideally suited’ to its requirements.
As it is, the coal we still need is being, to an ever-greater extent, imported.
Last year, 86 percent of our coal was brought in from overseas — compared with an import component of 46 percent as recently as 2016. The blocking of new domestic mines has led to 6.8 million tonnes of coal being imported in 2019, of which over a third came from Russia.
So not only is the world’s CO2 not reduced, emissions are actually increased because of those generated by transporting coal from Russia, the U.S., and even as far away as Australia. And it means saving the jobs of miners in those countries, not our own.
In the case of Banks Mining (a diverse energy business, operating 14 wind farms) this is an entirely British owned company, set up by Harry Banks in 1976. Over the years he has run 115 surface mines in the North of England.
Yet Banks, who was awarded an OBE for services to industry, will next month be closing his — and England’s — last one.
Livid
It is especially infuriating to the newly-elected Tory MPs who in last December’s election seized seats from Labour’s former ‘Red Wall’ in the North-East.
They describe this battle as ‘broke versus woke’ — and broke the 250 people who currently work in Banks Mining will certainly be if the Government continues to block the Highthorn scheme (which would be worth an estimated £100 million to the area).
One of Banks’ miners, Graham Henderson, says: ‘If Robert Jenrick gives our jobs to Russian miners, we would be livid about the betrayal.
‘Most of the lads on site voted Conservative for the first time last year because they believed them when they said they would look after the North. The ones we sent to Westminster haven’t forgotten those promises, but the others in Westminster don’t care about us.
‘We need a Prime Minister with the guts to tell the privileged fools of Extinction Rebellion that importing coal creates more carbon dioxide.’
Another working for the company told me: ‘Northumberland is a long way from the Savoy Hotel, where Robert Jenrick had his nice dinner with Richard Desmond.’
But this isn’t just a northern thing. Last week, a national opinion poll by Kantar (commissioned by Banks Mining) showed that no fewer than 87 percent of Britons believed we should still produce steel, cement, and bricks in the UK (all of which require coal in their manufacture).
And asked what they thought should be the Government’s ‘highest priority’, only 6 percent ticked the box which said ‘reducing CO2 emissions’.
I am sure the PM’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, understands this very well. He is a Durham man — and Banks Mining is headquartered in County Durham.
So what’s it to be? Jobs, jobs, jobs? Or dole, dole, dole? Build, build, build? Or block, block, block?
Is Boris Johnson on the side of the broke or the woke? It’s time to choose, Prime Minister.
Read more at Daily Mail
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-06--The Next Culture War Will Be Over Climate Change

Written by Ross Clark on .
Posted in Latest news It is steadily becoming clear where the woke brigade will go once the current moral panic over racism has run its course ( which can ’ t be long , following the news that London estate agents have stopped using the term ‘ master bedroom ’ to avoid its connotations with slavery ) .
A week ago Andrew Willshire wrote here of how the activist group “ Hope Not Hate ” has now decided that climate change ‘ denialism ’ is now a hate crime .
Now comes another sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woke battleground .
Earlier this week , an environmental campaigner , Michael Shellenberger wrote a mea culpa on the website of Forbes.com .
‘ On behalf of environmentalists everywhere I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we have created over the past 30 years , ’ it began .
‘ Climate change is happening .
It ’ s just not the end of the world .
It ’ s not even our most serious environmental problem.
’ Shellenberger , who has been campaigning against the destruction of the rainforest since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given up his campaign .
On the contrary , that is the very reason he has changed his mind .
Previously , he worked as an advocate for renewable energy – persuading the Obama administration to invest $ 90bn ( £72bn ) into renewables , he says .
But he has now changed his mind .
He has calculated that at present , 0.5 percent of the land on Earth is used for the production of energy .
If the world switched to 100 percent renewables , however , we would have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth for wind farms , solar farms , growing biofuels , or forest plantations to feed wood-burning power stations , and so on .
The devastation this would cause has led him to the conclusion that if we are going to reduce carbon emissions the only practical way is via nuclear power .
Now you may or may not agree with that conclusion .
Personally , I have serious misgivings about using nuclear fission to provide the world ’ s energy needs , given the economic devastation that another Chernobyl or Fukushima would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fusion , if we could get it to work on a commercial scale , would be a different story – although everyone has been promising that for the past half-century , and there is a limit to how many billions you can throw at technology in the hope of a breakthrough .
Anyway , that is by the by .
What is surely true is that the world ’ s future energy needs , and the extent of the damage wrought on the climate by man-made carbon emissions , are areas of legitimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shellenberger , you have every right to do so .
But that is not , of course , how woke politics functions .
The aim now is not to engage with political opponents but to attempt to put them beyond the pale , to try to delegitimize their opinions by making out that they belong on some far-right fringe from which the general public needs to be protected .
‘ I know that the above facts will sound like “ climate denialism ” to many people , ’ Shellenberger wrote prophetically in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece has now been taken down by Forbes .
A US journalist who tried to find out why was issued only with the following statement : ‘ Forbes requires its contributors to adhere to strict editorial guidelines .
This story did not follow those guidelines , and was removed.
’ It is not hard to decode : a bunch of climate alarmists decided that Shellenberger is inconvenient to their cause and have tried to cancel him by complaining to the website – and the website caved in .
Fortunately , Shellenberger has reposted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read it here – and judge for yourself what ‘ editorial guidelines ’ Forbes judged it to breach ( after initially passing it for publication ) .
The attempt to classify climate change ‘ denialism ’ as a hate crime has been coming for quite a while .
The very use of the word ‘ denial ’ is an attempt to put anyone skeptical of climate alarmism in the same pigeonhole as holocaust deniers .
Incidentally , I recently wrote a novel , The Denial , about a meteorologist who falls foul of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarmist predictions .
