climatechangedispatch--2020-03-12--Why Climate Change Is A Losing Issue For Republicans

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Members of the Republican caucus seem not to have learned the lessons of the 2018 election cycle : Climate change is a loser for Republicans trying to play the “ me too ” game by offering policies intended to demonstrate liberals aren ’ t the only ones fighting it .
Unless one already buys into the delusion that carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) is a pollutant—it ’ s not , and Republicans should be smarter than to believe it is—then there is no reason the federal government should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrongheadedly already does to fight climate change .
To be fair , the climate bills offered by various Republicans in recent weeks are a far cry from the socialist , top-down laws—especially the Green New Deal—being pushed by radical Democrats , including each of the remaining Democratic candidates for the party ’ s nomination for the presidency .
There are no carbon taxes , cap-and-trade schemes , or specific technological mandates in the Republican climate bills .
Instead , some Republicans are pushing tree-planting programs and offering subsidies and support for particular technologies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some Republicans would subsidize the greater use of technologies to sequester carbon dioxide produced at power plants .
But—as Steve Milloy , founder of JunkScience.com , notes in an article on American Greatness—although it is technically possible to capture carbon dioxide and inject it underground , there is not enough space underground to store significant amounts of carbon dioxide produced each year permanently .
Additionally , the so-called carbon-capture process is expensive .
The federal government and private utilities combined have already dumped approximately $ 10 billion down the black hole of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment , Milloy notes , “ Little-to-no CO2 has been stored .
But lots of money has been wasted.
” The same Republican proposals would also toss subsidies to technologies already in use by the oil and gas industry .
Oil producers have long pumped compressed carbon dioxide , captured from power plants , into wells to enhance resource recovery .
Indeed , “ enhanced oil recovery ” ( EOR ) often makes economic sense , with the oil produced covering the additional cost of using carbon dioxide to recover it .
Operators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 35 per ton when they use this recovery method .
So there is no need for additional support .
Arguably , government subsidies for the increased use of EOR will not actually reduce carbon dioxide levels , because EOR produces , on balance , a net increase in carbon dioxide .
The additional oil recovered , when it is burned , will produce more carbon dioxide than the amount pumped underground to enhance well production .
Another Republican proposal is to plant a trillion trees .
In truth , I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trillion tree bill .
Active forest management has its merits .
Many federal forests have more dead and dying trees than growing , thriving trees .
Simply managing forests for sustained economic profit by allowing increased logging , along with required replanting , like states and private foresters do , would increase jobs , provide a sustainable supply of timber , improve air and water quality and habitat for species , and reduce the threat and high costs of wildfires .
In the process , for those worried about it , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in forest soils and within the trees themselves , and prevent the massive release of carbon dioxide during wildfires .
Rather than a big government tree-planting effort , however , the federal government should simply remove regulatory hurdles to the sustainable harvest of timber from suitable federal lands and , as required under existing law , have logging companies reforest them .
There is certainly little justification for giving money to foreign governments to plant trees , as the bill does .
Why should U.S. taxpayers subsidize often corrupt foreign government programs more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these bills are less about preventing climate change , which humans can not , in fact , control than about giving Republicans political cover on the climate issue .
Public opinion surveys , however , consistently show the climate is just not a top issue for most people , and it is even less important to Republican voters than to voters in general .
As a result , Republicans playing climate “ me too ” are likely to lose more support from their own base than they will gain from independents worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Taylor , director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute ( where I also work as a senior fellow ) , noted in the 2018 mid-term elections that more than half of 43 Republicans who were part of the Congressional Climate Solutions Caucus ( CSC ) , a bipartisan coalition of federal legislators who supported climate change reduction policies , lost their reelection bids .
On an issue like climate change , one used by radical leftists and progressives to gain ever greater control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t out-liberal the liberals .
Nor should they try .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Mar 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Members of the Republican caucus seem not to have learned the lessons of the 2018 election cycle: Climate change is a loser for Republicans trying to play the “me too” game by offering policies intended to demonstrate liberals aren’t the only ones fighting it.
Unless one already buys into the delusion that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant—it’s not, and Republicans should be smarter than to believe it is—then there is no reason the federal government should be intervening in energy markets more than it wrongheadedly already does to fight climate change.
To be fair, the climate bills offered by various Republicans in recent weeks are a far cry from the socialist, top-down laws—especially the Green New Deal—being pushed by radical Democrats, including each of the remaining Democratic candidates for the party’s nomination for the presidency.
There are no carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, or specific technological mandates in the Republican climate bills.
Instead, some Republicans are pushing tree-planting programs and offering subsidies and support for particular technologies to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Some Republicans would subsidize the greater use of technologies to sequester carbon dioxide produced at power plants.
But—as Steve Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com, notes in an article on American Greatness—although it is technically possible to capture carbon dioxide and inject it underground, there is not enough space underground to store significant amounts of carbon dioxide produced each year permanently.
Additionally, the so-called carbon-capture process is expensive. The federal government and private utilities combined have already dumped approximately $10 billion down the black hole of carbon capture and storage.
Despite that investment, Milloy notes, “Little-to-no CO2 has been stored. But lots of money has been wasted.”
The same Republican proposals would also toss subsidies to technologies already in use by the oil and gas industry.
Oil producers have long pumped compressed carbon dioxide, captured from power plants, into wells to enhance resource recovery.
Indeed, “enhanced oil recovery” (EOR) often makes economic sense, with the oil produced covering the additional cost of using carbon dioxide to recover it.
Operators already receive a federal tax credit of $35 per ton when they use this recovery method. So there is no need for additional support.
Arguably, government subsidies for the increased use of EOR will not actually reduce carbon dioxide levels, because EOR produces, on balance, a net increase in carbon dioxide.
The additional oil recovered, when it is burned, will produce more carbon dioxide than the amount pumped underground to enhance well production.
Another Republican proposal is to plant a trillion trees. In truth, I’ve only got a few complaints about the trillion tree bill. Active forest management has its merits.
Many federal forests have more dead and dying trees than growing, thriving trees. Simply managing forests for sustained economic profit by allowing increased logging, along with required replanting, like states and private foresters do, would increase jobs, provide a sustainable supply of timber, improve air and water quality and habitat for species, and reduce the threat and high costs of wildfires.
In the process, for those worried about it, it would increase the amount of carbon dioxide stored in forest soils and within the trees themselves, and prevent the massive release of carbon dioxide during wildfires.
Rather than a big government tree-planting effort, however, the federal government should simply remove regulatory hurdles to the sustainable harvest of timber from suitable federal lands and, as required under existing law, have logging companies reforest them.
There is certainly little justification for giving money to foreign governments to plant trees, as the bill does. Why should U.S. taxpayers subsidize often corrupt foreign government programs more than they already do?
In truth, these bills are less about preventing climate change, which humans cannot, in fact, control than about giving Republicans political cover on the climate issue.
Public opinion surveys, however, consistently show the climate is just not a top issue for most people, and it is even less important to Republican voters than to voters in general.
As a result, Republicans playing climate “me too” are likely to lose more support from their own base than they will gain from independents worried about the climate.
As evidence, James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute (where I also work as a senior fellow), noted in the 2018 mid-term elections that more than half of 43 Republicans who were part of the Congressional Climate Solutions Caucus (CSC), a bipartisan coalition of federal legislators who supported climate change reduction policies, lost their reelection bids.
On an issue like climate change, one used by radical leftists and progressives to gain ever greater control over people’s lives, Republicans can’t out-liberal the liberals. Nor should they try.
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--2020-03-12--GMA Goes On Climate Guilt Trip: No More Baby Seals!

