climatechangedispatch--2020-07-13--The Hottest Day Ever in Australia Confirmed: Jan. 1909

Written by Jennifer Marohasy on .
Posted in Latest news The Australian Bureau of Meteorology deleted what was long regarded as the hottest day ever recorded in Australia , Bourke ’ s 125°F ( 51.7°C ) on Sunday , January 3 , 1909 .
This record* was deleted , falsely claiming that this was likely some sort of ‘ observational error ’ , as no other official weather stations recorded high temperatures on that day .
However , the Liberal Member for Hughes , Craig Kelly , has visited the Australian National Archive at Chester Hill in western Sydney to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It has taken Kelly some months to track down this historical evidence .
Through access to the archived book for the weather station at Brewarrina , which is the nearest official weather station to Bourke , it can now be confirmed that a temperature of 123°F ( 50.6°C ) was recorded at Brewarrina for January 3 , 1909 .
This contradicts claims from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology that only Bourke recorded an extraordinarily hot temperature on that day .
Just today , Friday 10th July 2020 , Mr. Kelly MP obtained access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closest official weather station to the official weather station at Bourke .
He has photographed the relevant page from the book of the observation , and it shows 123°F was recorded at 9.00 am on the morning of Monday , January 4 , 1909 – published here for the first time .
This was the highest temperature in the previous 24 hours and corroborates what must now be recognized as the hottest day ever recorded in Australia of 125°F ( 51.7°C ) degrees at Bourke on the afternoon of Sunday , January 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meteorology denies these record hot days is a travesty .
Is it because these records contradict their belief in catastrophic human-caused global warming ?
The temperature of 50.6°C ( 123°F ) recorded back in 1909 which is more than 100 years ago , photographed by Kelly last week at the National Archives in Chester Hill , is almost equivalent to the current official hottest day ever for Australia of 50.7 degrees Celsius at Oodnadatta on 2nd January 1960 .
These are in fact only the fourth and third hottest days recorded in Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracked-down the book of meteorological observations for Brewarrina , but over the last week , he has also uncovered that 51.1°C ( 124°F ) was recorded at White Cliffs for Wednesday , January 11 , 1939 .
This is the second hottest ever !
The evidence , a photograph from the relevant page of the White Cliff ’ s meteorological observations book , is published here for the first time .
Until Kelly ’ s efforts , this second hottest-ever record was hidden in undigitised archives .
It is only through his persistence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stations in the vicinity of Bourke that this and other hot days have been discovered .
If we ’ re to be honest to our history , then the record hot day at Bourke of 51.7°C ( 125°F ) must be re-instated and , further , the very hot 50.6°C ( 123°F ) recorded for Brewarrina on the same day must be entered into the official databases .
Also , the temperature of 51.1°C ( 124°F ) recorded at White Cliffs on January 12 , 1939 , must be recognized as the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be denied by the Bureau because they occurred in the past , before catastrophic human-caused global warming is thought to have come into effect , is absurd .
At a time in world history when Australians are raising concerns about the Chinese communist party removing books from Libraries in Hong Kong , we should be equally concerned with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology removing temperature records from our history .
If global warming is indeed the greatest moral issue of our time , then every Australian regardless of their politics and their opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be honest to history and these truths .
• This temperature ( 125°F/51.7°C on the 3rd January 1909 ) was recorded at an official Bureau weather station and using a mercury thermometer in a Stevenson screen .
Hotter temperatures were recorded in 1896 but the mercury thermometers were not in Stevenson screens , which is considered the standard for housing recording equipment .
Dr. Jennifer Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs .

Written by Jennifer Marohasy on Jul 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology deleted what was long regarded as the hottest day ever recorded in Australia, Bourke’s 125°F (51.7°C) on Sunday, January 3, 1909.
This record* was deleted, falsely claiming that this was likely some sort of ‘observational error’, as no other official weather stations recorded high temperatures on that day.
However, the Liberal Member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, has visited the Australian National Archive at Chester Hill in western Sydney to view very old meteorological observation books.
It has taken Kelly some months to track down this historical evidence. Through access to the archived book for the weather station at Brewarrina, which is the nearest official weather station to Bourke, it can now be confirmed that a temperature of 123°F (50.6°C) was recorded at Brewarrina for January 3, 1909.
This contradicts claims from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology that only Bourke recorded an extraordinarily hot temperature on that day.
Just today, Friday 10th July 2020, Mr. Kelly MP obtained access to this record for Brewarrina, the closest official weather station to the official weather station at Bourke.
He has photographed the relevant page from the book of the observation, and it shows 123°F was recorded at 9.00 am on the morning of Monday, January 4, 1909 – published here for the first time.
This was the highest temperature in the previous 24 hours and corroborates what must now be recognized as the hottest day ever recorded in Australia of 125°F (51.7°C) degrees at Bourke on the afternoon of Sunday, January 4, 1909.
That the Bureau of Meteorology denies these record hot days is a travesty. Is it because these records contradict their belief in catastrophic human-caused global warming?
The temperature of 50.6°C (123°F) recorded back in 1909 which is more than 100 years ago, photographed by Kelly last week at the National Archives in Chester Hill, is almost equivalent to the current official hottest day ever for Australia of 50.7 degrees Celsius at Oodnadatta on 2nd January 1960.
These are in fact only the fourth and third hottest days recorded in Australia, respectively.
Not only has Kelly tracked-down the book of meteorological observations for Brewarrina, but over the last week, he has also uncovered that 51.1°C (124°F) was recorded at White Cliffs for Wednesday, January 11, 1939. This is the second hottest ever!
The evidence, a photograph from the relevant page of the White Cliff’s meteorological observations book, is published here for the first time.
Until Kelly’s efforts, this second hottest-ever record was hidden in undigitised archives.
It is only through his persistence the temperatures at all the official weather stations in the vicinity of Bourke that this and other hot days have been discovered.
If we’re to be honest to our history, then the record hot day at Bourke of 51.7°C (125°F) must be re-instated and, further, the very hot 50.6°C (123°F) recorded for Brewarrina on the same day must be entered into the official databases.
Also, the temperature of 51.1°C (124°F) recorded at White Cliffs on January 12, 1939, must be recognized as the second hottest ever.
For these temperatures to be denied by the Bureau because they occurred in the past, before catastrophic human-caused global warming is thought to have come into effect, is absurd.
At a time in world history when Australians are raising concerns about the Chinese communist party removing books from Libraries in Hong Kong, we should be equally concerned with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology removing temperature records from our history.
If global warming is indeed the greatest moral issue of our time, then every Australian regardless of their politics and their opinion on greenhouse gases and renewable energy must be honest to history and these truths.
This temperature (125°F/51.7°C on the 3rd January 1909) was recorded at an official Bureau weather station and using a mercury thermometer in a Stevenson screen. Hotter temperatures were recorded in 1896 but the mercury thermometers were not in Stevenson screens, which is considered the standard for housing recording equipment.
Read more at Jennifer Marohasy
Dr. Jennifer Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-13--Australia’s Bureau Of Meteorology Disappears Past Heat Records

Written by Craig Kelly on .
Posted in Latest news ‘ Based on officially recorded maximum temperatures … the registration @ @ @ @ @ ) at White Cliffs was the highest recorded in New South Wales since the record @ @ @ @ @ degrees ( 51.7°C ) was made at Bourke in 1909.
’ Yet , if you @ @ @ @ @ current records for ‘ New South Wales Climate Extremes ’ , these heat records of @ @ @ @ @ and nothing 50°C or over is listed .
Amazing .
Even the famous magician David @ @ @ @ @ off a stunt like that .

Written by Craig Kelly on Jul 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
On January 13, 1939, The Sydney Morning Herald reported:
‘Based on officially recorded maximum temperatures … the registration of 124 degrees (51.1°C) at White Cliffs was the highest recorded in New South Wales since the record for the State, 125 degrees (51.7°C) was made at Bourke in 1909.’
Yet, if you look at BOM’s current records for ‘New South Wales Climate Extremes’, these heat records of the past have disappeared – and nothing 50°C or over is listed.
Amazing. Even the famous magician David Copperfield would have trouble pulling off a stunt like that.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-13--Capitalism Leads To Higher Eco-Standards, Not Socialism