I intended it as a satire set in the near future , but by the time it is published in September , it looks as if it may well have become the present .

Written by Ross Clark on Jul 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It is steadily becoming clear where the woke brigade will go once the current moral panic over racism has run its course (which can’t be long, following the news that London estate agents have stopped using the term ‘master bedroom’ to avoid its connotations with slavery).
A week ago Andrew Willshire wrote here of how the activist group “Hope Not Hate” has now decided that climate change ‘denialism’ is now a hate crime.
Now comes another sign that climate change is becoming the next woke battleground. Earlier this week, an environmental campaigner, Michael Shellenberger wrote a mea culpa on the website of Forbes.com.
‘On behalf of environmentalists everywhere I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we have created over the past 30 years,’ it began. ‘Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.’
Shellenberger, who has been campaigning against the destruction of the rainforest since the age of 16, has not given up his campaign. On the contrary, that is the very reason he has changed his mind.
Previously, he worked as an advocate for renewable energy – persuading the Obama administration to invest $90bn (£72bn) into renewables, he says. But he has now changed his mind.
He has calculated that at present, 0.5 percent of the land on Earth is used for the production of energy.
If the world switched to 100 percent renewables, however, we would have to use 50 percent of all land on Earth for wind farms, solar farms, growing biofuels, or forest plantations to feed wood-burning power stations, and so on.
The devastation this would cause has led him to the conclusion that if we are going to reduce carbon emissions the only practical way is via nuclear power.
Now you may or may not agree with that conclusion. Personally, I have serious misgivings about using nuclear fission to provide the world’s energy needs, given the economic devastation that another Chernobyl or Fukushima would bring to a densely-populated country.
Nuclear fusion, if we could get it to work on a commercial scale, would be a different story – although everyone has been promising that for the past half-century, and there is a limit to how many billions you can throw at technology in the hope of a breakthrough.
Anyway, that is by the by. What is surely true is that the world’s future energy needs, and the extent of the damage wrought on the climate by man-made carbon emissions, are areas of legitimate debate.
If you do disagree with Shellenberger, you have every right to do so. But that is not, of course, how woke politics functions.
The aim now is not to engage with political opponents but to attempt to put them beyond the pale, to try to delegitimize their opinions by making out that they belong on some far-right fringe from which the general public needs to be protected.
‘I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people,’ Shellenberger wrote prophetically in his Forbes piece. Not half. His piece has now been taken down by Forbes.
A US journalist who tried to find out why was issued only with the following statement: ‘Forbes requires its contributors to adhere to strict editorial guidelines. This story did not follow those guidelines, and was removed.’
It is not hard to decode: a bunch of climate alarmists decided that Shellenberger is inconvenient to their cause and have tried to cancel him by complaining to the website – and the website caved in.
Fortunately, Shellenberger has reposted his piece, so you can still read it here – and judge for yourself what ‘editorial guidelines’ Forbes judged it to breach (after initially passing it for publication).
The attempt to classify climate change ‘denialism’ as a hate crime has been coming for quite a while. The very use of the word ‘denial’ is an attempt to put anyone skeptical of climate alarmism in the same pigeonhole as holocaust deniers.
Incidentally, I recently wrote a novel, The Denial, about a meteorologist who falls foul of climate activists because he values observation over alarmist predictions.
I intended it as a satire set in the near future, but by the time it is published in September, it looks as if it may well have become the present.
Read more at Spectator
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-06--Hot Summer Mess: New Climate Models Exaggerate Midwest Warming By 6X

Written by Roy W. Spencer , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news For the last 10 years , I have consulted for grain growing interests , providing information about past and potential future trends in growing season weather that might impact crop yields .
Their primary interest is the U.S. corn belt , particularly the 12 Midwest states ( Iowa , Illinois , Indiana , Ohio , Kansas , Nebraska , Missouri , Oklahoma , the Dakotas , Minnesota , and Michigan ) which produce most of the U.S. corn and soybean crop .
Contrary to popular perception , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer warming .
For precipitation , the slight drying predicted by climate models in response to human greenhouse gas emissions has not occurred ; if anything , precipitation has increased .
Corn yield trends continue on a technologically-driven upward trajectory , totally obscuring any potential negative impact of “ climate change.
” What Period of Time Should We Examine to Test Global Warming Claims ?
Based on the observations , “ global warming ” did not really begin until the late 1970s .
Prior to that time , anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and natural climate variability dominated the observational record ( and some say it still does ) .
Furthermore , uncertainties regarding the cooling effects of sulfate aerosol pollution make any model predictions before the 1970-80s suspect since modelers simply adjusted the aerosol cooling effect in their models to match the temperature observations , which showed little if any warming before that time which could be reasonably attributed to greenhouse gas emissions .
This is why I am emphasizing the last 50 years ( 1970-2019 ) .
This is the period where we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and as greenhouse-gas emissions continue to increase , it is the period of most interest to help determine just how much faith we should put in model predictions for changes in national energy policies .
In other words , quantitative testing of the greenhouse warming theory should be during a period when the signal of that warming is expected to be the greatest .
Now that the new CMIP6 climate model experiment data are becoming available , we can begin to get some idea of how those models are shaping up against observations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictions .
The following analysis includes the available model output at the KNMI Climate Explorer website .
The temperature observations come from the statewide data at NOAA ’ s Climate at a Glance website .
For the Midwest U.S. in the summer ( June-July-August ) we see that there has been almost no statistically significant warming in the last 50 years , whereas the CMIP6 models appear to be producing even more warming than the CMIP5 models did .
The observed 50-year trend is only 0.086 C/decade ( barely significant at the 1-sigma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model trend is 4X as large at 0.343 C/decade , and the CMIP6 trend is 5.7X as large at 0.495 C/decade .