Written by Kristine Marsh on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos ABC ’ s Good Morning America continued its weekly tribute to environmentalism , Wednesday , in their Extraordinary Earth series with National Geographic leading up to Earth Day .
This week , correspondent T.J. Holmes traveled to Quebec ’ s Magdalen Islands to cuddle with some baby seals and scare viewers that if they ’ re not “ doing the right thing ” by following the climate change agenda , these adorable animals will die out .
“ I wish I could tell you this is just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change story and how it ’ s threatening to wipe them out , ” Holmes warned .
While interacting with the seals , the journalist spoke with some climate change research scientists in the area about how the thinning and melting ice from global warming was affecting the Harp seal pup population .
“ To be clear , this species , they can not survive without ice to be born on , ” Holmes noted , as he and the scientists directly blamed man-made climate change : HOLMES : Over the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to less winter ice .
Peter Galbraith , a research scientist for Canada ’ s Department of Fisheries and Oceans estimates that in just 75 years , these animals will no longer have any solid ice .
PETER GALBRAITH : There ’ s no escaping it .
I mean , it ’ s completely tied to global warming .
They lectured viewers that their decisions were making an impact on this species ’ population : GALBRAITH : There is no stopping this as long as the world keeps pumping its CO2 into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and winter air temperatures will get warmer and the ice will get weaker .
HOLMES : Weaker ice , less ice , one day , no ice for them ?
Our world is changing , and as it does , their world is disappearing .
REBECCA ALDWORTH , HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL : Everybody has an impact on this planet .
Every one of us , and I think if we all felt we were part of this bigger ecosystem , that we might actually look at what we do every day .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then possibly these stories make an impact on some of their decision making and their behaviors .
But the propagandizing became more heavy-handed as Holmes spoke with his GMA journalists .
Michael Strahan lamented how their children might not get to see these harp seals in person because of climate change , he asked Holmes to share what he learned from this experience .
Holmes gushed about the importance of recycling : I put the cardboard in this bin .
The glass in this bin , and the cans , and recycling because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see how decisions we ’ re making directly impact and is taking away a world from an animal and to see that .
I understood or see climate change in a way maybe a lot of people don ’ t get to experience .
We do the right thing because we ’ re supposed to .
But to see it this way , strikes a different chord .

Written by Kristine Marsh on Mar 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
ABC’s Good Morning America continued its weekly tribute to environmentalism, Wednesday, in their Extraordinary Earth series with National Geographic leading up to Earth Day.
This week, correspondent T.J. Holmes traveled to Quebec’s Magdalen Islands to cuddle with some baby seals and scare viewers that if they’re not “doing the right thing” by following the climate change agenda, these adorable animals will die out.
“I wish I could tell you this is just a cute story. This is also a climate change story and how it’s threatening to wipe them out,” Holmes warned.
While interacting with the seals, the journalist spoke with some climate change research scientists in the area about how the thinning and melting ice from global warming was affecting the Harp seal pup population.
“To be clear, this species, they cannot survive without ice to be born on,” Holmes noted, as he and the scientists directly blamed man-made climate change:
HOLMES: Over the last 30 years, warmer temperatures have led to less winter ice. Peter Galbraith, a research scientist for Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans estimates that in just 75 years, these animals will no longer have any solid ice. PETER GALBRAITH: There’s no escaping it. I mean, it’s completely tied to global warming.
They lectured viewers that their decisions were making an impact on this species’ population:
GALBRAITH: There is no stopping this as long as the world keeps pumping its CO2 into the atmosphere. Global warming will continue, and winter air temperatures will get warmer and the ice will get weaker. HOLMES: Weaker ice, less ice, one day, no ice for them? Our world is changing, and as it does, their world is disappearing. REBECCA ALDWORTH, HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL: Everybody has an impact on this planet. Every one of us, and I think if we all felt we were part of this bigger ecosystem, that we might actually look at what we do every day. So we tell them the story, and then possibly these stories make an impact on some of their decision making and their behaviors.
But the propagandizing became more heavy-handed as Holmes spoke with his GMA journalists.
Michael Strahan lamented how their children might not get to see these harp seals in person because of climate change, he asked Holmes to share what he learned from this experience.
Holmes gushed about the importance of recycling:
I put the cardboard in this bin. The glass in this bin, and the cans, and recycling because I’m supposed to, but to see how decisions we’re making directly impact and is taking away a world from an animal and to see that. I understood or see climate change in a way maybe a lot of people don’t get to experience. We do the right thing because we’re supposed to. But to see it this way, strikes a different chord.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-12--Oregon’s Dem Gov. Signs Exec Order On Climate, Bypasses Legislature