Written by Rainer Zitelmann on .
Posted in Latest news As one argument would have it , capitalism is responsible for the destruction of the environment because capitalism is based on growth .
And yes , capitalism has led to tremendous economic growth .
But without this growth , an ever-expanding world population would not have been able to provide even the most basic necessities .
After all , in 1800 , there were just one billion people on the planet ; today there are more than seven billion .
It is all the more astonishing that , despite this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not been overcome by rampant poverty .
Looking back to 1800 , most people in the world were extremely poor—average incomes were the same as they are in the poorest countries in Africa today and more than 90 % of the global population was living in extreme poverty .
The development of capitalism and economic growth reduced the proportion of extremely poor people in the world to less than 10 % —despite the sevenfold increase in the global population during this same period .
So growth is not a bad thing in and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has led to a reduction in hunger and poverty .
Life expectancy at birth has increased more than twice as much in the last century as in the previous 200,000 years .
The probability of a child born today reaching retirement age is higher than the probability of previous generations ever celebrating their fifth birthdays .
In 1900 , the average life expectancy worldwide was 31 years ; today it stands at 71 years .
Of the roughly 8,000 generations of Homo sapiens since our species emerged approximately 200,000 years ago , only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mortality rates .
In the last 140 years , there have been 106 major famines , each of which has cost more than 100,000 lives .
The death toll has been particularly high in socialist countries such as the Soviet Union , China , Cambodia , Ethiopia , and North Korea , killing tens of millions of people through the forced transfer of private means of production to public economies and the weaponization of hunger .
On its own , the biggest socialist experiment in history , Mao ’ s Great Leap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 45 million Chinese .
The number of deaths due to major famines fell to 1.4 million per year in the 1990s—not least as a result of the collapse of socialist systems worldwide and China increasingly embracing capitalism .
In the first two decades of the 21st century , approximately 600,000 people perished of hunger .
That is equivalent to roughly 2 % of the death toll from the early 20th century—despite the fact that the global population is four times larger today than it was back then .
The Price Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t there a price for this growth : environment devastation ?
Of course , nobody would deny that industrialization causes environmental problems .
But the assertion that growth automatically leads to ever-accelerating environmental degradation is simply false .
Yale University ’ s Environmental Performance Index ( EPI ) uses 16 indicators to rank countries on environmental health , air quality , water , biodiversity , natural resources , and pollution .
These indicators have been selected to reflect both the current baseline and the dynamics of national ecosystems .
One of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there is a strong correlation between a state ’ s wealth and its environmental performance .
Most developed capitalist countries achieve high environmental standards .
Those countries with the worst EPI scores , such as Ethiopia , Mali , Mauritania , Chad , and Niger , are all poor .
They have both low investment capacity for infrastructure , including water and sanitation , and tend to have weak environmental regulatory authorities .
Contrary to prevailing perceptions , industrial development and technological advances have contributed significantly to relieving the burden on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book The Improving State of the World and Steven Pinker in chapter ten ( “ The Environment ” ) of his book Enlightenment Now demonstrate that we are not only living longer , healthier lives in unprecedented prosperity , but we are also doing so on a comparatively clean planet .
Researchers have confirmed that economic freedom—in other words , more capitalism—leads to higher , not lower , environmental quality .
Every year , the Heritage Foundation compiles its Index of Economic Freedom , which analyzes individual levels of economic freedom , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
The Heritage Foundation ’ s researchers also measure the correlation between each country ’ s environmental performance and its economic freedom .
The results couldn ’ t be clearer : the world ’ s most economically free countries achieve the highest environmental performance rankings with an average score of 76.1 , followed by the countries that are “ mostly free , ” which scored an average of 69.5 .
In stark contrast , the economically “ repressed ” and “ mostly unfree ” countries all score less than 50 for environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Environmental Problems ?
Anti-capitalists frequently claim that a central government is the best solution to environmental problems .
And there is no doubt that state regulations to safeguard the environment are important .
But state regulations , cited by anti-capitalists as a panacea for environmental issues , often achieve the opposite of what they were intended to do .
Hardly any other country in the world touts its green credentials as much as Germany .
According to even the most conservative estimates , Germany ’ s so-called “ energy transition ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ €500 billion by 2025 .
But the results of this massive investment is sobering , as an analysis by McKinsey reveals : “ Germany is set to miss several key energy transition targets for the year 2020 , and the country ’ s high power supply security is at risk unless new generation capacity and grid infrastructure are built in time for the coal and nuclear exit and electrification of transportation networks is accelerated.
” For decades , environmentalists in Germany focused on shutting down nuclear power plants .
However , the phasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a poor position in terms of CO2 emissions compared to other countries .
It is not without good reason that Germany ’ s energy policy has been described as the dumbest in the world .
The latest generation of nuclear power plants is much safer than their predecessors .
Despite what environmentalists might claim , impartial calculations have confirmed that it is impossible to meet the world ’ s energy needs from solar and wind power alone .
Enlightened environmentalists are therefore now calling for nuclear power to be rightfully included in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet , this is precisely what is being prevented in Germany by politicians—not capitalism .
This example , just one of many , shows that government environmental policy is often ineffective .
In some instances , it even achieves the opposite of what it was originally intended to , i.e .
it exacerbates existing environmental problems .
It is also wrong to think that capitalism necessarily leads to ever greater waste of limited natural resources .
Just take the smartphone , for example , one of the most environmentally friendly of capitalism ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small device , a whole plethora of devices that used to consume resources in the past , such as the telephone , camera , calculator , navigation system , dictation machine , alarm clock , flashlight , and many others , have been replaced .
Smartphones also help to reduce the consumption of paper as many people choose not to take notes on paper and , for example , use their iPhone instead of a calendar to enter appointments .
Those who call for “ system change ” instead of “ climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would prefer .
All they are really sure of is that any new system should not be based on free-market economics and that the state should play a decisive role .
The simple fact is that socialism has failed in every country every time it has been tried—and socialism has damaged the environment more than any capitalist system .

Written by Rainer Zitelmann on Jul 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As one argument would have it, capitalism is responsible for the destruction of the environment because capitalism is based on growth. And yes, capitalism has led to tremendous economic growth.
But without this growth, an ever-expanding world population would not have been able to provide even the most basic necessities.
After all, in 1800, there were just one billion people on the planet; today there are more than seven billion.
Economic Growth Helps To Combat Hunger And Poverty
It is all the more astonishing that, despite this rapid population growth, the world has not been overcome by rampant poverty.
Looking back to 1800, most people in the world were extremely poor—average incomes were the same as they are in the poorest countries in Africa today and more than 90% of the global population was living in extreme poverty.
The development of capitalism and economic growth reduced the proportion of extremely poor people in the world to less than 10%—despite the sevenfold increase in the global population during this same period.
So growth is not a bad thing in and of itself. In fact, growth has led to a reduction in hunger and poverty.
Life expectancy at birth has increased more than twice as much in the last century as in the previous 200,000 years. The probability of a child born today reaching retirement age is higher than the probability of previous generations ever celebrating their fifth birthdays.
In 1900, the average life expectancy worldwide was 31 years; today it stands at 71 years. Of the roughly 8,000 generations of Homo sapiens since our species emerged approximately 200,000 years ago, only the last four have experienced massive declines in mortality rates.
In the last 140 years, there have been 106 major famines, each of which has cost more than 100,000 lives.
The death toll has been particularly high in socialist countries such as the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Ethiopia, and North Korea, killing tens of millions of people through the forced transfer of private means of production to public economies and the weaponization of hunger.
On its own, the biggest socialist experiment in history, Mao’s Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s, killed more than 45 million Chinese.
The number of deaths due to major famines fell to 1.4 million per year in the 1990s—not least as a result of the collapse of socialist systems worldwide and China increasingly embracing capitalism.
In the first two decades of the 21st century, approximately 600,000 people perished of hunger. That is equivalent to roughly 2% of the death toll from the early 20th century—despite the fact that the global population is four times larger today than it was back then.
The Price Of Growth—Destruction Of The Environment?
But isn’t there a price for this growth: environment devastation? Of course, nobody would deny that industrialization causes environmental problems.
But the assertion that growth automatically leads to ever-accelerating environmental degradation is simply false.
Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI) uses 16 indicators to rank countries on environmental health, air quality, water, biodiversity, natural resources, and pollution.
These indicators have been selected to reflect both the current baseline and the dynamics of national ecosystems. One of the Index’s most striking findings is that there is a strong correlation between a state’s wealth and its environmental performance.
Most developed capitalist countries achieve high environmental standards. Those countries with the worst EPI scores, such as Ethiopia, Mali, Mauritania, Chad, and Niger, are all poor.
They have both low investment capacity for infrastructure, including water and sanitation, and tend to have weak environmental regulatory authorities.
Contrary to prevailing perceptions, industrial development and technological advances have contributed significantly to relieving the burden on the environment.
Both Indur Goklany in his book The Improving State of the World and Steven Pinker in chapter ten (“The Environment”) of his book Enlightenment Now demonstrate that we are not only living longer, healthier lives in unprecedented prosperity, but we are also doing so on a comparatively clean planet.
Researchers have confirmed that economic freedom—in other words, more capitalism—leads to higher, not lower, environmental quality.
Every year, the Heritage Foundation compiles its Index of Economic Freedom, which analyzes individual levels of economic freedom, and thus capitalism, in countries around the world.
The Heritage Foundation’s researchers also measure the correlation between each country’s environmental performance and its economic freedom.
The results couldn’t be clearer: the world’s most economically free countries achieve the highest environmental performance rankings with an average score of 76.1, followed by the countries that are “mostly free,” which scored an average of 69.5.
In stark contrast, the economically “repressed” and “mostly unfree” countries all score less than 50 for environmental performance.
Is Government The Best Solution To Environmental Problems?
Anti-capitalists frequently claim that a central government is the best solution to environmental problems. And there is no doubt that state regulations to safeguard the environment are important.
But state regulations, cited by anti-capitalists as a panacea for environmental issues, often achieve the opposite of what they were intended to do.
Hardly any other country in the world touts its green credentials as much as Germany. According to even the most conservative estimates, Germany’s so-called “energy transition” is set to cost a total of almost €500 billion by 2025.
But the results of this massive investment is sobering, as an analysis by McKinsey reveals:
“Germany is set to miss several key energy transition targets for the year 2020, and the country’s high power supply security is at risk unless new generation capacity and grid infrastructure are built in time for the coal and nuclear exit and electrification of transportation networks is accelerated.”
For decades, environmentalists in Germany focused on shutting down nuclear power plants. However, the phasing out of nuclear power has left Germany in a poor position in terms of CO2 emissions compared to other countries.
It is not without good reason that Germany’s energy policy has been described as the dumbest in the world.
The latest generation of nuclear power plants is much safer than their predecessors. Despite what environmentalists might claim, impartial calculations have confirmed that it is impossible to meet the world’s energy needs from solar and wind power alone.
Enlightened environmentalists are therefore now calling for nuclear power to be rightfully included in the fight against climate change. And yet, this is precisely what is being prevented in Germany by politicians—not capitalism.
This example, just one of many, shows that government environmental policy is often ineffective. In some instances, it even achieves the opposite of what it was originally intended to, i.e. it exacerbates existing environmental problems.
It is also wrong to think that capitalism necessarily leads to ever greater waste of limited natural resources. Just take the smartphone, for example, one of the most environmentally friendly of capitalism’s many achievements.
With just one small device, a whole plethora of devices that used to consume resources in the past, such as the telephone, camera, calculator, navigation system, dictation machine, alarm clock, flashlight, and many others, have been replaced.
Smartphones also help to reduce the consumption of paper as many people choose not to take notes on paper and, for example, use their iPhone instead of a calendar to enter appointments.
Those who call for “system change” instead of “climate change” do not usually say which system they would prefer. All they are really sure of is that any new system should not be based on free-market economics and that the state should play a decisive role.
The simple fact is that socialism has failed in every country every time it has been tried—and socialism has damaged the environment more than any capitalist system.
Read rest at Forbes
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-13--More Fake News: June 2020 Was Not A Record-Hot Month