While the CMIP6 trend will change somewhat as more models are added , it is consistent with the report that the CMIP6 models are producing more average warming than their CMIP5 predecessors .
I am showing the average of the available models rather than individual models because it is the average of the models which guide the UN IPCC reports and thus energy policy .
It is disingenuous for some to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree with the observations , ” as if that is some sort of vindication of all the models .
It is not .
If there are one or two models that agree the best with observations , why isn ’ t the IPCC just using those to write its reports ?
Hmmm ?
What I find particularly troubling is that climate modelers are increasingly deaf to what observations tell us .
How can the CMIP5 models ( let alone the newer CMIP6 models ) be used to guide U.S. energy policy when there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ models and the observations ?
I realize this is just one season ( summer ) in one region ( the U.S. Midwest ) , but it is immensely important .
The U.S. is the world leader in the production of corn ( which is used for feed , food , and fuel ) and behind only Brazil in soybean production .
Blatantly false claims ( e.g .
here ) of an observed change in the Midwest climate have fed the popular opinion that U.S. crops are already feeling the negative effects of human-caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is just one example of many that the news media have been complicit in the destruction of the rational climate debate , which is now extending to outright censoring of alternative climate views on not only social media but also in mainstream news sources like Forbes that disappeared environmentalist Michael Shellenberger ’ s op-ed in which he confessed he no longer believes in a “ climate crisis.
” Corn and sun image by SplitShire from Pixabay Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on global warming , Climate Confusion ( Encounter Books ) , is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com .

Written by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. on Jul 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
For the last 10 years, I have consulted for grain growing interests, providing information about past and potential future trends in growing season weather that might impact crop yields.
Their primary interest is the U.S. corn belt, particularly the 12 Midwest states (Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Michigan) which produce most of the U.S. corn and soybean crop.
Contrary to popular perception, the U.S. Midwest has seen little long-term summer warming. For precipitation, the slight drying predicted by climate models in response to human greenhouse gas emissions has not occurred; if anything, precipitation has increased.
Corn yield trends continue on a technologically-driven upward trajectory, totally obscuring any potential negative impact of “climate change.”
What Period of Time Should We Examine to Test Global Warming Claims?
Based on the observations, “global warming” did not really begin until the late 1970s. Prior to that time, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions had not yet increased by much at all, and natural climate variability dominated the observational record (and some say it still does).
Furthermore, uncertainties regarding the cooling effects of sulfate aerosol pollution make any model predictions before the 1970-80s suspect since modelers simply adjusted the aerosol cooling effect in their models to match the temperature observations, which showed little if any warming before that time which could be reasonably attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.
This is why I am emphasizing the last 50 years (1970-2019). This is the period where we should have seen the strongest warming, and as greenhouse-gas emissions continue to increase, it is the period of most interest to help determine just how much faith we should put in model predictions for changes in national energy policies.
In other words, quantitative testing of the greenhouse warming theory should be during a period when the signal of that warming is expected to be the greatest.
50 Years of Predictions vs. Observations
Now that the new CMIP6 climate model experiment data are becoming available, we can begin to get some idea of how those models are shaping up against observations and the previous (CMIP5) model predictions.
The following analysis includes the available model output at the KNMI Climate Explorer website. The temperature observations come from the statewide data at NOAA’s Climate at a Glance website.
For the Midwest U.S. in the summer (June-July-August) we see that there has been almost no statistically significant warming in the last 50 years, whereas the CMIP6 models appear to be producing even more warming than the CMIP5 models did.
The observed 50-year trend is only 0.086 C/decade (barely significant at the 1-sigma level), while the CMIP5 average model trend is 4X as large at 0.343 C/decade, and the CMIP6 trend is 5.7X as large at 0.495 C/decade.
While the CMIP6 trend will change somewhat as more models are added, it is consistent with the report that the CMIP6 models are producing more average warming than their CMIP5 predecessors.
I am showing the average of the available models rather than individual models because it is the average of the models which guide the UN IPCC reports and thus energy policy.
It is disingenuous for some to claim that “not all IPCC models disagree with the observations,” as if that is some sort of vindication of all the models. It is not.
If there are one or two models that agree the best with observations, why isn’t the IPCC just using those to write its reports? Hmmm?
What I find particularly troubling is that climate modelers are increasingly deaf to what observations tell us. How can the CMIP5 models (let alone the newer CMIP6 models) be used to guide U.S. energy policy when there is such a huge discrepancy between the models and the observations?
I realize this is just one season (summer) in one region (the U.S. Midwest), but it is immensely important. The U.S. is the world leader in the production of corn (which is used for feed, food, and fuel) and behind only Brazil in soybean production.
Blatantly false claims (e.g. here) of an observed change in the Midwest climate have fed the popular opinion that U.S. crops are already feeling the negative effects of human-caused climate change, despite the facts.
This is just one example of many that the news media have been complicit in the destruction of the rational climate debate, which is now extending to outright censoring of alternative climate views on not only social media but also in mainstream news sources like Forbes that disappeared environmentalist Michael Shellenberger’s op-ed in which he confessed he no longer believes in a “climate crisis.”
Corn and sun image by SplitShire from Pixabay
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.
Read more at Dr. Roy’s Blog
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-06--Pesky Facts Disprove Ridiculous New Jersey Climate Report

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP ) unveiled an alarming climate report last week that is so outrageous that climate realists should print copies and use it to win over alarmists .
The media , nevertheless , are trumpeting without scrutiny the report ’ s “ findings , ” and even adding to the alarm .
But don ’ t panic , New Jersey will be just fine .
Let ’ s debunk some of the report ’ s claims .
Among the top Google News search @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an article by The Press of Atlantic City .