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news Oregon Gov .
Kate Brown took a page out of Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s playbook Tuesday as she signed a climate executive order [ pictured ] after GOP lawmakers fled the state to avoid taking action on a climate bill .
Brown ’ s order intends to reduce carbon emissions by 45 % below 1990 levels within 15 years and an 80 % cut by 2050 .
The order also directs regulators to issue rules placing caps on emissions for the state ’ s fossil fuel industry , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state .
“ I ’ ve heard it loud and clear from our young people in Oregon : climate action is crucial and urgent , ” Brown said in a statement announcing the move .
“ If we adults don ’ t take action right away , it is the next generation that will pay the price .
“ This executive order is extensive and thorough , taking the boldest actions available to lower greenhouse gas emissions under current state laws , ” Brown said , adding that she made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a path we can be proud to leave behind for our children.
” The Democrat ’ s maneuver also requires 20 % of her state ’ s transportation fuels to come from electricity , natural gas , and propane within a decade , and 25 % by 2035 .
Brown ’ s EO comes less than a month after 11 Republican lawmakers walked out of the state capitol , preventing the majority party from reaching a quorum on a cap-and-trade bill .
They say making tracks for another state was one of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 .
Her decision was a long-time in the making .
Republicans employed a similar tactic in 2019 when they walked out in June to prevent a quorum in protest against HB 2020 , a cap-and-trade climate bill .
They stayed away even after Brown authorized Oregon State Police to return the lawmakers to Salem .
Republicans railed against the bill at the time .
“ Pay attention Oregon — this is a true example of partisan politics , ” Oregon Senate Republican Leader Herman Baertschiger Jr. said in a statement in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Denying quorum is one of the only tools that the minority party has right now , ” Senate Republican spokeswoman Kate Gillem told WaPo , noting that the bill is too divisive to move forward during the legislature ’ s 35-day “ short session.
” Brown ’ s decision is similar to one Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed on the campaign trail .
Sanders , a self-avowed democratic socialist , revealed his own Green New Deal in August 2019 , promising everything from “ virtually free ” electricity and a “ hunger-free ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His nearly 14,000-page memo also lays out that he would call a national emergency on climate change .

Written by Chris White on Mar 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown took a page out of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s playbook Tuesday as she signed a climate executive order [pictured] after GOP lawmakers fled the state to avoid taking action on a climate bill.
Brown’s order intends to reduce carbon emissions by 45% below 1990 levels within 15 years and an 80% cut by 2050.
The order also directs regulators to issue rules placing caps on emissions for the state’s fossil fuel industry, a move conservatives say would decimate rural parts of the state.
“I’ve heard it loud and clear from our young people in Oregon: climate action is crucial and urgent,” Brown said in a statement announcing the move. “If we adults don’t take action right away, it is the next generation that will pay the price.
“This executive order is extensive and thorough, taking the boldest actions available to lower greenhouse gas emissions under current state laws,” Brown said, adding that she made the decision to help set “Oregon on a path we can be proud to leave behind for our children.”
The Democrat’s maneuver also requires 20% of her state’s transportation fuels to come from electricity, natural gas, and propane within a decade, and 25% by 2035.
Brown’s EO comes less than a month after 11 Republican lawmakers walked out of the state capitol, preventing the majority party from reaching a quorum on a cap-and-trade bill.
They say making tracks for another state was one of their only options after Democrats won the majority in 2018.
Her decision was a long-time in the making. Republicans employed a similar tactic in 2019 when they walked out in June to prevent a quorum in protest against HB 2020, a cap-and-trade climate bill.
They stayed away even after Brown authorized Oregon State Police to return the lawmakers to Salem.
Republicans railed against the bill at the time.
“Pay attention Oregon — this is a true example of partisan politics,” Oregon Senate Republican Leader Herman Baertschiger Jr. said in a statement in February. Others were similarly apoplectic.
“Denying quorum is one of the only tools that the minority party has right now,” Senate Republican spokeswoman Kate Gillem told WaPo, noting that the bill is too divisive to move forward during the legislature’s 35-day “short session.”
Brown’s decision is similar to one Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed on the campaign trail.
Sanders, a self-avowed democratic socialist, revealed his own Green New Deal in August 2019, promising everything from “virtually free” electricity and a “hunger-free” transition to green energy from fossil fuels.
His nearly 14,000-page memo also lays out that he would call a national emergency on climate change.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-11--Russian Pranksters Posing As Greta And Father Hoax Prince Harry

Written by David Drayden on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Two Russian pranksters posing as Greta Thunberg and her father reportedly fooled Britain ’ s Prince Harry into having a candid conversation that included scathing criticism of President Donald Trump .
Harry also went into detail about being on the outs with the Royal Family since he and wife Meghan , Duchess of Sussex , have decided to go their own way , according to The Sun , which identified the hoaxers as Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov — known as Vovan and Lexus .
A lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change crisis and Harry singles out Trump for pushing coal “ so big in America ” and as a result , “ he has blood on his hands.
” The prince says Trump and other unnamed “ presidents are driving completely the wrong agenda.
” ” People are dying every single month by some form of natural disaster that has been created by this huge change in our climate .
We have to almost physically shake these people : not only are they stealing from your future … they are directly responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ Greta.
” The Duke of Sussex is frank about his desire to separate from the Royals .
“ And this decision certainly wasn ’ t the easy one but it was the right decision for our family , the right decision to be able to protect my son .
“ And I think there ’ s a hell of a lot of people around the world that can identify and respect us for putting our family first , ” he says , adding that it has been “ tricky ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls that new life “ much better ” than life in the Royal fishbowl .
He suggests that “ Greta ’ s ” work on behalf of climate change activism will inevitably yield the results she hopes for .
“ If Donald Trump can become the president of America then anything ’ s possible , right ?
” After leaving Buckingham Palace , the duke and duchess took of residence on Vancouver Island , off the coast of the Canadian province of British Columbia .
The Queen has reportedly told Harry that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Royal Family .

Written by David Drayden on Mar 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Two Russian pranksters posing as Greta Thunberg and her father reportedly fooled Britain’s Prince Harry into having a candid conversation that included scathing criticism of President Donald Trump.
Harry also went into detail about being on the outs with the Royal Family since he and wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, have decided to go their own way, according to The Sun, which identified the hoaxers as Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov — known as Vovan and Lexus.
A lot of the conversation pertains to the alleged climate change crisis and Harry singles out Trump for pushing coal “so big in America” and as a result, “he has blood on his hands.”
The prince says Trump and other unnamed “presidents are driving completely the wrong agenda.”
”People are dying every single month by some form of natural disaster that has been created by this huge change in our climate. We have to almost physically shake these people: not only are they stealing from your future … they are directly responsible for actually killing people,” Harry says to “Greta.”
The Duke of Sussex is frank about his desire to separate from the Royals.
“And this decision certainly wasn’t the easy one but it was the right decision for our family, the right decision to be able to protect my son.
“And I think there’s a hell of a lot of people around the world that can identify and respect us for putting our family first,” he says, adding that it has been “tricky” to “start a new life.” Harry calls that new life “much better” than life in the Royal fishbowl.
He suggests that “Greta’s” work on behalf of climate change activism will inevitably yield the results she hopes for.
“If Donald Trump can become the president of America then anything’s possible, right?”
After leaving Buckingham Palace, the duke and duchess took of residence on Vancouver Island, off the coast of the Canadian province of British Columbia. The Queen has reportedly told Harry that he is always welcome back as a member of the Royal Family.
Read more at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-11--Eleven Million Jobs At Risk From EU Green Deal, Unions Warn