Written by Anthony Watts on .
Posted in Latest news The Washington Post and other media outlets are claiming June 2020 was the hottest June on record .
Not surprisingly , that is fake news and a lie .
Let ’ s set the record straight .
The root of the claim that June 2020 was the warmest on record comes from an announcement from European Union climate scientists .
Yet the scientists don ’ t say that June 2020 was the warmest June on record .
Here ’ s what they actually said : “ Globally , temperatures last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June from 1981-2010 , almost tied as the warmest June in this record and with the Siberian Arctic experiencing the most above-average conditions .
“ In Europe , temperatures were far above average in the north but below average in the south , overall tying as the second warmest European June in our record.
” Since when does a finding of “ almost tied as the warmest June ” allow ostensibly factual new organizations to breathlessly exaggerate and claim “ almost tied ” is the same as being “ the hottest on record.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ printed “ fake news ” to further its ideological agendas , as well as generate unprofessional click-bait .
Similarly , in late June we were told that Verkhoyansk , Russia , experienced the hottest ever temperature above the Arctic Circle , with some media outlets claiming the Arctic is “ literally on fire.
” We pointed out here on Climate Realism that not only was it a weather ( not climate ) event , but we also pointed out that such extremes are normal for the region .
For example , a warmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Arctic Circle over 100 years ago , before “ climate change ” ever became a cause .
Here ’ s another interesting note about the Verkhoyansk , Russia , being “ on fire ” last month – two weeks later , it snowed in the very same place that was “ on fire ” two weeks ago .
The mainstream media didn ’ t report on that , however , because it didn ’ t fit the alarmist warming narrative .
As it turns out , the brief high-temperature weather event in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature record .
We are being told by some media outlets that the globe had the hottest-ever June on record , but as you can see in Figure 1 , that isn ’ t true at all .
There are many places on the globe that are in the blue , i.e .
“ below normal.
” Only where the arrow points in Siberia do we have highly warmer than normal temperatures .
Most of the rest of Russian , by the way , was cooler than normal .
As you can see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weather event that created a localized heatwave , the global temperature wouldn ’ t be mathematically skewed high .
When making claims about “ global warming ” being a problem , you can ’ t really accurately say the entire globe set a record , because we ’ re dealing with a skewed mathematical average that went off the scale because of one small region .
Looking at other data , such as that measured by NASA satellites , we don ’ t see a global record for June this year at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satellite measurement data , June 2019 was warmer than June 2020 .
Dr. John Christy , a senior scientist in charge of that data at the University of Alabama , Huntsville , said in an email : “ June was not a record for Global , Northern Hemisphere , Southern Hemisphere , or the Tropics.
” You can read his Global Temperature Report here .
So , who do we believe when you have conflicting data ?
For me , it is an easy choice : the Washington Post clearly lied , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report on anything climate-related as they have been blinded by the climate alarmism agenda .
The European Union climate scientists used the flawed and warmly biased surface data , which reads warmer than normal , and is prone to urban heat island issues , and also weather station siting problems that create warmer temperatures .
The EU also tends to be prone to political bias on the climate issue .
And even they refuted the notion that June 2020 was the warmest June on record .
It seems the NASA satellite data has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that data suffer from warm biases or an agenda .
It also says there ’ s no global record for June 2020 .
That ’ s the data I trust .

Written by Anthony Watts on Jul 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Washington Post and other media outlets are claiming June 2020 was the hottest June on record. Not surprisingly, that is fake news and a lie. Let’s set the record straight.
The root of the claim that June 2020 was the warmest on record comes from an announcement from European Union climate scientists.
Yet the scientists don’t say that June 2020 was the warmest June on record.
Here’s what they actually said:
“Globally, temperatures last month were 0.53°C warmer than the average June from 1981-2010, almost tied as the warmest June in this record and with the Siberian Arctic experiencing the most above-average conditions.
“In Europe, temperatures were far above average in the north but below average in the south, overall tying as the second warmest European June in our record.”
Since when does a finding of “almost tied as the warmest June” allow ostensibly factual new organizations to breathlessly exaggerate and claim “almost tied” is the same as being “the hottest on record.”
Again, the Washington Post simply printed “fake news” to further its ideological agendas, as well as generate unprofessional click-bait.
Similarly, in late June we were told that Verkhoyansk, Russia, experienced the hottest ever temperature above the Arctic Circle, with some media outlets claiming the Arctic is “literally on fire.”
We pointed out here on Climate Realism that not only was it a weather (not climate) event, but we also pointed out that such extremes are normal for the region.
For example, a warmer, 100-degree F temperature was reported above the Arctic Circle over 100 years ago, before “climate change” ever became a cause.
Here’s another interesting note about the Verkhoyansk, Russia, being “on fire” last month – two weeks later, it snowed in the very same place that was “on fire” two weeks ago.
The mainstream media didn’t report on that, however, because it didn’t fit the alarmist warming narrative.
As it turns out, the brief high-temperature weather event in Russia caused a skewing of the global temperature record.
We are being told by some media outlets that the globe had the hottest-ever June on record, but as you can see in Figure 1, that isn’t true at all. There are many places on the globe that are in the blue, i.e. “below normal.”
Only where the arrow points in Siberia do we have highly warmer than normal temperatures. Most of the rest of Russian, by the way, was cooler than normal.
As you can see, had that area not experienced a weather event that created a localized heatwave, the global temperature wouldn’t be mathematically skewed high.
When making claims about “global warming” being a problem, you can’t really accurately say the entire globe set a record, because we’re dealing with a skewed mathematical average that went off the scale because of one small region.
Looking at other data, such as that measured by NASA satellites, we don’t see a global record for June this year at all. In fact, according to the satellite measurement data, June 2019 was warmer than June 2020.
Dr. John Christy, a senior scientist in charge of that data at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said in an email: “June was not a record for Global, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, or the Tropics.”
You can read his Global Temperature Report here.
So, who do we believe when you have conflicting data? For me, it is an easy choice: the Washington Post clearly lied, and I wouldn’t trust them to report on anything climate-related as they have been blinded by the climate alarmism agenda.
The European Union climate scientists used the flawed and warmly biased surface data, which reads warmer than normal, and is prone to urban heat island issues, and also weather station siting problems that create warmer temperatures.
The EU also tends to be prone to political bias on the climate issue. And even they refuted the notion that June 2020 was the warmest June on record.
It seems the NASA satellite data has none of those problems, nor does that data suffer from warm biases or an agenda. It also says there’s no global record for June 2020. That’s the data I trust.
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--2020-07-13--Why Banning Neonics Hurts Farmers And Bees