The article , titled “ State climate change report offers sobering predictions for South Jersey , ” provides a useful summary of the DEP report ’ s claims .
According to the opening paragraph of the Press article , “ Imagine flooding in Atlantic City almost every day of the year , blueberries and cranberries [ are ] no longer grown in the state , and birds like the American goldfinch , the state bird , at risk because of changes in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blueberries .
The DEP report , which was required under an executive order signed by New Jersey ’ s Democratic governor , and the report ’ s fawning , uncritical media coverage claim that New Jersey will soon become too hot to grow blueberries .
Nevertheless , three of the top 10 states for blueberry production are Florida , Georgia , and Mississippi .
Indeed , Florida hosts a large number of blueberry festivals every year during April , May , and June to celebrate the local blueberry harvest .
Yet , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage claim New Jersey will soon become hotter than present-day Tampa , Florida , which hosts many of the local blueberry festivals .
To show how preposterous the blueberry claim is , Atlantic City , New Jersey has an average high temperature of 64 degrees and an average low of 45 degrees .
Tampa , Florida , where blueberries grow quite well , is 19 degrees hotter , with an average high temperature of 82 degrees and an average low of 65 degrees .
The claim that New Jersey will soon become so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be grown in the state ” is clearly a preposterous lie .
Let ’ s move on to New Jersey ’ s state bird , the American goldfinch .
As shown here , the American goldfinch lives year-round as far south as Alabama , Georgia , Mississippi , and Louisiana .
It is also a common winter resident in Florida .
Yet , New Jersey bureaucrats and their media sock-puppets claim it will soon become too hot in New Jersey for the goldfinch .
Even the most alarmist of alarmists do not claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Florida .
The claim that global warming will soon drive goldfinches from New Jersey is also clearly a preposterous lie .
Finally , let ’ s examine sea level and Atlantic City flooding .
Atlantic City sits at an elevation of 7 feet .
During the past 100-plus years , sea level at Atlantic City has been rising at a steady pace of approximately 4.12 millimeters per year , or 1.6 inches per decade .
There has been no recent increase in the pace of sea-level rise .
Atlantic City has dealt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite well utilizing 20th-century technologies .
Sand dunes and sea walls protect Atlantic City and cities all over the world from sea level rise and floods .
Despite this , New Jersey bureaucrats claim that , even with the advantages of 21st-century technologies , a city that sits at 7 feet above sea level will see flooding “ almost every day of the year ” if it experiences just a few more inches of sea-level rise ?
That is simply ridiculous .
So , the media tee up three key “ findings ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while objective science shows each finding is an alarmist lie .
Time to cancel the New Jersey climate crisis .

Written by James Taylor on Jul 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) unveiled an alarming climate report last week that is so outrageous that climate realists should print copies and use it to win over alarmists.
The media, nevertheless, are trumpeting without scrutiny the report’s “findings,” and even adding to the alarm. But don’t panic, New Jersey will be just fine. Let’s debunk some of the report’s claims.
Among the top Google News search results today for “climate change” is an article by The Press of Atlantic City.
The article, titled “State climate change report offers sobering predictions for South Jersey,” provides a useful summary of the DEP report’s claims.
According to the opening paragraph of the Press article, “Imagine flooding in Atlantic City almost every day of the year, blueberries and cranberries [are] no longer grown in the state, and birds like the American goldfinch, the state bird, at risk because of changes in the climate.”
Let’s start with blueberries. The DEP report, which was required under an executive order signed by New Jersey’s Democratic governor, and the report’s fawning, uncritical media coverage claim that New Jersey will soon become too hot to grow blueberries.
Nevertheless, three of the top 10 states for blueberry production are Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi. Indeed, Florida hosts a large number of blueberry festivals every year during April, May, and June to celebrate the local blueberry harvest.
Yet, the alarmist DEP report and the fawning media coverage claim New Jersey will soon become hotter than present-day Tampa, Florida, which hosts many of the local blueberry festivals.
To show how preposterous the blueberry claim is, Atlantic City, New Jersey has an average high temperature of 64 degrees and an average low of 45 degrees.
Tampa, Florida, where blueberries grow quite well, is 19 degrees hotter, with an average high temperature of 82 degrees and an average low of 65 degrees.
The claim that New Jersey will soon become so hot that blueberries “will no longer be grown in the state” is clearly a preposterous lie.
Let’s move on to New Jersey’s state bird, the American goldfinch.
As shown here, the American goldfinch lives year-round as far south as Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. It is also a common winter resident in Florida.
Yet, New Jersey bureaucrats and their media sock-puppets claim it will soon become too hot in New Jersey for the goldfinch.
Even the most alarmist of alarmists do not claim New Jersey will become hotter than Louisiana and Florida. The claim that global warming will soon drive goldfinches from New Jersey is also clearly a preposterous lie.
Finally, let’s examine sea level and Atlantic City flooding. Atlantic City sits at an elevation of 7 feet.
During the past 100-plus years, sea level at Atlantic City has been rising at a steady pace of approximately 4.12 millimeters per year, or 1.6 inches per decade.
There has been no recent increase in the pace of sea-level rise. Atlantic City has dealt with the slow, steady sea-level rise quite well utilizing 20th-century technologies.
Sand dunes and sea walls protect Atlantic City and cities all over the world from sea level rise and floods.
Despite this, New Jersey bureaucrats claim that, even with the advantages of 21st-century technologies, a city that sits at 7 feet above sea level will see flooding “almost every day of the year” if it experiences just a few more inches of sea-level rise? That is simply ridiculous.
So, the media tee up three key “findings” in the New Jersey DEP climate report, while objective science shows each finding is an alarmist lie.
Time to cancel the New Jersey climate crisis.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-06--How Climate Trickery Infiltrated The American Geophysical Union

Written by Donna Laframboise on .