Written by Frédéric Simon on .
Posted in Latest news The European Green Deal risks deepening economic and social divisions between east and western EU countries , trade unions say , warning the 27-member bloc risks imploding before it reaches its 2050 climate neutrality goal .
Trade unions have stepped up warnings that the Green Deal put forward by the European Commission in December last year will put millions of jobs at risk , without any assurances that workers in affected industries will have a future .
“ We are talking about almost 11 million jobs directly affected in extractive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automotive industry , ” said Luc Triangle , secretary-general of IndustriAll , a federation of trade unions .
“ Those jobs won ’ t necessarily disappear , ” Triangle told EURACTIV in an interview .
“ But there needs to be a future perspective for jobs in these industries , ” which is currently not clear , he said .
Last week , the European Commission tabled a groundbreaking EU Climate Law , aimed at putting into hard legislation the EU ’ s goal of becoming the first climate-neutral continent in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now expected to follow-up with an industrial strategy on Tuesday ( 10 March ) , outlining new growth areas for Europe as it moves towards a greener and more connected future .
But while the draft strategy places great focus on digitalization , it contains little for traditional manufacturing sectors like steelmaking , automotive and chemicals , which are expected to be hit hardest by the transition to net-zero emissions .
“ It ’ s easy to say we need to reach ambitious climate targets by 2050 and 2030 , ” Triangle said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give the answer to the ‘ how ’ we will get there .
And at the moment , we don ’ t have those answers yet .
”

Written by Frédéric Simon on Mar 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The European Green Deal risks deepening economic and social divisions between east and western EU countries, trade unions say, warning the 27-member bloc risks imploding before it reaches its 2050 climate neutrality goal.
Trade unions have stepped up warnings that the Green Deal put forward by the European Commission in December last year will put millions of jobs at risk, without any assurances that workers in affected industries will have a future.
“We are talking about almost 11 million jobs directly affected in extractive industries, energy-intensive industries and in the automotive industry,” said Luc Triangle, secretary-general of IndustriAll, a federation of trade unions.
“Those jobs won’t necessarily disappear,” Triangle told EURACTIV in an interview. “But there needs to be a future perspective for jobs in these industries,” which is currently not clear, he said.
Last week, the European Commission tabled a groundbreaking EU Climate Law, aimed at putting into hard legislation the EU’s goal of becoming the first climate-neutral continent in the world by 2050.
The EU executive is now expected to follow-up with an industrial strategy on Tuesday (10 March), outlining new growth areas for Europe as it moves towards a greener and more connected future.
But while the draft strategy places great focus on digitalization, it contains little for traditional manufacturing sectors like steelmaking, automotive and chemicals, which are expected to be hit hardest by the transition to net-zero emissions.
“It’s easy to say we need to reach ambitious climate targets by 2050 and 2030,” Triangle said. “But the industrial strategy should give the answer to the ‘how’ we will get there. And at the moment, we don’t have those answers yet.”
Read more at EurActiv
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-11--Developers Claim UK Government’s Green Housing Plan ‘Unworkable’

Written by Matt Oliver on .
Posted in Latest news Government plans for a ‘ green housing revolution ’ are unworkable , developers have warned .
Ministers want tough standards to slash the carbon footprint of new homes from 2025 , with ‘ stepping stone ’ measures before then .
The shake-up will see developers banned from connecting properties to the gas grid and encouraged to roll out air-source heat pumps , solar panels , and better insulation .
But housing bosses believe a deadline for the first changes this year is unrealistic because the UK lacks the workforce and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the boss of Taylor Wimpey , said firms have been told to prepare for an October deadline .
‘ We just don ’ t think that ’ s workable – there ’ s just not the supply chain .
‘ Having a much longer run-in period… we ’ d actually grab .
Sometimes doing things better but taking a bit longer is the right result.
’ Industry group the Home Builders Federation ( HBF ) also branded the proposals ‘ unrealistic ’ and urged a delay .
The Government has vowed to cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ net zero ’ by 2050 , with home emissions key .
Ministers have promised a ‘ future homes standard ’ in 2025 , slashing emissions from new homes by 75 percent to 80 percent .
‘ Stepping stone ’ measures will be introduced earlier , with an official consultation proposing ‘ mid to late ’ 2020 .
The hope is that these will cut new home emissions by 31 percent .
A less ambitious , second option would cut them by 20 percent .
Developers say the preferred option would probably require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and use air-source heat pumps instead .
But the HBF said the annual output of these pumps is just 38,000 , against 250,000 homes that were built in 2019 .
It also says there are only around 900 registered heat pump engineers .
The industry group favors the less ambitious option and for an 18-24 month ‘ transition ’ period .
This would delay the 31 percent targets until 2023 .
A Government spokesman said : ‘ We have set an ambitious but achievable target .
’

Written by Matt Oliver on Mar 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Government plans for a ‘green housing revolution’ are unworkable, developers have warned.
Ministers want tough standards to slash the carbon footprint of new homes from 2025, with ‘stepping stone’ measures before then.
The shake-up will see developers banned from connecting properties to the gas grid and encouraged to roll out air-source heat pumps, solar panels, and better insulation.
But housing bosses believe a deadline for the first changes this year is unrealistic because the UK lacks the workforce and enough heat pumps.
Pete Redfern, the boss of Taylor Wimpey, said firms have been told to prepare for an October deadline. ‘We just don’t think that’s workable – there’s just not the supply chain.
‘Having a much longer run-in period… we’d actually grab. Sometimes doing things better but taking a bit longer is the right result.’
Industry group the Home Builders Federation (HBF) also branded the proposals ‘unrealistic’ and urged a delay.
The Government has vowed to cut the UK’s carbon footprint to ‘net zero’ by 2050, with home emissions key.
Ministers have promised a ‘future homes standard’ in 2025, slashing emissions from new homes by 75 percent to 80 percent.
‘Stepping stone’ measures will be introduced earlier, with an official consultation proposing ‘mid to late’ 2020. The hope is that these will cut new home emissions by 31 percent.
A less ambitious, second option would cut them by 20 percent.
Developers say the preferred option would probably require them to stop using gas heating systems and use air-source heat pumps instead.
But the HBF said the annual output of these pumps is just 38,000, against 250,000 homes that were built in 2019.
It also says there are only around 900 registered heat pump engineers.
The industry group favors the less ambitious option and for an 18-24 month ‘transition’ period. This would delay the 31 percent targets until 2023.
A Government spokesman said: ‘We have set an ambitious but achievable target.’
Read more at Daily Mail
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-11--EU Official Exploits COVID-19 To Push Awful Climate Regs