Written by Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news The honeybees , bumblebees and other little pollinators swarming over my flowers remind me what important roles they play – and how some misguided folks could inadvertently hurt them .
Montgomery County , Maryland now prohibits “ weed-and-feed ” lawn fertilizer and most “ synthetic pesticides.
” But it allows homeowners , farmers , and orchardists to use “ organic ” products that are often more dangerous to bees , other wildlife , and even humans .
New York is considering a five-year statewide ban on neonicotinoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result in the use of chemicals that may actually be much more toxic to the birds and bees it seeks to protect .
US Rep. Nydia Velázquez ( D-NY ) is still promoting a bill to reinstate an Obama era ban on using neonics in the nation ’ s wildlife refuges .
She mistakenly believes these pesticides threaten biodiversity , bees , and other wildlife in these important habitats – whereas alternatives would be safe and harmless .
Other jurisdictions are pondering comparable actions that could pose similar problems .
Neonicotinoids were introduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more toxic pest control chemicals .
Primarily used to coat seeds , “ neonics ” significantly reduce the need for aerial and ground-level spraying with other chemicals that actually do harm bees and other pollinators .
They become part of the plant tissue and target only pests that actually feed on the crops , particularly during early growth stages .
This advance has helped boost crop yields while protecting the environment .
Losing neonics would put many states ’ farming economies at risk .
Support for neonic use comes from all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same misinformation that ’ s motivating US legislative and regulatory actions persuaded Ontario lawmakers to pass a neonic ban in 2015 .
Farmers have since reported paying four times more for an alternative pesticide that is less effective , can not be used on some crops , and can harm bees .
Activists persuaded Europe to ban neonics in 2013 .
But subsequent studies found the ban disastrously counterproductive .
For instance , after the ban , British farmers had to spray four times more often than before , using older pesticides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective , must be sprayed several times during the growing season , and often harm bees , other non-target insects and even birds .
Insect pests increased dramatically , and across Europe , the canola ( oilseed rape ) industry suffered revenue losses of over $ 430 million in just a few years .
As was the case in Europe , proposed prohibitions are often the result of environmentalist pressure campaigns and false claims that bees are threatened by neonics .
Actual data show the opposite is true .
Despite warnings of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest “ colony collapse disorder ” ( CCD ) , honeybee colonies have been rising worldwide since the 1990s , when neonics first came on the market .
US Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) surveys show that U.S. honeybee hive numbers have increased seven out of the last ten years , and there are now over 150,000 more beehives than in 1995 .
A closer look at New York ’ s crop yields also confirms that honeybee colonies are healthy .
Apple yields are almost exactly the same as they were ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thriving and busy doing their job .
Similar lessons apply elsewhere .
There ’ s no doubt that honeybees have recurring problems .
Overwinter losses are still high some years and , while bees reproduce rapidly and beekeepers can quickly replenish their hives , these losses can significantly strain this small but important industry .
Most experts agree , however , that the worldwide spread of the deadly Varroa destructor mite was a primary factor in the recent mass die-offs and a recurrent problem over the centuries .
They arrived in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely over the next decade .
The parasites attach to bees , suppressing their immune systems , carrying deadly diseases , and creating pathways for other diseases to enter bee bodies .
The triple whammy can have disastrous impacts on bee colonies .
Thankfully , the USDA has made progress in efforts to breed more Varroa-resistant or Varroa-tolerant honey bees , which somehow have better hygienic habits : they remove mites from one other .
That ’ s important , because many available Varroa treatments no longer work as well , due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop resistance to treatments .
Other USDA research has identified a promising new approach of using RNA interference to disrupt the reproduction of Nosema ceranae – another bee parasite that is the honeybee ’ s second-worst scourge .
Unfortunately , crusading activists , journalists , legislators , and regulators spent years ignoring these microscopic predators and parasites .
Instead , they blamed pesticides , especially neonics .
How wrongheaded and counterproductive that was is further illustrated by the vast canola fields in western Canada .
The canola is 100 % grown with neonic-coated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cart their hives into the middle of the canola fields because they produce such delicious honey .
Not surprisingly , as domesticated bees recovered , anti-pesticide activists began talking about wild bees , which can also be important for pollination .
The activists get their facts wrong here , too .
There are thousands of wild bee species .
According to a 2015 study published in Nature – probably the most extensive survey of wild bees ever done – 98 % of wild bees don ’ t even pollinate agricultural crops .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thus would come into greatest contact with neonics , are thriving .
Ironically , bees may be more at risk from insecticides that people have been falsely led to believe are safe .
Organic farmers don ’ t use neonics or other modern chemicals , but they do employ a number of crop-protecting pesticides .
These “ organic ” products may be “ natural , ” but some are highly toxic to bees – rotenone , copper sulfate , spinosad , hydrogen peroxide , azadirachtin , citronella oil , and even garlic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – chemical risk analyst Dr. David Zaruk points out .
Montgomery County ’ s guidelines specify that products bearing EPA registration numbers are prohibited and say gardeners should rely on a 113-page tiny-type list of chemicals certified by the Organic Materials Review Institute , an organic industry support and advocacy group .
However , OMRI doesn ’ t mention that some of its “ approved ” products harm bees or pose other serious risks – to wildlife and humans .
For example , OMRI ( and thus Montgomery County , among others ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this nasty chemical kills bees , is highly toxic , especially when combined with pyrethrins , and can enhance the onset of Parkinson ’ s disease , Zaruk and other experts note .
Pyrethrin pesticides themselves are powerful neurotoxins that can cause leukemia and other health problems .
Copper sulfate can damage human brains , livers , kidneys , and stomach linings .
Prolonged exposure to boron fertilizer can affect people ’ s brains , livers , and hearts .
Lime sulfur mildew and insect killer causes irreversible eye damage and can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or absorbed through the skin .
Nicotine sulfate is a neurotoxin that interferes with nerve-muscle transmissions , causes abnormalities in lab animal offspring , and can lead to irregular heart-rates and even death .
All are approved “ organic ” chemicals .
Journalists , legislators , regulators , homeowners , and gardeners need to do their homework more carefully .
They should read reputable scientific studies , rely less on anti-pesticide press releases and apocalyptic news stories , read product labels carefully , wash up afterward , and view with extreme skepticism any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means pesticide-free or a chemical is safe ( or not even a chemical ) .
Above all , everyone should use all chemicals carefully and appropriately , under the assumption that any chemical ( synthetic or organic ) we are handling or applying may be toxic and dangerous – to bees , other insects and wildlife , or even ourselves .
Paul Driessen is a senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of many articles on the environment .
He has degrees in geology , @ @ @ @ @ @