Posted in Latest news I ’ ve been writing about a far-fetched climate fairy tale that was repackaged and repositioned – with the result that it now gets taken seriously by supposedly serious scientists ( see here and here ) .
How did this happen ?
First , billionaire climate activists hired consultants to produce a brand new climate analysis .
Because , you know , the world doesn ’ t have enough climate research , what with governments spending billions on it every year .
This custom research was conducted by a team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still working on his doctorate .
Two others were doctoral students at the time .
The lead scientist had earned his geobiology Ph.D. seven years earlier .
The lead economist had earned his degree in sustainable development a mere three years earlier .
This team produced a 2014 report titled Risky Business : The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States .
It features a graphic that wildly misrepresents the scientific literature .
Six months after that report appeared , fully 11 presentations based on it were delivered at the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists – the American Geophysical Union ’ s December 2014 conference .
The first presenter was Kate Gordon .
But she isn ’ t an earth scientist .
She ’ s a lawyer .
And a trained community activist .
And the Risky Business Project ’ s founding director .
Who ’ s considered “ a leader in the national ‘ green jobs ’ movement.
” At the time she delivered her AGU presentation , she was employed by The Next Generation , which describes itself as a “ political consulting and issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental candidates and causes.
” So a professional activist was invited to give a talk to earth scientists .
That talk , according to its abstract , told people the Risky Business Project had conducted “ groundbreaking new analysis.
” After employing “ methodological innovations , ” she said , it had arrived at “ novel insights.
” The thing about lawyers is they can make even a dumpster of stinky trash sound sublime .
Presentations # 2 , # 8 , # 9 and # 10 were delivered by Risky Business lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associate director of Rutgers University ’ s Institute of Earth , Ocean & Atmospheric Sciences .
Which sounds eminently respectable .
So why does the abstract of his first AGU talk tell people that… …without mentioning the salient point that the hypothetical climate scenario known as RCP8.5 represents an implausible vision of the future ?
Why does the abstract for Kopp ’ s second presentation mischaracterize RCP8.5 as a “ moderately-high business-as-usual emissions scenario ” ?
( italics mine ) Presentations # 3 , # 6 , and # 11 were delivered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Ph.D. in sustainable development that same year .
Presenting at the AGU ’ s premiere event , his talks relied on a background document he himself had coauthored with Kopp and other members of the Risky Business squad .
The background document runs to 206 pages – and mentions RCP8.5 approximately once a page – for a total of 196 times .
Outrageously , it declares : Say , what ?
Remember how I ’ ve described RCP8.5 recently ?
An implausible hallucination predicated on : • the burning of more coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ None a slowdown in technological innovation ( which has , instead , been accelerating for decades ) Please observe what has happened here : Private , agenda-driven money ( aka billionaire climate activists Tom Steyer , Michael Bloomberg , and others ) hired consultants who hired a handful of young researchers keen to make a name for themselves .
Those researchers produced a new , hefty , custom climate analysis .
Which was privately published ( rather than appearing in its entirety in a peer-reviewed scientific journal ) .
This research took the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate scenario was reasonable .
Neglecting to say by whom , it claimed RCP8.5 was often considered to be closest to the most likely scenario .
The hope was that other people would fall for this sleight of hand .
The hope was that other people would join the parade and promulgate this fiction .
In the words of climate analyst Roger Pielke Jr. : The AGU helped make this happen .
When it extended invitations to a professional activist , an individual employed by a consultancy being paid by climate activists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate activists , it legitimized this corruption of science .

Written by Donna Laframboise on Jul 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
I’ve been writing about a far-fetched climate fairy tale that was repackaged and repositioned – with the result that it now gets taken seriously by supposedly serious scientists (see here and here).
How did this happen? First, billionaire climate activists hired consultants to produce a brand new climate analysis. Because, you know, the world doesn’t have enough climate research, what with governments spending billions on it every year.
This custom research was conducted by a team of noticeably young people. One is still working on his doctorate. Two others were doctoral students at the time.
The lead scientist had earned his geobiology Ph.D. seven years earlier. The lead economist had earned his degree in sustainable development a mere three years earlier.
This team produced a 2014 report titled Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States. It features a graphic that wildly misrepresents the scientific literature.
Six months after that report appeared, fully 11 presentations based on it were delivered at the world’s largest annual gathering of earth scientists – the American Geophysical Union’s December 2014 conference.
The first presenter was Kate Gordon. But she isn’t an earth scientist. She’s a lawyer. And a trained community activist. And the Risky Business Project’s founding director. Who’s considered “a leader in the national ‘green jobs’ movement.”
At the time she delivered her AGU presentation, she was employed by The Next Generation, which describes itself as a “political consulting and issue advocacy firm, specializing in progressive and environmental candidates and causes.”
So a professional activist was invited to give a talk to earth scientists. That talk, according to its abstract, told people the Risky Business Project had conducted “groundbreaking new analysis.” After employing “methodological innovations,” she said, it had arrived at “novel insights.”
The thing about lawyers is they can make even a dumpster of stinky trash sound sublime.
Presentations #2, #8, #9 and #10 were delivered by Risky Business lead scientist Robert Kopp. He was then associate director of Rutgers University’s Institute of Earth, Ocean & Atmospheric Sciences. Which sounds eminently respectable.
So why does the abstract of his first AGU talk tell people that…
Projected sea-level rise for 2100 under RCP 8.5 would likely place $80-$160 billion of current property in New York below the high tide line…it would likely increase average annual storm damage by $2.6-$5.2 billion… [bold added]
…without mentioning the salient point that the hypothetical climate scenario known as RCP8.5 represents an implausible vision of the future?