Written by Patrick Michaels on .
Posted in Latest news We ’ ve been just waiting for the panic over coronavirus to somehow end up involving global warming .
The Guardian finally delivered , courtesy of the ridiculous bureaucrats at the European Union .
Here ’ s the March 4 : “ Focus on coronavirus shows need for climate law , says EU official.
” He ’ s touting the new EU climate law draft unveiled on March 4 , its version of the “ Green New Deal , ” which will have to be approved by the European Parliament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to obtain the parliament ’ s rubber stamp because the law mandates that EU carbon dioxide emissions reach net-zero by 2050 , a radical goal , and it ’ s legally binding .
Suppose bankrupt Greece isn ’ t reducing its emissions fast enough to meet the 2050 goal .
Then the EU will throw “ hefty ” fines at it .
Because Greece won ’ t be able to pay — being bankrupt , you know — the rest of the EU ( read : Germany ) effectively will have to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a recipe for disaster that will increasingly rely on Germany to rescue other EU nations .
Back to the headline .
What Timmermans is saying is that the European Parliament needs to pass its new climate law in short order so that it can be used to shape everything else .
The draft legislation actually specifies that all subsequent legislation , say , on farming , labor , or coronavirus , will have to be consistent with the 2050 net-zero carbon emissions target .
Meanwhile , the new commission president , Ursula @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other than teenage climate alarmist Greta Thunberg , elaborated : The new law “ will be our compass for the next 30 years and it will guide us every step.
” Of course , there is no way that any developed economy will emit net-zero carbon dioxide in less than 30 years unless it turns to nuclear power , a path which European nations seem adamantly opposed to .
After all , Germany shut down its perfectly good nuclear reactors because of a one-off disaster in which a tsunami hit a Japanese nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foolishly located .
This stunning idiocy only led to increased German reliance upon coal-fired electricity , something that will be simply forbidden under the proposed law .
Alas , the EU ’ s mandated economic suicide still isn ’ t good enough for Thunberg , who calls it “ a surrender ” because it doesn ’ t ensure global temperatures will not rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above early 19th century values , a benchmark that is simply silly .
are around one degree above where they were in 1900 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit less than half of that rise happened before we had put enough carbon dioxide in the air to cause it .
Since 1900 , in the developed world , life expectancy has In the United States , per capita , constant-dollar wealth increased drastically over that same time period .
Anyone who thinks that raising the surface temperature a mere half-degree further will wipe out all of this and more is abandoning logic .
In reality , economically vibrant societies are increasingly immune to the vagaries of severe weather events .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado ’ s Roger Pielke Jr. , weather damages are going down , not up .
Sure , dollar-cost damages are increasing , but only because we have more and more stuff to get hit .
Make no mistake : The proposed EU climate law will reverse a lot more progress and a lot more economic and environmental resilience than any probable climate change or , for that matter , coronavirus .

Written by Patrick Michaels on Mar 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
We’ve been just waiting for the panic over coronavirus to somehow end up involving global warming.
The Guardian finally delivered, courtesy of the ridiculous bureaucrats at the European Union.
Here’s the March 4 headline : “Focus on coronavirus shows need for climate law, says EU official.”
The report explains :
Frans Timmermans, a European commission vice-president who leads on the climate emergency [sic], said the different crises facing Europe underscored the need for a climate law in order not to lose track of reducing emissions.
He’s touting the new EU climate law draft unveiled on March 4, its version of the “Green New Deal,” which will have to be approved by the European Parliament.
It will be a heavier-than-normal lift to obtain the parliament’s rubber stamp because the law mandates that EU carbon dioxide emissions reach net-zero by 2050, a radical goal, and it’s legally binding.
As the Guardian reports:
If an EU member state fails to make progress, the commission can take it to the European court of justice, which has the power to impose hefty daily fines for non-compliance.
Suppose bankrupt Greece isn’t reducing its emissions fast enough to meet the 2050 goal. Then the EU will throw “hefty” fines at it. Because Greece won’t be able to pay — being bankrupt, you know — the rest of the EU (read: Germany) effectively will have to pay.
The proposed law is, therefore, a recipe for disaster that will increasingly rely on Germany to rescue other EU nations.
Back to the headline. What Timmermans is saying is that the European Parliament needs to pass its new climate law in short order so that it can be used to shape everything else.
The draft legislation actually specifies that all subsequent legislation, say, on farming, labor, or coronavirus, will have to be consistent with the 2050 net-zero carbon emissions target.
Meanwhile, the new commission president, Ursula Von der Leyen, flanked by none other than teenage climate alarmist Greta Thunberg, elaborated: The new law “will be our compass for the next 30 years and it will guide us every step.”
Of course, there is no way that any developed economy will emit net-zero carbon dioxide in less than 30 years unless it turns to nuclear power, a path which European nations seem adamantly opposed to.
After all, Germany shut down its perfectly good nuclear reactors because of a one-off disaster in which a tsunami hit a Japanese nuclear plant where the emergency power generator was foolishly located.
This stunning idiocy only led to increased German reliance upon coal-fired electricity, something that will be simply forbidden under the proposed law.
Alas, the EU’s mandated economic suicide still isn’t good enough for Thunberg, who calls it “a surrender” because it doesn’t ensure global temperatures will not rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above early 19th century values, a benchmark that is simply silly.
Global surface temperatures are around one degree above where they were in 1900, and it’s easy to show that a bit less than half of that rise happened before we had put enough carbon dioxide in the air to cause it.
Since 1900, in the developed world, life expectancy has more than doubled.
In the United States, per capita, constant-dollar wealth increased drastically over that same time period. Anyone who thinks that raising the surface temperature a mere half-degree further will wipe out all of this and more is abandoning logic.
In reality, economically vibrant societies are increasingly immune to the vagaries of severe weather events.
As convincingly shown by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Jr., weather damages as a percent of global GDP are going down, not up. Sure, dollar-cost damages are increasing, but only because we have more and more stuff to get hit.
Make no mistake: The proposed EU climate law will reverse a lot more progress and a lot more economic and environmental resilience than any probable climate change or, for that matter, coronavirus.
Read more at Washington Examiner
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-11--Clashing Climate Kiddies: Internal Strife Erupts Among FFF Organizers