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on Jul 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The honeybees, bumblebees and other little pollinators swarming over my flowers remind me what important roles they play – and how some misguided folks could inadvertently hurt them.
Montgomery County, Maryland now prohibits “weed-and-feed” lawn fertilizer and most “synthetic pesticides.”
But it allows homeowners, farmers, and orchardists to use “organic” products that are often more dangerous to bees, other wildlife, and even humans.
New York is considering a five-year statewide ban on neonicotinoid insecticides; this action too would likely result in the use of chemicals that may actually be much more toxic to the birds and bees it seeks to protect.
US Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) is still promoting a bill to reinstate an Obama era ban on using neonics in the nation’s wildlife refuges. She mistakenly believes these pesticides threaten biodiversity, bees, and other wildlife in these important habitats – whereas alternatives would be safe and harmless.
Other jurisdictions are pondering comparable actions that could pose similar problems.
Neonicotinoids were introduced in the 1990s to replace less targeted, more toxic pest control chemicals. Primarily used to coat seeds, “neonics” significantly reduce the need for aerial and ground-level spraying with other chemicals that actually do harm bees and other pollinators.
They become part of the plant tissue and target only pests that actually feed on the crops, particularly during early growth stages.
This advance has helped boost crop yields while protecting the environment. Losing neonics would put many states’ farming economies at risk. Support for neonic use comes from all over the world.
Up in Canada, the same misinformation that’s motivating US legislative and regulatory actions persuaded Ontario lawmakers to pass a neonic ban in 2015. Farmers have since reported paying four times more for an alternative pesticide that is less effective, cannot be used on some crops, and can harm bees.
Activists persuaded Europe to ban neonics in 2013. But subsequent studies found the ban disastrously counterproductive.
For instance, after the ban, British farmers had to spray four times more often than before, using older pesticides like pyrethroids and organophosphates that are less effective, must be sprayed several times during the growing season, and often harm bees, other non-target insects and even birds.
Insect pests increased dramatically, and across Europe, the canola (oilseed rape) industry suffered revenue losses of over $430 million in just a few years.
As was the case in Europe, proposed prohibitions are often the result of environmentalist pressure campaigns and false claims that bees are threatened by neonics. Actual data show the opposite is true.
Despite warnings of a “bee-pocalypse,” except during the latest “colony collapse disorder” (CCD), honeybee colonies have been rising worldwide since the 1990s, when neonics first came on the market.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) surveys show that U.S. honeybee hive numbers have increased seven out of the last ten years, and there are now over 150,000 more beehives than in 1995.
A closer look at New York’s crop yields also confirms that honeybee colonies are healthy. Apple yields are almost exactly the same as they were ten years ago, indicating that pollinators are thriving and busy doing their job. Similar lessons apply elsewhere.
There’s no doubt that honeybees have recurring problems. Overwinter losses are still high some years and, while bees reproduce rapidly and beekeepers can quickly replenish their hives, these losses can significantly strain this small but important industry.
Most experts agree, however, that the worldwide spread of the deadly Varroa destructor mite was a primary factor in the recent mass die-offs and a recurrent problem over the centuries.
They arrived in the United States in the late 1980s and spread widely over the next decade. The parasites attach to bees, suppressing their immune systems, carrying deadly diseases, and creating pathways for other diseases to enter bee bodies. The triple whammy can have disastrous impacts on bee colonies.
Thankfully, the USDA has made progress in efforts to breed more Varroa-resistant or Varroa-tolerant honey bees, which somehow have better hygienic habits: they remove mites from one other.
That’s important, because many available Varroa treatments no longer work as well, due to the mite’s uncanny ability to develop resistance to treatments.
Other USDA research has identified a promising new approach of using RNA interference to disrupt the reproduction of Nosema ceranae – another bee parasite that is the honeybee’s second-worst scourge.
Unfortunately, crusading activists, journalists, legislators, and regulators spent years ignoring these microscopic predators and parasites. Instead, they blamed pesticides, especially neonics.
How wrongheaded and counterproductive that was is further illustrated by the vast canola fields in western Canada.
The canola is 100% grown with neonic-coated seeds, and successful professional beekeepers actually cart their hives into the middle of the canola fields because they produce such delicious honey.
Not surprisingly, as domesticated bees recovered, anti-pesticide activists began talking about wild bees, which can also be important for pollination. The activists get their facts wrong here, too.
There are thousands of wild bee species. According to a 2015 study published in Nature – probably the most extensive survey of wild bees ever done – 98% of wild bees don’t even pollinate agricultural crops. Moreover, the few species that do, and thus would come into greatest contact with neonics, are thriving.
Ironically, bees may be more at risk from insecticides that people have been falsely led to believe are safe. Organic farmers don’t use neonics or other modern chemicals, but they do employ a number of crop-protecting pesticides.
These “organic” products may be “natural,” but some are highly toxic to bees – rotenone, copper sulfate, spinosad, hydrogen peroxide, azadirachtin, citronella oil, and even garlic extract and acetic acid, for instance – chemical risk analyst Dr. David Zaruk points out.
Montgomery County’s guidelines specify that products bearing EPA registration numbers are prohibited and say gardeners should rely on a 113-page tiny-type list of chemicals certified by the Organic Materials Review Institute, an organic industry support and advocacy group.
However, OMRI doesn’t mention that some of its “approved” products harm bees or pose other serious risks – to wildlife and humans.
For example, OMRI (and thus Montgomery County, among others) approves rotenone, but neglects to mention that this nasty chemical kills bees, is highly toxic, especially when combined with pyrethrins, and can enhance the onset of Parkinson’s disease, Zaruk and other experts note.
Pyrethrin pesticides themselves are powerful neurotoxins that can cause leukemia and other health problems.
Copper sulfate can damage human brains, livers, kidneys, and stomach linings. Prolonged exposure to boron fertilizer can affect people’s brains, livers, and hearts.
Lime sulfur mildew and insect killer causes irreversible eye damage and can be fatal if inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed through the skin.
Nicotine sulfate is a neurotoxin that interferes with nerve-muscle transmissions, causes abnormalities in lab animal offspring, and can lead to irregular heart-rates and even death. All are approved “organic” chemicals.
Journalists, legislators, regulators, homeowners, and gardeners need to do their homework more carefully.
They should read reputable scientific studies, rely less on anti-pesticide press releases and apocalyptic news stories, read product labels carefully, wash up afterward, and view with extreme skepticism any claims that the word “organic” means pesticide-free or a chemical is safe (or not even a chemical).
Above all, everyone should use all chemicals carefully and appropriately, under the assumption that any chemical (synthetic or organic) we are handling or applying may be toxic and dangerous – to bees, other insects and wildlife, or even ourselves.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of many articles on the environment. He has degrees in geology, ecology, and environmental law.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-14--Study: Much Of The Globe May Experience ‘No Warming’ For 30 Years

Written by Kenneth Richard on .
Posted in Latest news A new study documents the dominance of internal variability in decadal-scale global temperature changes and suggests we may experience a global cooling trend during the next 15 or even 30 years despite rising greenhouse gases .
Maher et al .
( 2020 ) acknowledge that internal variability in global surface temperature variations is “ a difficult concept to communicate ” because we have very few observations of its impact and so we must rely on assumptions about how the climate system might work .
Those who try to explain how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use the “ Butterfly Effect ” paradigm ; they assume that small changes now can lead to larger changes decades from now .
Because global temperature trends are “ largely determined by internal variability ” , global cooling or another warming hiatus could very well be observed over the next decade .
Actually , as Maher and colleagues explain , “ even out to thirty years large parts of the globe ( or most of the globe in MPI-GE and CMIP5 ) could still experience no-warming due to internal variability.
” Read more @ @ @ @

Written by Kenneth Richard on Jul 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A new study documents the dominance of internal variability in decadal-scale global temperature changes and suggests we may experience a global cooling trend during the next 15 or even 30 years despite rising greenhouse gases.
Maher et al. (2020) acknowledge that internal variability in global surface temperature variations is “a difficult concept to communicate” because we have very few observations of its impact and so we must rely on assumptions about how the climate system might work.
Those who try to explain how internal variability affects global surface temperature often use the “Butterfly Effect” paradigm; they assume that small changes now can lead to larger changes decades from now.
Because global temperature trends are “largely determined by internal variability”, global cooling or another warming hiatus could very well be observed over the next decade.
Actually, as Maher and colleagues explain, “even out to thirty years large parts of the globe (or most of the globe in MPI-GE and CMIP5) could still experience no-warming due to internal variability.”
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--2020-07-14--Biden’s Climate Plan: AOC’s ‘Green New Deal’ Plus Five Years

Written by Joel B. Pollak on .
Posted in Latest news Former Vice President Joe Biden will introduce a plan Tuesday to tackle climate change that borrows the central element of the Green New Deal of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) — and simply adds an extra five years to achieve it .
Ocasio-Cortez drew ridicule last year when she proposed moving the entire U.S. economy to 100 % renewable energy sources — primarily solar and wind — by 2030 .
Biden ’ s policy does the same but proposes a deadline of 2035 instead .
Currently , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on record in the U.S. is California ’ s law aiming at 100 % renewable energy by 2045 — ten years later than Biden is proposing .
Critics note that California has no idea how to reach its goal .
Moving to 100 % renewable energy would mean putting the fossil fuel industry out of business — oil , natural gas , and coal .
Ocasio-Cortez also left hydroelectric power out of her plan and said nothing about nuclear energy , which the led opposes but which provides the only practical alternative to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is almost totally carbon-free .
Washington Gov .
Jay Inslee offered a similar plan when he ran for president , calling for requiring 100 % carbon-neutral power by 2030 , putting America on a path to having all clean , renewable , and zero-emission energy in electricity generation by 2035 .
Observers noted that experts were “ skeptical about the political plausibility of its execution.
” At the second Democratic debate in 2019 , Biden committed to ending coal , fracking , and the use of fossil fuels .
He has since backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mindful of the importance of fracking to the economy in Pennsylvania — a state Democrats hope to win back from President Donald Trump .
In 2008 , Biden promised voters that he and then-Sen. Barack Obama ( D-IL ) were committed to the future of “ clean coal ” — unlike Republican rival Sen. John McCain ( R-AZ ) .