Why does the abstract for Kopp’s second presentation mischaracterize RCP8.5 as a “moderately-high business-as-usual emissions scenario”? (italics mine)
Presentations #3, #6, and #11 were delivered by Amir Jina, an economist who earned his Ph.D. in sustainable development that same year.
Presenting at the AGU’s premiere event, his talks relied on a background document he himself had coauthored with Kopp and other members of the Risky Business squad.
The background document runs to 206 pages – and mentions RCP8.5 approximately once a page – for a total of 196 times. Outrageously, it declares:
RCP 8.5 is a reasonable representation of a world where fossil fuels continue to power relatively robust global economic growth, and is often considered closest to the most likely “business-as-usual” scenarioabsent new climate policy by major emitting countries. [bold added; see page numbered 14 (p. 18 of the PDF)]
Say, what? Remember how I’ve described RCP8.5 recently? An implausible hallucination predicated on:
the burning of more coal than some people think even exists the abrupt reversal of longstanding population trends a slowdown in technological innovation (which has, instead, been accelerating for decades)
Yeah, that all sounds realistic.
Please observe what has happened here: Private, agenda-driven money (aka billionaire climate activists Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, and others) hired consultants who hired a handful of young researchers keen to make a name for themselves.
Those researchers produced a new, hefty, custom climate analysis. Which was privately published (rather than appearing in its entirety in a peer-reviewed scientific journal).
This research took the absurd seriously. It insisted an outlier climate scenario was reasonable. Neglecting to say by whom, it claimed RCP8.5 was often considered to be closest to the most likely scenario.
The hope was that other people would fall for this sleight of hand. The hope was that other people would join the parade and promulgate this fiction.
In the words of climate analyst Roger Pielke Jr.:
There is no hidden conspiracy, all of this is taking place in plain sight and in public…We have a well-funded effort to fundamentally change how climate science is characterized…This effort has been phenomenally successful.
The AGU helped make this happen. When it extended invitations to a professional activist, an individual employed by a consultancy being paid by climate activists, and doctoral students funded by those same climate activists, it legitimized this corruption of science.
Read more at Big Pic News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-06--Al Gore, UN Head, Other Elites Call For ‘Great Reset’ Of World Economy

Written by Everett Piper on .
Posted in Latest news Justin Haskins , executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute and the editor in chief of StoppingSocialism.com wrote this past week that “ while most Americans have been preoccupied with protests and pandemics , a potentially bigger story has managed to slip beneath the radar.
” Well , while the economic and political chaos caused by the COVID-19 outbreak and the social unrest of the Black Lives Matter protests dominates the news , Al Gore , the U.N. secretary-general and a cadre of other elitists , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together at the World Economic Forum ( WEC ) to call for a “ Great Reset ” of the entire global economy and its political structures .
Here ’ s how Mr. Haskins reports on this event , “ At a meeting hosted by the highly influential WEC earlier in June , powerful officials from nonprofits , government , business , academia , labor unions , and activist groups announced their plan for a ‘ Great Reset ’ of global capitalism .
It ’ s a proposal they acknowledged has only been made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided by the economic destruction caused by the novel coronavirus .
“ Supporters and attendees of the meeting included Prince Charles ; António Guterres , the secretary-general of the United Nations ; Ajay Banga , CEO of MasterCard ; Bernard Looney , CEO of BP ; and Gina Gopinath , the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund , Al Gore , among many others.
” “ In a subsequent article published on the World Economic Forum ’ s website , Klaus Schwab , the founder and executive chairman of the WEF , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Every country , from the United States to China , must participate , and every industry , from oil and gas to tech , must be transformed .
In short , we need a ‘ Great Reset ’ of capitalism.
’ “ The purpose of the Great Reset , ” states Mr. Haskins , “ isn ’ t merely to enact policies that would lead to additional wealth redistribution , but rather to completely overhaul the world ’ s existing structures and institutions.
” And this cabal of the intelligentsia is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Representing the attendees at the Forum Schwab openly opined : ‘ the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies , from education to social contracts and working conditions.
’ ” How , exactly , are these smarter-than-thou oligarchs planning to convince the American people and the rest of the civilized world to abandon modern capitalism ?
“ By scaring the heck out of people into believing that these changes are essential for stopping the next great ‘ crisis ’ the world will face when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WEF meeting , one speaker after another paid homage to Rahm Emmanuel by vowing to “ never let a good crisis ( contrived or real ) go to waste.
” Saving us all from ourselves was their pretext for demanding massive new regulations and restrictions on economic activity , wealth taxes , and expansive government programs .
Here are just a couple of examples of what these geniuses have in store for the rest of us : “ We want an end to the [ world ’ s ] profit-at-all-costs mentality.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the International Trade Union Confederation “ The Great Reset is a welcome recognition that … we must build more equal , inclusive , and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics , and climate change.
” — U.N. Secretary-General Guterres .
“ The climate crisis is an opportunity to … reduce the death rate from pandemics , by the way … So , this is a time for a reset to fix a bunch of challenges … ” — Al Gore .
If these quotes don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are comatose .
These elites are calling for the complete destruction of the entire world ’ s economic , social and political structures , and they are shamelessly using the subterfuge and distraction of present instabilities to foist their Orwellian dreams ( aka nightmares ) on you — a distracted American public .
Subterfuge .
Diversion .
Deception .
It ’ s the magician ’ s trick of saying , “ Look over there.
” While you ’ ve been distracted with the constant drumbeat of pandemics and protests , they have literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over every aspect of your life Under the ruse of “ justice , ” “ equality , ” “ fairness , ” and “ tolerance , ” they seek to take from you and give unto themselves .
Every time you hear the word “ redistribution ” know this , it means nothing other than the complete and total consolidation of all privilege , property , and power into the hands of a few .