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos One highly visible person often seen at Greta Thunberg ’ s side at public Fridays For Future ( FFF ) appearances is German 23-year old climate activist Luisa Neubauer of Hamburg .
The Green Party member was a driving force behind the launch of the Fridays For Future movement in Germany and Europe .
However , it appears other FFF organizers have had enough of Neubauer constantly hogging the spotlight amid signs of growing discord and infighting among FFF organizers .
MOPO.de here reports how Neubauer has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FFF organizers and “ will also not speak at the controversial citizens ’ meeting in Berlin in June.
” Moreover , according to MOPO : “ Neubauer already was replaced ” by 17-year-old schoolgirl Helena Marshall at the Siemens Annual Shareholders ’ Meeting on February 5 .
The problem , MOPO writes , is that “ Neubauer is too much in the public eye ” and that she may not be “ suitable as a representative ” because it was reported how she had flown often .
Neubauer was recently dubbed “ Longhaul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herself on foreign trips in social media .
Over the last years , climate activist Luisa made it around the world by plane several times , via Austria , Switzerland , Italy , Belgium , the Netherlands , Sweden , Poland , England , Scotland , France , Canada , China , Hong Kong , Nepal , Morocco , Namibia , Tanzania , Indonesia , etc .
Once in a talk show , Luisa was asked what she personally would do to protect the climate .
She answered : “ Fly as little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the FFF movement organizers also surfaced in a video showing Greta Thunberg expressing her displeasure at comments made by Neubauer during the World Economic Forum earlier this year .
Strife is undeniable as Greta openly shakes her head as Neubauer speaks .
MOPO reports the “ first trouble ” began “ already at the beginning of spring 2019 ” when co-organizers felt “ the distribution of speeches and appearances was too one-sided.
” Today Greta tweeted she was skipping appearances in the marches in Grenoble and Paris this Friday , citing “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Mar 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
One highly visible person often seen at Greta Thunberg’s side at public Fridays For Future (FFF) appearances is German 23-year old climate activist Luisa Neubauer of Hamburg.
The Green Party member was a driving force behind the launch of the Fridays For Future movement in Germany and Europe.
However, it appears other FFF organizers have had enough of Neubauer constantly hogging the spotlight amid signs of growing discord and infighting among FFF organizers.
MOPO.de here reports how Neubauer has been “disqualified as permanent speaker” by FFF organizers and “will also not speak at the controversial citizens’ meeting in Berlin in June.”
Moreover, according to MOPO: “Neubauer already was replaced” by 17-year-old schoolgirl Helena Marshall at the Siemens Annual Shareholders’ Meeting on February 5.
Jet-setting Greenie “Longhaul Luisa”
The problem, MOPO writes, is that “Neubauer is too much in the public eye” and that she may not be “suitable as a representative” because it was reported how she had flown often.
Neubauer was recently dubbed “Longhaul Luisa” after having posted images of herself on foreign trips in social media.
Over the last years, climate activist Luisa made it around the world by plane several times, via Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, England, Scotland, France, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Nepal, Morocco, Namibia, Tanzania, Indonesia, etc.
Once in a talk show, Luisa was asked what she personally would do to protect the climate. She answered: “Fly as little as possible.”
Open discord between Greta and Luisa
Evidence of open discord among the FFF movement organizers also surfaced in a video showing Greta Thunberg expressing her displeasure at comments made by Neubauer during the World Economic Forum earlier this year.
Strife is undeniable as Greta openly shakes her head as Neubauer speaks.
MOPO reports the “first trouble” began “already at the beginning of spring 2019” when co-organizers felt “the distribution of speeches and appearances was too one-sided.”
Greta skips France
Today Greta tweeted she was skipping appearances in the marches in Grenoble and Paris this Friday, citing “family reasons”.
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--2020-03-16--Radical Biden: No More Drilling Or Fracking, No More Cars

Written by Nick Arama on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Whoever said that Joe Biden was a moderate ?
His radical ideas are as much of a danger as his incoherency and his constant lies .
He has the nomination likely locked up at this point , so he doesn ’ t have to pitch further left to win in the primary .
Which pretty much means this is what he really thinks .
Biden said he would stop oil drilling , ban new fracking , have no new coal plants – all of which would kill thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the fossil fuel industry , ” he said at the CNN debate .
“ No more drilling on federal lands .
No more drilling , including offshore .
No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill , period .
Ends.
” Biden hasn ’ t called for an all-out ban on oil drilling before , which would have a radical , negative effect on the U.S. energy industry .
[ … . ]
Biden , confronted by Sanders for not taking dramatic enough steps to combat climate change , also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fracking ” and “ not another coal plant will be built ” under his administration .
Biden also seemed to channel Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) , claiming he wanted high-speed rail and promised to “ take millions of cars off the road.
” Biden has already admitted in December that he would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs on the way to a green economy , according to the Washington Examiner .
If people were paying attention last night , that should end him in oil and coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast , has reenergized the industry and helped toward making us more energy independent .
The contrast couldn ’ t be sharper .

Written by Nick Arama on Mar 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Whoever said that Joe Biden was a moderate?
His radical ideas are as much of a danger as his incoherency and his constant lies.
He has the nomination likely locked up at this point, so he doesn’t have to pitch further left to win in the primary. Which pretty much means this is what he really thinks.
Biden said he would stop oil drilling, ban new fracking, have no new coal plants – all of which would kill thousands of jobs.
Joe Biden: “no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends” #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/STbBrh8DLg — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 16, 2020
Joe Biden: “no more, no new fracking” in my administrationhttps://t.co/gnHCex8NPv pic.twitter.com/bwvLaU2VyB — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 16, 2020
From Free Beacon:
“No more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry,” he said at the CNN debate. “No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. Ends.” Biden hasn’t called for an all-out ban on oil drilling before, which would have a radical, negative effect on the U.S. energy industry. [….] Biden, confronted by Sanders for not taking dramatic enough steps to combat climate change, also said there would be no “new fracking” and “not another coal plant will be built” under his administration.
Biden also seemed to channel Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), claiming he wanted high-speed rail and promised to “take millions of cars off the road.”
President Trump: “If you like automobiles, how can you vote for a Democrat who all want to get rid of cars”? Media: That’s false! Joe Biden: I support “taking millions of automobiles off the road.” #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/YeG6BBdnFF — Trump War Room – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) March 16, 2020
Biden has already admitted in December that he would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs on the way to a green economy, according to the Washington Examiner.
If people were paying attention last night, that should end him in oil and coal states.
President Donald Trump, by contrast, has reenergized the industry and helped toward making us more energy independent. The contrast couldn’t be sharper.
Read more at Red State
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-16--Alarmists: Amazon Forest Will Look Like Sahara Desert In 50 Years