Written by Joel B. Pollak on Jul 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Former Vice President Joe Biden will introduce a plan Tuesday to tackle climate change that borrows the central element of the Green New Deal of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) — and simply adds an extra five years to achieve it.
Ocasio-Cortez drew ridicule last year when she proposed moving the entire U.S. economy to 100% renewable energy sources — primarily solar and wind — by 2030. Biden’s policy does the same but proposes a deadline of 2035 instead.
Currently, the most ambitious “green” energy plan on record in the U.S. is California’s law aiming at 100% renewable energy by 2045 — ten years later than Biden is proposing. Critics note that California has no idea how to reach its goal.
Moving to 100% renewable energy would mean putting the fossil fuel industry out of business — oil, natural gas, and coal.
Ocasio-Cortez also left hydroelectric power out of her plan and said nothing about nuclear energy, which the led opposes but which provides the only practical alternative to fossil fuels as an energy source that is almost totally carbon-free.
Notably, Ocasio-Cortez chairs Biden’s climate change policy committee on the “Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force.”
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee offered a similar plan when he ran for president, calling for requiring 100% carbon-neutral power by 2030, putting America on a path to having all clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy in electricity generation by 2035.
Observers noted that experts were “skeptical about the political plausibility of its execution.”
At the second Democratic debate in 2019, Biden committed to ending coal, fracking, and the use of fossil fuels.
He has since backed away from his pledge on fracking, mindful of the importance of fracking to the economy in Pennsylvania — a state Democrats hope to win back from President Donald Trump.
In 2008, Biden promised voters that he and then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) were committed to the future of “clean coal” — unlike Republican rival Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-14--How The Left Is Killing America’s Energy Dominance

Written by Stephen Moore on .
Posted in Latest news If the “ liberal ” green movement had the political power during earlier periods of our nation ’ s history that it has now , we would not have built the railroads .
Also , there would be no interstate highway system , and the electric grid system that powers our country would be disconnected and shattered .
What else can one conclude when a significant and vital energy pipeline , the 600-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline from West Virginia into the southern states , has been canceled because of environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dakota Access Pipeline , has been suspended by a federal judge ’ s order in recent days .
Even the urgently needed Keystone XL Pipeline , which will transport natural gas and oil from energy-rich areas in Canada and the Dakotas down to Houston for export and delivery across the country , faces a court-ordered injunction .
These actions are all said to be in the name of wetlands preservation , Endangered Species Act issues , and other environmental protections .
It isn ’ t safeguarding the safety of our nation .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most environmentally safe way to transport America ’ s oil and gas resources across the country .
They are vital infrastructures that enable America to be the world ’ s energy superpower and make us no longer reliant on Saudi Arabia , Russia , and other hostile OPEC countries .
The alternative to pipelines is trucks and rail cars , which crash , derail , and explode .
The crusade to stop pipelines has nothing to do with clean air or clean water .
Natural gas is a wonder fuel .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and clean-burning .
The fracking revolution that gave us low-cost natural gas has done more to reduce carbon emissions in the United States than all environmental groups since the beginning of time .
It is an environmental blessing .
Let ’ s be honest about what is going on here : The left hates fossil fuels and uses any tactic it can to stop energy development .
They want to force America to use “ renewable ” wind and solar power , both of which are unreliable as standalone energy sources .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways to generate power .
More expensive energy makes everything else America produces more costly and less competitive in global markets .
Liberals say they care about working-class people , but between 5 million and 10 million jobs would be lost without U.S. access to abundant oil , gas , and coal resources , according to the American Petroleum Institute .
These are mostly union jobs and would be put at risk .
At least 1.5 million would be put at risk in states such as Ohio , Pennsylvania , West Virginia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shale “ shale revolution ” were to end .
But when the greens are pitted against the blues ( blue-collar workers ) , the Democrats choose their precious environmental friends .
This year , Joe Biden admitted that he is willing to lose thousands of oil and gas jobs to “ go green.
” So much for “ Lunch Bucket Joe.
” The absurdity of the pipeline bans is that we don ’ t have a cheap way to transport oil and gas from Ohio and middle Pennsylvania to significant urban Northeastern areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the rest of New England .
Without a pipeline , these cities may have to continue to import natural gas from Vladimir Putin in Russia .
How is that in America ’ s interest ?
Free-market advocates want to continue to drill here in the U.S. , where we have at least 200 years of extractable energy resources , provide low-cost energy to families and businesses , and save millions of high-paying , middle-class jobs .
The greens want to shut it all down .
Stopping pipelines is the first step toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy power to our enemies .

Written by Stephen Moore on Jul 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
If the “liberal” green movement had the political power during earlier periods of our nation’s history that it has now, we would not have built the railroads.
Also, there would be no interstate highway system, and the electric grid system that powers our country would be disconnected and shattered.
What else can one conclude when a significant and vital energy pipeline, the 600-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline from West Virginia into the southern states, has been canceled because of environmental activist opposition?
Another pipeline, the Dakota Access Pipeline, has been suspended by a federal judge’s order in recent days.
Even the urgently needed Keystone XL Pipeline, which will transport natural gas and oil from energy-rich areas in Canada and the Dakotas down to Houston for export and delivery across the country, faces a court-ordered injunction.
These actions are all said to be in the name of wetlands preservation, Endangered Species Act issues, and other environmental protections.
It isn’t safeguarding the safety of our nation. It is sabotaging it.
Pipelines are the most environmentally safe way to transport America’s oil and gas resources across the country.
They are vital infrastructures that enable America to be the world’s energy superpower and make us no longer reliant on Saudi Arabia, Russia, and other hostile OPEC countries.
The alternative to pipelines is trucks and rail cars, which crash, derail, and explode.
The crusade to stop pipelines has nothing to do with clean air or clean water. Natural gas is a wonder fuel. It is cheap, abundant, made in America, and clean-burning.
The fracking revolution that gave us low-cost natural gas has done more to reduce carbon emissions in the United States than all environmental groups since the beginning of time. It is an environmental blessing.
Let’s be honest about what is going on here: The left hates fossil fuels and uses any tactic it can to stop energy development.
They want to force America to use “renewable” wind and solar power, both of which are unreliable as standalone energy sources. They are also multiple times more expensive ways to generate power.
More expensive energy makes everything else America produces more costly and less competitive in global markets.
Liberals say they care about working-class people, but between 5 million and 10 million jobs would be lost without U.S. access to abundant oil, gas, and coal resources, according to the American Petroleum Institute.
These are mostly union jobs and would be put at risk. At least 1.5 million would be put at risk in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and other Midwestern states if the Marcellus Shale “shale revolution” were to end.
But when the greens are pitted against the blues (blue-collar workers), the Democrats choose their precious environmental friends.
This year, Joe Biden admitted that he is willing to lose thousands of oil and gas jobs to “go green.” So much for “Lunch Bucket Joe.”
The absurdity of the pipeline bans is that we don’t have a cheap way to transport oil and gas from Ohio and middle Pennsylvania to significant urban Northeastern areas such as New York, Boston, and the rest of New England.
Without a pipeline, these cities may have to continue to import natural gas from Vladimir Putin in Russia. How is that in America’s interest?
Free-market advocates want to continue to drill here in the U.S., where we have at least 200 years of extractable energy resources, provide low-cost energy to families and businesses, and save millions of high-paying, middle-class jobs.
The greens want to shut it all down. Stopping pipelines is the first step toward choking off production and surrendering economic and energy power to our enemies.
Read more at Townhall
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-14--Proof That NASA/NOAA Erased The Arctic’s 1940’s ‘Warming Blip’

Written by Cap Allon on .
Posted in Latest news Tony Heller ’ s website realclimatescience.com is a one-stop-shop for exposing government agency data-fudging .
For decades , NASA/NOAA has been cooling the past so as to create a fake warming trend — all in a desperate attempt to sustain their failing AGW theory .
Furthermore , and not to get too personal here , but why are the scientists at the heart of the fraud such slimy , thin-skinned wusses–desperate to evade scrutiny at all costs ?
What do they have to hide ?
Case in point , watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gavin Schmidt .
Schmidt only agreed to speak if it “ wasn ’ t a debate.
” And while I urge you watch the entire video , particularly the parts with the excellent Dr. Roy Spencer ( a real climate scientist btw ) , skip to 2:00 and then to 6:30 if you ’ re interested in Schmidt ’ s “ la la la , I ’ m not listening to you ” evading tactics .
So NASA refuses to debate an issue which supposedly negatively impacts every living organism on the planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good old days .
Now , the climate fraudsters have worked a position where so-called skeptics have no platform at all .
Today , even this kind of non-debate would never be agreed to .
But looking at the ever-mounting case against NASA/NOAA , re their temperature graphs , they probably have good reason to evade scrutiny .
Serving as just one example , government agencies have been erasing the 1940s warmth in the Eastern Arctic for decades , writes Tony Heller .
This is what the raw data for Iceland ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what the data looks like after NASA made its adjustments : Note the tactic — cool the past in order to fabricate a warming trend where there was none before : Removing the warmth of the 1940s ( without any justification ) was discussed by the world ’ s leading climate experts in this Climategate email : Those at the Icelandic Met Office ( IMO ) couldn ’ t understand the adjustments .
Trausti Jónsson , a senior meteorologist at the IMO , wrote in 2012 that his office was never advised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Furthermore , Jónsson said the temperature corrections “ are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavík… ” And when asked if the IMO intended to modify its data to match that of NASA ’ s/NOAA ’ s , Jónsson replied : “ no ” .
Years later , Jónsson suspiciously flipped his story , going from “ the corrections are grossly in error ” to “ the adjustments are quite sound ” — and no explanation for this change of heart was given .
And just as suspiciously , after the heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tampering debacle , Schmidt and his band of merry frauds quietly stopped adjusting Reykjavík ’ s data , without comment — thus confirming the removal of the 1940 ’ s warmth was without justification .
Temperature adjustments aren ’ t just confined to the Eastern Arctic , of course .