If you think your home , your savings account , your retirement assets are safe , think again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which you ’ ve worked .
Everything you ’ ve fought and sacrificed for — all of your freedoms , all of your rights , all of your property — everything will be taken from you .
This is the Great Reset .
It ’ s all for your own good .
It ’ s the only way to save the planet .
It ’ s the only way to keep you safe .
“ All animals are equal , but some animals are more equal than others .
”

Written by Everett Piper on Jul 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Justin Haskins, executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute and the editor in chief of StoppingSocialism.com wrote this past week that “while most Americans have been preoccupied with protests and pandemics, a potentially bigger story has managed to slip beneath the radar.”
How so?
Well, while the economic and political chaos caused by the COVID-19 outbreak and the social unrest of the Black Lives Matter protests dominates the news, Al Gore, the U.N. secretary-general and a cadre of other elitists, who fancy themselves our superiors, have gathered together at the World Economic Forum (WEC) to call for a “Great Reset” of the entire global economy and its political structures.
Here’s how Mr. Haskins reports on this event,
“At a meeting hosted by the highly influential WEC earlier in June, powerful officials from nonprofits, government, business, academia, labor unions, and activist groups announced their plan for a ‘Great Reset’ of global capitalism. It’s a proposal they acknowledged has only been made possible because of the ‘opportunity’ provided by the economic destruction caused by the novel coronavirus.
“Supporters and attendees of the meeting included Prince Charles; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; Ajay Banga, CEO of MasterCard; Bernard Looney, CEO of BP; and Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Al Gore, among many others.”
Mr. Haskins continues,
“In a subsequent article published on the World Economic Forum’s website, Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the WEF, wrote this of the Great Reset: ‘Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.’
“The purpose of the Great Reset,” states Mr. Haskins, “isn’t merely to enact policies that would lead to additional wealth redistribution, but rather to completely overhaul the world’s existing structures and institutions.”
And this cabal of the intelligentsia is no longer even trying to hide its intent. Representing the attendees at the Forum Schwab openly opined: ‘the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.’”
How, exactly, are these smarter-than-thou oligarchs planning to convince the American people and the rest of the civilized world to abandon modern capitalism?
“By scaring the heck out of people into believing that these changes are essential for stopping the next great ‘crisis’ the world will face when the COVID-19 pandemic finally subsides.”
At the WEF meeting, one speaker after another paid homage to Rahm Emmanuel by vowing to “never let a good crisis (contrived or real) go to waste.”
Saving us all from ourselves was their pretext for demanding massive new regulations and restrictions on economic activity, wealth taxes, and expansive government programs.
Here are just a couple of examples of what these geniuses have in store for the rest of us:
“We want an end to the [world’s] profit-at-all-costs mentality.” — Sharan Burrow, the general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation
“The Great Reset is a welcome recognition that … we must build more equal, inclusive, and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, and climate change.” — U.N. Secretary-General Guterres.
“The climate crisis is an opportunity to … reduce the death rate from pandemics, by the way … So, this is a time for a reset to fix a bunch of challenges …” — Al Gore.
If these quotes don’t terrify you, then you are comatose. These elites are calling for the complete destruction of the entire world’s economic, social and political structures, and they are shamelessly using the subterfuge and distraction of present instabilities to foist their Orwellian dreams (aka nightmares) on you — a distracted American public.
Subterfuge. Diversion. Deception. It’s the magician’s trick of saying, “Look over there.”
While you’ve been distracted with the constant drumbeat of pandemics and protests, they have literally been meeting to give themselves absolute control over every aspect of your life
Under the ruse of “justice,” “equality,” “fairness,” and “tolerance,” they seek to take from you and give unto themselves.
Every time you hear the word “redistribution” know this, it means nothing other than the complete and total consolidation of all privilege, property, and power into the hands of a few.
If you think your home, your savings account, your retirement assets are safe, think again.
Everything you have. Everything for which you’ve worked. Everything you’ve fought and sacrificed for — all of your freedoms, all of your rights, all of your property — everything will be taken from you.
This is the Great Reset.
It’s all for your own good.
It’s the only way to save the planet.
It’s the only way to keep you safe.
Welcome to “Animal Farm.”
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Read more at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-07--2020 Early-Summer Hudson Bay Sea-Ice Cover Similar To 1980s

Written by Susan J. Crockford , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Don ’ t expect to hear this news from polar bear activists busy promoting the supposed threat to polar bears from declining Arctic sea ice , but ice cover over Hudson Bay so far this summer has been very similar to what it was in the 1980s – often promoted as ‘ the good old days ’ for Western Hudson Bay polar bears .
As of the end of June 2020 , very concentrated ice ( 9/10-10/10 ) more than one-meter thick still covered most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water near Churchill along the west coast down into James Bay .
Polar bear activists don ’ t like to have current Hudson Bay sea ice reality ruin their social and news media narrative that ‘ polar bears are all gon na die ’ , so they instead emphasize the obsolete ‘ declining trend ’ for Western Hudson Bay breakup dates that haven ’ t been updated since 2015 ( e.g .
Castro de la Guardia et al .
2017 ; Lunn et al .
2016 ) .
They do this despite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t catch many seals after late June ( regardless of sea ice conditions ) because it is past the peak spring feeding period ( Obbard et al .
2016 ; Lippold et al .
2019 ) .
Like in the 1980s , in 2015 and 2019 some bears stayed on the ice until early August and 2020 is shaping up to be another 1980 ’ s-like summer .
Here is the same chart as above ( last week in June ) but in black and white ( which was all the was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are harder to interpret but look at the overall pattern and note that stippled areas ( dots close together ) represent open water : And here is the chart for the same week in 1986 : And here is the same week in 1980 : How this will affect the dates that polar bears come ashore for the summer is unclear because there is always more of a lag between official WH ‘ breakup ’ dates and the dates that polar bears come ashore .