Written by Thomas D. Williams , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news The Amazon rainforest is “ approaching a point of no return under the effect of climate change and could turn into an arid desert within half a century , ” Agence France Press ( AFP ) reported this week .
Citing a recent study published in Nature Communications , AFP said that the Caribbean coral reef could also disappear in 15 years if it , too , passes a point of no return .
The Amazon ’ s tipping point would allegedly be reached once 35 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report suggested .
Currently , some 20 percent of the rainforest — with an area of 2.1 million square miles stretching over seven countries — has been lost since 1970 to make room for growing soybeans , palm oil , and biofuels or for cattle farming .
“ Humanity needs to prepare for changes far sooner than expected , ” said the study ’ s lead author Simon Willcock of Bangor University , and the Amazonian ecosystem could tip as soon as next year .
Willcock cited recent fires in the Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are “ teetering on the edge of this precipice.
” Professor Thomas Lovejoy of George Mason University and Carlos Nobre of the University of São Paulo concur with the results of the study , CNN reported , warning that the Amazon rainforest is “ teetering on the edge of functional destruction ” and that the point of no return where the rainforest starts drying out and turning into a savannah is “ at hand.
” See Also : Everything You ’ ve Heard About The Amazon Being The ‘ Lungs Of The World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2005 , 2010 , and 2015-16 “ could well represent the first flickers of this ecological tipping point , ” they said .
According to John Dearing , who took part in the study , man-made climate change is aggravating the destruction of ecosystems .
“ When you add in additional stresses like pollution , deforestation , overgrazing , overfishing , the fact that you ’ ve got this stress in the background just magnifies the chance that the systems could actually collapse quite quickly , ” Dearing said .

Written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. on Mar 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Amazon rainforest is “approaching a point of no return under the effect of climate change and could turn into an arid desert within half a century,” Agence France Press (AFP) reported this week.
Citing a recent study published in Nature Communications, AFP said that the Caribbean coral reef could also disappear in 15 years if it, too, passes a point of no return.
The Amazon’s tipping point would allegedly be reached once 35 percent of its surface forestation is lost, the report suggested.
Currently, some 20 percent of the rainforest — with an area of 2.1 million square miles stretching over seven countries — has been lost since 1970 to make room for growing soybeans, palm oil, and biofuels or for cattle farming.
“Humanity needs to prepare for changes far sooner than expected,” said the study’s lead author Simon Willcock of Bangor University, and the Amazonian ecosystem could tip as soon as next year.
Willcock cited recent fires in the Amazon and Australia to suggest that many ecosystems are “teetering on the edge of this precipice.”
Professor Thomas Lovejoy of George Mason University and Carlos Nobre of the University of São Paulo concur with the results of the study, CNN reported, warning that the Amazon rainforest is “teetering on the edge of functional destruction” and that the point of no return where the rainforest starts drying out and turning into a savannah is “at hand.”
See Also: Everything You’ve Heard About The Amazon Being The ‘Lungs Of The World’ Is Wrong
The regional droughts of 2005, 2010, and 2015-16 “could well represent the first flickers of this ecological tipping point,” they said.
According to John Dearing, who took part in the study, man-made climate change is aggravating the destruction of ecosystems.
“When you add in additional stresses like pollution, deforestation, overgrazing, overfishing, the fact that you’ve got this stress in the background just magnifies the chance that the systems could actually collapse quite quickly,” Dearing said.
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--2020-03-16--Silver Lining? MIT Tech Mag Touts COVID-19 Will Cut CO2 Emissions

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news When you see leftist propaganda touting that a contagious disease is reducing carbon emissions published in a top university ’ s tech magazine , one wonders why we continue to subsidize these institutions with government funds .
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology ’ s Technology Review published a climate change piece headlined “ Why the coronavirus outbreak is terrible news for climate change.
” The piece argued : “ It appears increasingly likely that the global coronavirus outbreak will cut greenhouse-gas emissions this year , as deepening public health concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Temple , the piece ’ s author , fretted March 9 that “ it would be a mistake to assume that the rapidly spreading virus , which has already killed thousands and forced millions into quarantine , will meaningfully reduce the dangers of climate change.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
So the outlet ’ s complaint is that the virus isn ’ t doing enough ?
One of the magazine ’ s primary concerns out of this whole virus debacle is actually that “ Rising health and financial fears could also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of climate change ] .
” Yes , really .
The magazine does say that the virus is a bad thing , at least from a climate change perspective .
Really ?
“ [ I ] f the virus leads to a full-blown global pandemic and economic crash , it could easily drain money and political will from climate efforts , ” complained Temple .
The piece backtracks by saying that “ we absolutely should dedicate the bulk of our international attention and resources to the outbreak at this moment , given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But then it shifts course again , suggesting that “ the fear is that the highly contagious coronavirus could complicate the challenges of climate change—which presents serious , if longer-term , threats of its own.
” ( Emphasis added . )
Later , the magazine actually listed “ countervailing forces ” from the virus outbreak that could yield positive outcomes from an environmentalist ’ s standpoint : • “ A sustained drop in oil prices could make longer-term investments in clean energy more attractive for major energy players , as a Eurasia Group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some have also suggested that the deadly virus could bring about long-lasting shifts in carbon-intensive behaviors , if people remain fearful of flying and cruise ships , or come to prefer remote working and virtual conferences.
” But then again , the magazine shifted directions : “ [ I ] t ’ s important to keep in mind , as we game out the long-term consequences of the coronavirus outbreak , that the short-term impacts are clear : many , many people are going to become ill and die .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to radical environmentalists to look for the silver lining in a pandemic for their eco-extremist views .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Mar 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
When you see leftist propaganda touting that a contagious disease is reducing carbon emissions published in a top university’s tech magazine, one wonders why we continue to subsidize these institutions with government funds.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Technology Review published a climate change piece headlined “Why the coronavirus outbreak is terrible news for climate change.”
The piece argued: “It appears increasingly likely that the global coronavirus outbreak will cut greenhouse-gas emissions this year, as deepening public health concerns ground planes and squeeze international trade.”
James Temple, the piece’s author, fretted March 9 that “it would be a mistake to assume that the rapidly spreading virus, which has already killed thousands and forced millions into quarantine, will meaningfully reduce the dangers of climate change.” [Emphasis added.]
So the outlet’s complaint is that the virus isn’t doing enough?
One of the magazine’s primary concerns out of this whole virus debacle is actually that “Rising health and financial fears could also divert public attention from the problem [of climate change].” Yes, really.
The magazine does say that the virus is a bad thing, at least from a climate change perspective. Really?
“[I]f the virus leads to a full-blown global pandemic and economic crash, it could easily drain money and political will from climate efforts,” complained Temple.
The piece backtracks by saying that “we absolutely should dedicate the bulk of our international attention and resources to the outbreak at this moment, given the grave and immediate public health dangers.”
But then it shifts course again, suggesting that “the fear is that the highly contagious coronavirus could complicate the challenges of climate change—which presents serious, if longer-term, threats of its own.” (Emphasis added.)
Later, the magazine actually listed “countervailing forces” from the virus outbreak that could yield positive outcomes from an environmentalist’s standpoint:
“A sustained drop in oil prices could make longer-term investments in clean energy more attractive for major energy players, as a Eurasia Group analyst argued to Axios.”
“Some have also suggested that the deadly virus could bring about long-lasting shifts in carbon-intensive behaviors, if people remain fearful of flying and cruise ships, or come to prefer remote working and virtual conferences.”
But then again, the magazine shifted directions: “[I]t’s important to keep in mind, as we game out the long-term consequences of the coronavirus outbreak, that the short-term impacts are clear: many, many people are going to become ill and die. That’s an unequivocally bad thing.”
Leave it to radical environmentalists to look for the silver lining in a pandemic for their eco-extremist views.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-16--Climate Commies XR Rebranded To ‘Fight Coronavirus’