Written by Cap Allon on Jul 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Tony Heller’s website realclimatescience.com is a one-stop-shop for exposing government agency data-fudging. For decades, NASA/NOAA has been cooling the past so as to create a fake warming trend — all in a desperate attempt to sustain their failing AGW theory.
Furthermore, and not to get too personal here, but why are the scientists at the heart of the fraud such slimy, thin-skinned wusses–desperate to evade scrutiny at all costs? What do they have to hide?
Case in point, watch this embarrassing interview with NASA’s Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt only agreed to speak if it “wasn’t a debate.”
And while I urge you watch the entire video, particularly the parts with the excellent Dr. Roy Spencer (a real climate scientist btw), skip to 2:00 and then to 6:30 if you’re interested in Schmidt’s “la la la, I’m not listening to you” evading tactics.
So NASA refuses to debate an issue which supposedly negatively impacts every living organism on the planet — and 2013 should be considered the good old days.
Now, the climate fraudsters have worked a position where so-called skeptics have no platform at all. Today, even this kind of non-debate would never be agreed to.
But looking at the ever-mounting case against NASA/NOAA, re their temperature graphs, they probably have good reason to evade scrutiny.
Serving as just one example, government agencies have been erasing the 1940s warmth in the Eastern Arctic for decades, writes Tony Heller.
This is what the raw data for Iceland’s capital Reykjavík looks like:
And this is what the data looks like after NASA made its adjustments:
Note the tactic — cool the past in order to fabricate a warming trend where there was none before:
Removing the warmth of the 1940s (without any justification) was discussed by the world’s leading climate experts in this Climategate email:
Those at the Icelandic Met Office (IMO) couldn’t understand the adjustments.
Trausti Jónsson, a senior meteorologist at the IMO, wrote in 2012 that his office was never advised as to the reason for them.
Furthermore, Jónsson said the temperature corrections “are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavík…” And when asked if the IMO intended to modify its data to match that of NASA’s/NOAA’s, Jónsson replied: “no”.
Years later, Jónsson suspiciously flipped his story, going from “the corrections are grossly in error” to “the adjustments are quite sound” — and no explanation for this change of heart was given.
And just as suspiciously, after the heat that followed NASA’s Icelandic temperature tampering debacle, Schmidt and his band of merry frauds quietly stopped adjusting Reykjavík’s data, without comment — thus confirming the removal of the 1940’s warmth was without justification.
Temperature adjustments aren’t just confined to the Eastern Arctic, of course.
Government book-cooking encompasses the entire globe.
Read rest at ElectroVerse
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-14--Global Warming Not Causing Pink Algae In Snow, Nor Is It Dangerous

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Among the climate click-bait topics getting media attention today is a series of stories implying climate change is giving rise to algae on the Presena Glacier in Northern Italy , leading to the melting of the glacier .
Live Science , CNN , CNBC , and The Guardian , among other media outlets , all published variations of this climate scare in the past few days .
CBS ’ s write up , titled “ Mysterious pink “ watermelon snow ” has been appearing in the Italian Alps — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” is typical of the coverage—misleading and overwrought .
It seems that a pink alga has appeared on some areas on the alpine Presena Glacier , in Italy .
However , as the scientists interviewed in the press reports point out , repeatedly , the pink algae is not a mystery at all in the sense that it is not unusual but rather a “ well-documented ” seasonal phenomena on the Presena Glacier .
Similar seasonal algae blooms occur in areas of Greenland , with green algae appearing in a small part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer months as seasonal snow melts and sunlight reaches the underlying surface .
As Biagio Di Mauro , of the Institute of Polar Sciences ( ISP ) at Italy ’ s National Research Council , who traveled to the glacier to study the phenomena said in a press release , “ The alga is not dangerous , it is a natural phenomenon that occurs during the spring and summer periods in the middle latitudes but also at the Poles.
” Still , CBS and other news outlets tried to make a climate mountain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the algae reduces the reflectivity of the snow and ice , which is true , resulting in localized warming , causing even more melting .
Also true but irrelevant since it is part of a natural cycle that happens seasonally every summer .
Indeed , Presena has one of the shortest summer seasons and longest ski seasons in the Alps , being , in the words of one website , “ one of the few glaciers where skiing is possible until late spring.
” There is no evidence this has changed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media outlets present any data indicating the temperatures in and around Presena have experienced a significant warming trend in recent years , a fact which undermines their seemingly breathless admonition , “ it [ the algae ] may actually be a warning sign of environmental trouble.
” CBS ’ s story says the “ snow algae productivity has implications for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere , ” not telling the reader what the implications are but rather , based on the warnings contained throughout the story , leaving them with the impression the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if one is concerned about increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations , the algae ’ s annual appearance should be thought of as good news .
As CBS ignores , but as I explained in a May 29 Climate Realism article discussing a faux “ green snow ” scare in Antarctica , the algae bloom removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere .
Thus while the bloom may contribute to marginal localized warming in areas on the glacier , because it removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere , if you believe rising CO2 is causing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reducing the threat .
In the end , while media outlets may sell papers and get online clicks by warning “ mysterious ” pink ice is appearing on the Presena glacier , the facts are less alarming .
The algae bloom is a natural seasonal phenomenon , worth studying , undoubtedly , but not worth worrying about .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jul 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Among the climate click-bait topics getting media attention today is a series of stories implying climate change is giving rise to algae on the Presena Glacier in Northern Italy, leading to the melting of the glacier.
Live Science, CNN, CNBC, and The Guardian, among other media outlets, all published variations of this climate scare in the past few days.
CBS’s write up, titled “Mysterious pink “watermelon snow” has been appearing in the Italian Alps — and it may warn of environmental disaster,” is typical of the coverage—misleading and overwrought.
It seems that a pink alga has appeared on some areas on the alpine Presena Glacier, in Italy.
However, as the scientists interviewed in the press reports point out, repeatedly, the pink algae is not a mystery at all in the sense that it is not unusual but rather a “well-documented” seasonal phenomena on the Presena Glacier.
Similar seasonal algae blooms occur in areas of Greenland, with green algae appearing in a small part of Antarctica, during the spring and summer months as seasonal snow melts and sunlight reaches the underlying surface.
As Biagio Di Mauro, of the Institute of Polar Sciences (ISP) at Italy’s National Research Council, who traveled to the glacier to study the phenomena said in a press release, “The alga is not dangerous, it is a natural phenomenon that occurs during the spring and summer periods in the middle latitudes but also at the Poles.”
Still, CBS and other news outlets tried to make a climate mountain out of a natural molehill, warning the algae reduces the reflectivity of the snow and ice, which is true, resulting in localized warming, causing even more melting.
Also true but irrelevant since it is part of a natural cycle that happens seasonally every summer.
Indeed, Presena has one of the shortest summer seasons and longest ski seasons in the Alps, being, in the words of one website, “one of the few glaciers where skiing is possible until late spring.”
There is no evidence this has changed in the last three decades.
None of the media outlets present any data indicating the temperatures in and around Presena have experienced a significant warming trend in recent years, a fact which undermines their seemingly breathless admonition, “it [the algae] may actually be a warning sign of environmental trouble.”
CBS’s story says the “snow algae productivity has implications for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” not telling the reader what the implications are but rather, based on the warnings contained throughout the story, leaving them with the impression the implications are dangerous.
In truth, if one is concerned about increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, the algae’s annual appearance should be thought of as good news.
As CBS ignores, but as I explained in a May 29 Climate Realism article discussing a faux “green snow” scare in Antarctica, the algae bloom removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Thus while the bloom may contribute to marginal localized warming in areas on the glacier, because it removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, if you believe rising CO2 is causing climate change, then the pink algae is reducing the threat.
In the end, while media outlets may sell papers and get online clicks by warning “mysterious” pink ice is appearing on the Presena glacier, the facts are less alarming.
The algae bloom is a natural seasonal phenomenon, worth studying, undoubtedly, but not worth worrying about.
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--2020-07-15--Biden Pledges ‘Civilian Climate Corps’ To Battle Climate Change

Written by Haris Alic on .
Posted in Latest news Former Vice President Joe Biden is pledging to create a New Deal-style “ Civilian Climate Corps ” to mobilize “ a new , diverse generation of patriotic Americans ” for the battle against climate change .
The presumptive Democrat nominee , who has frequently invoked former President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the campaign trail , made the pledge when unveiling his broader climate change proposal on Tuesday .
The plan , which is anchored by a two-trillion-dollar investment in clean energy , comes from a series of recommendations made by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and his vanquished primary rival , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , earlier this year .
One such recommendation initially floated by the task force , which Biden embraced on Tuesday , was the establishment of a civilian climate corps to work on conserving “ public lands , bolstering community resilience , and addressing the changing climate.
” The corps , according to the former vice president ’ s plan , will provide “ good-paying union jobs ” to individuals , specifically people of color impacted by the economic consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs will be centered on new energy-efficient infrastructure projects , like restoring wetlands , planting “ millions of trees , ” and building “ hiking and bike trails , ” among others .
Biden ’ s proposal comes as the former vice president is increasingly promising to fundamentally “ transform ” the country if elected president this November .
The presumptive Democrat nominee , long seen as a moderate , has earned plaudits from progressives in recent weeks for his aggressive economic proposals , especially those recommended by the Biden-Sanders unity task force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with if implemented , will make Biden the most progressive president since FDR , ” Sanders told MSNBC last week .