Castro de la Guardia et al .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come ashore approximately 20 days after sea ice ‘ breakup ’ hits a threshold of 50 % sea ice concentration , which meant that in 1979-1989 most bears were off the ice about 31 July ( ±4 days ) but from 2005-2015 most bears were ashore about 18 July ( ± 9 days ) , about 14 days earlier .
This year , all tagged WH polar bears were still on the ice as of early July , according to Andrew Derocher : Last year , by 17 July most of Derocher ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still out on the ice even though there didn ’ t appear to be much ice for them to access and at least half were still on the ice by the end of July ( i.e .
similar to the 1980s ) .
In 2018 , most bears were off the ice near Churchill by the third week in July ( 16-22 ) – only a week or so earlier than 2019 – with a few bears similarly reported off the ice the week before ( 9-15 ) .
And in 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Churchill by the fourth week of July ( 24-30 ) and reported to be in “ great shape.
” In 2016 , most bears near Churchill were off the ice and in great shape by mid-July ( 11-17 ) .
However , 2015 appeared to be more like 2019 : there were a few bears around Churchill by the third week of July ( 20-26 ) but like 2019 , there was lingering ice on the bay until mid-August .
Also , like 2019 , most of Derocher ’ s tagged bears were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I presume based on this information that most bears were not off the ice until the end of July ( i.e .
like they were in the 1980s and in 2019 ) .
In other words , for 2020 sea ice breakup in Western Hudson Bay is looking very similar to the 1980s which means polar bears will likely not be ashore until the end of July or early August , as they were in the 1980s ( and in 2015 and 2019 ) .
In closing , I have copied below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hudson Bay on 6 July , which shows a tiny patch of open water north of Churchill but still a lot of ice over the western half of Hudson Bay : Last year at that time , when WH bears stayed on the ice into late July/early August , the ice looked like this : Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist ( former adjunct professor , University of Victoria ) specializing in Holocene mammals , including polar bears and walruses .
Her new book is called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened @ @ @ @

Written by Susan J. Crockford, Ph.D. on Jul 7, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Don’t expect to hear this news from polar bear activists busy promoting the supposed threat to polar bears from declining Arctic sea ice, but ice cover over Hudson Bay so far this summer has been very similar to what it was in the 1980s – often promoted as ‘the good old days’ for Western Hudson Bay polar bears.
As of the end of June 2020, very concentrated ice (9/10-10/10) more than one-meter thick still covered most of the bay and there was still no open water near Churchill along the west coast down into James Bay.
Polar bear activists don’t like to have current Hudson Bay sea ice reality ruin their social and news media narrative that ‘polar bears are all gonna die’, so they instead emphasize the obsolete ‘declining trend’ for Western Hudson Bay breakup dates that haven’t been updated since 2015 (e.g. Castro de la Guardia et al. 2017; Lunn et al. 2016).
They do this despite the fact their colleagues admit polar bears don’t catch many seals after late June (regardless of sea ice conditions) because it is past the peak spring feeding period (Obbard et al. 2016; Lippold et al. 2019).
Like in the 1980s, in 2015 and 2019 some bears stayed on the ice until early August and 2020 is shaping up to be another 1980’s-like summer.
Here is the same chart as above (last week in June) but in black and white (which was all the was available in the 1980s). These are harder to interpret but look at the overall pattern and note that stippled areas (dots close together) represent open water:
And here is the chart for the same week in 1986:
And here is the same week in 1980:
How this will affect the dates that polar bears come ashore for the summer is unclear because there is always more of a lag between official WH ‘breakup’ dates and the dates that polar bears come ashore.
Castro de la Guardia et al. (2017:230-231) found that WH polar bears come ashore approximately 20 days after sea ice ‘breakup’ hits a threshold of 50% sea ice concentration, which meant that in 1979-1989 most bears were off the ice about 31 July (±4 days) but from 2005-2015 most bears were ashore about 18 July (± 9 days), about 14 days earlier.
This year, all tagged WH polar bears were still on the ice as of early July, according to Andrew Derocher:
Last year, by 17 July most of Derocher’s bears (see below) were still out on the ice even though there didn’t appear to be much ice for them to access and at least half were still on the ice by the end of July (i.e. similar to the 1980s).
In 2018, most bears were off the ice near Churchill by the third week in July (16-22) – only a week or so earlier than 2019 – with a few bears similarly reported off the ice the week before (9-15).
And in 2017, most bears were off the ice near Churchill by the fourth week of July (24-30)and reported to be in “great shape.” In 2016, most bears near Churchill were off the ice and in great shape by mid-July (11-17).
However, 2015 appeared to be more like 2019: there were a few bears around Churchill by the third week of July (20-26) but like 2019, there was lingering ice on the bay until mid-August.
Also, like 2019, most of Derocher’s tagged bears were still on the ice on 15 July. I presume based on this information that most bears were not off the ice until the end of July (i.e. like they were in the 1980s and in 2019).
In other words, for 2020 sea ice breakup in Western Hudson Bay is looking very similar to the 1980s which means polar bears will likely not be ashore until the end of July or early August, as they were in the 1980s (and in 2015 and 2019).
In closing, I have copied below the chart for daily ice cover for Hudson Bay on 6 July, which shows a tiny patch of open water north of Churchill but still a lot of ice over the western half of Hudson Bay:
Last year at that time, when WH bears stayed on the ice into late July/early August, the ice looked like this:
Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist (former adjunct professor, University of Victoria) specializing in Holocene mammals, including polar bears and walruses. Her new book is called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Amazon).
Read rest at Polar Bear Science
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print