Written by Haris Alic on Jul 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Former Vice President Joe Biden is pledging to create a New Deal-style “Civilian Climate Corps” to mobilize “a new, diverse generation of patriotic Americans” for the battle against climate change.
The presumptive Democrat nominee, who has frequently invoked former President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the campaign trail, made the pledge when unveiling his broader climate change proposal on Tuesday.
The plan, which is anchored by a two-trillion-dollar investment in clean energy, comes from a series of recommendations made by a unity task force set up by Biden and his vanquished primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), earlier this year.
One such recommendation initially floated by the task force, which Biden embraced on Tuesday, was the establishment of a civilian climate corps to work on conserving “public lands, bolstering community resilience, and addressing the changing climate.”
The corps, according to the former vice president’s plan, will provide “good-paying union jobs” to individuals, specifically people of color impacted by the economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic.
Most of the jobs will be centered on new energy-efficient infrastructure projects, like restoring wetlands, planting “millions of trees,” and building “hiking and bike trails,” among others.
Biden’s proposal comes as the former vice president is increasingly promising to fundamentally “transform” the country if elected president this November.
The presumptive Democrat nominee, long seen as a moderate, has earned plaudits from progressives in recent weeks for his aggressive economic proposals, especially those recommended by the Biden-Sanders unity task force.
“The compromise they came up with if implemented, will make Biden the most progressive president since FDR,” Sanders told MSNBC last week.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-15--Climate Prediction Models ‘Worse Than We Thought’

Written by Patrick J. Michaels on .
Posted in Latest news As the temperature of the eastern U.S. normally reaches its summer maximum around the last week of July , every year at this time we are bombarded with tired “ climate change is worse than we thought ” ( WTWT ) stories .
These stories take time to produce , from imagination to final copy to editing to publication , so they have usually been submitted well in advance of the summer peak .
For once , I ’ m in agreement about the WTWT meme , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the climate itself .
Every seven years or so , our friends at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) produce a new “ scientific assessment ” of climate , including forecasts to the year 2100 ( and , in some cases , even beyond ) .
These reports have only one basis : quantitative calculations known as “ general circulation models , ” or increasingly comprehensive “ earth system models.
” Each report is based on a suite of standardized models that are collated into a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
The fifth one , CMIP5 , was the forecasting basis for the last ( 2013 ) IPCC report .
Anyone can access the CMIP models at a Netherlands website known as KNMI Climate Explorer .
A few years ago , John Christy , now interim dean of science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville , did just that and plotted the output of all 32 families of models over the vast tropics .
He looked at the whole lower atmosphere there , from the surface up to the stratosphere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice as much warming since 1979 than had been observed at altitude—a critical system error that misdirects the prime moving force for the Earth ’ s global climate circulation , driving everything from agriculturally critical midlatitude precipitation to the likelihood of hurricane formation .
One model got it right : the Russian INM-CM4 ( Institute for Numerical Mathematics–Climate Model Four ) , but it also predicted the least warming—by far—of all the CMIP5 models .
At the surface , the 2013 IPCC report predicted a climate “ sensitivity ” ( the amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon dioxide ) of 1.5⁰C–4.5⁰C , based on the spread of the CMIP5 models .
The sensitivity of the cold Russian model was 2.1⁰C .
You ’ d think that , in the seven-year period between CMIP5 and CMIP6 , the modeling community would address the critical errors that all the other models were making .
But CMIP6 models are out and are indeed “ worse than we thought.
” While their error in the tropical atmosphere is very close to the same as it was in CMIP5 ( which isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictions is even larger than before .
This is also not a good sign , especially because it has been documented that the models are “ tuned ” to give an answer that the modeling team wants .
Late last year , the folks over at Carbon Brief plotted the sensitivity of all the CMIP6 models .
It really is worse than we thought .
First , the good news : the revised Russian INM-CM4.8 actually dropped its sensitivity even further , down to 1.8⁰C , and the Institute for Numerical Mathematics next-generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same , with 1.9⁰ of sensitivity .
The rest of the story is indeed worse than we thought .
Fourteen of the 40 models plotted by Carbon Brief had sensitivities higher than the upper limit of the UN ’ s 2013 range , with two of them at a scary 5.6⁰C .
It ’ s worth noting that the sensitivity is probably a close estimate to the amount of human-induced warming by the year 2100 , so these estimates are enormous .
If true , it ’ s bad .
For 40 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as 1.5⁰C –4.5⁰C , a disturbingly large range that billions of dollars in research funding has been unable to narrow .
With CMIP6 , we ’ re likely to see that broaden to 1.5⁰C–6⁰C .
Is that all you get for your money ?
There ’ s a very real problem with the new high-end figures .
The newly hot models greatly overestimate the amount of warming that should have occurred in recent decades , as shown by Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough Institute .
Why should we trust models that have clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t , but we can bet that the scare stories due out later this month , as temperatures hit their seasonal peak , are going to say that it ’ s even worse than we thought—and will never mention this error .

Written by Patrick J. Michaels on Jul 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As the temperature of the eastern U.S. normally reaches its summer maximum around the last week of July, every year at this time we are bombarded with tired “climate change is worse than we thought” (WTWT) stories.
These stories take time to produce, from imagination to final copy to editing to publication, so they have usually been submitted well in advance of the summer peak.
Hence, orchestrated fear.
For once, I’m in agreement about the WTWT meme, but it’s about the climate models, not the climate itself.
Every seven years or so, our friends at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produce a new “scientific assessment” of climate, including forecasts to the year 2100 (and, in some cases, even beyond).
These reports have only one basis: quantitative calculations known as “general circulation models,” or increasingly comprehensive “earth system models.”
Each report is based on a suite of standardized models that are collated into a “Coupled Model Intercomparison Project” (CMIP). The fifth one, CMIP5, was the forecasting basis for the last (2013) IPCC report.
Anyone can access the CMIP models at a Netherlands website known as KNMI Climate Explorer.
A few years ago, John Christy, now interim dean of science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, did just that and plotted the output of all 32 families of models over the vast tropics.
He looked at the whole lower atmosphere there, from the surface up to the stratosphere, and found that the models were predicting twice as much warming since 1979 than had been observed at altitude—a critical system error that misdirects the prime moving force for the Earth’s global climate circulation, driving everything from agriculturally critical midlatitude precipitation to the likelihood of hurricane formation.
One model got it right: the Russian INM-CM4 (Institute for Numerical Mathematics–Climate Model Four), but it also predicted the least warming—by far—of all the CMIP5 models.
At the surface, the 2013 IPCC report predicted a climate “sensitivity” (the amount of warming resulting from the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide) of 1.5⁰C–4.5⁰C, based on the spread of the CMIP5 models. The sensitivity of the cold Russian model was 2.1⁰C.
You’d think that, in the seven-year period between CMIP5 and CMIP6, the modeling community would address the critical errors that all the other models were making.
But CMIP6 models are out and are indeed “worse than we thought.”
While their error in the tropical atmosphere is very close to the same as it was in CMIP5 (which isn’t good), the range of global predictions is even larger than before.
This is also not a good sign, especially because it has been documented that the models are “tuned” to give an answer that the modeling team wants.
Late last year, the folks over at Carbon Brief plotted the sensitivity of all the CMIP6 models. It really is worse than we thought.
First, the good news: the revised Russian INM-CM4.8 actually dropped its sensitivity even further, down to 1.8⁰C, and the Institute for Numerical Mathematics next-generation model, INM-CM5, was essentially the same, with 1.9⁰ of sensitivity.
The rest of the story is indeed worse than we thought. Fourteen of the 40 models plotted by Carbon Brief had sensitivities higher than the upper limit of the UN’s 2013 range, with two of them at a scary 5.6⁰C.
It’s worth noting that the sensitivity is probably a close estimate to the amount of human-induced warming by the year 2100, so these estimates are enormous. If true, it’s bad.
For 40 years, the sensitivity has generally been expressed as 1.5⁰C –4.5⁰C, a disturbingly large range that billions of dollars in research funding has been unable to narrow. With CMIP6, we’re likely to see that broaden to 1.5⁰C–6⁰C. Is that all you get for your money?
There’s a very real problem with the new high-end figures. The newly hot models greatly overestimate the amount of warming that should have occurred in recent decades, as shown by Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough Institute.
Why should we trust models that have clearly overhyped climate change since 1970? We shouldn’t, but we can bet that the scare stories due out later this month, as temperatures hit their seasonal peak, are going to say that it’s even worse than we thought—and will never mention this error.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print