Written by Gaia Fawkes on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos This morning photographers arrived at No .
10 to capture footage of a new group , ‘ Pause the System , ’ turning up in hazmat outfits to demand the Government do more to fight Coronavirus ( video after the jump ) .
The group ’ s demands include ‘ pausing the system ’ to respond to the ‘ health emergency ’ as well as demanding the Government “ provide universal basic income and full statutory sick pay for all people , pause all mortgages and rents.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every time there ’ s a ‘ crisis ’ the only solution is Marxism ?
The group ’ s third demand – “ prevent future pandemics ” gives the game away : There is little information about who is behind the shady group given , however , the two press officer names – Steph Zupan and Dan Kidby – are , not to Guido ’ s surprise , Extinction Rebellion organizers and spokespeople .
Steph organized Animal Rebellion ’ s ‘ Veggie Swarm Action ’ last October , calling on the need “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She also wrote that “ scientists have warned us for decades now about our fate if we don ’ t make serious changes.
” She doesn ’ t seem so keen on scientific advice these days… Dan Kidby is also a spokesman for Animal Rebellion , who wrote “ Animal Rebellion is a movement of people from all walks of life who have come together because the evidence is clear : a transition to a plant-based food system is critical to avert climate breakdown and mass extinction , ” helping to organize last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Market .
The climate communists will hijack any cause to push their absurd agenda .

Written by Gaia Fawkes on Mar 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
This morning photographers arrived at No. 10 to capture footage of a new group, ‘Pause the System,’ turning up in hazmat outfits to demand the Government do more to fight Coronavirus (video after the jump).
The group’s demands include ‘pausing the system’ to respond to the ‘health emergency’ as well as demanding the Government “provide universal basic income and full statutory sick pay for all people, pause all mortgages and rents.”
Isn’t it a coincidence that every time there’s a ‘crisis’ the only solution is Marxism?
The group’s third demand – “prevent future pandemics” gives the game away:
“Both the climate emergency and the factory farming and trade of animals bring strong threats of future pandemics. The government must act to reduce emissions to net zero, halt biodiversity loss, as well as ban factory farming and the trade of animals.”
There is little information about who is behind the shady group given, however, the two press officer names – Steph Zupan and Dan Kidby – are, not to Guido’s surprise, Extinction Rebellion organizers and spokespeople.
Steph organized Animal Rebellion’s ‘Veggie Swarm Action’ last October, calling on the need “to engage in strategic direct action.”
She also wrote that “scientists have warned us for decades now about our fate if we don’t make serious changes.” She doesn’t seem so keen on scientific advice these days…
Dan Kidby is also a spokesman for Animal Rebellion, who wrote “Animal Rebellion is a movement of people from all walks of life who have come together because the evidence is clear: a transition to a plant-based food system is critical to avert climate breakdown and mass extinction,” helping to organize last year’s shut down of Smithfield Market.
The climate communists will hijack any cause to push their absurd agenda.
Read more at Order Order
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-16--Greenhouse Gases Not Behind The End Of The Warming Pause

Written by Dr. Antero Ollila on .
Posted in Latest news During the years 2000-2014 , the global temperature hardly increased , and that period has been called the temperature pause or hiatus .
The debate among the climate community has resulted in more than 200 research studies in some cases with opposite results about the reasons .
This amount of papers can be compared to the research studies of Earth ’ s energy balance and the greenhouse effect .
I have found about 10 publications for both subjects .
During the years 2000-2014 , the emissions of carbon dioxide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being 31 % of the total emission after 1750 , but the greenhouse ( GH ) gases were not able to increase the temperature .
According to the IPCC , the temperature increase should have been 0.4°C from 2000 to 2014 ( Ref .
1 ) .
It looks like that the pause ended to the super El Nino 2015-2016 because the temperature has been thereafter about 0.2 °C above-the-pause average .
Research study about the pause and the ENSO The impulse for my research study came from a story figure on WUWT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variations during the pause .
A curve showed increased values around El Nino 2015-16 and thereafter .
I decided to find out what could be the impact of this finding on the temperatures .
In Fig .
1 , I have depicted the total solar irradiance ( TSI ) , SW radiation and LW radiation from 2000 onward .
This data is available from the CERES databank maintained by NASA .
Fig.1 .
TSI , SW radiation and LW radiation trends normalized to the altitude of 20 kilometers .
TSI has been in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprising that SW radiation has an increasing trend with a maximum during El Nino 2015-16 .
I decided to carry out a research study about the factors which should explain the temperature variations during the pause including ENSO events .
I have used two dynamic models with the same structure naming them as the Ollila model and the IPCC model .
In my own model , I have used the results of my earlier research studies .
This newest study has been published , Ref.2 .
Both models include the same terms where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dTSW is the temperature impact of SW radiation , dTENSOis the temperature impact of ENSO event , dTANTR is the temperature impact of greenhouse ( GH ) gases and other anthropogenic factors , and dTCLOUD the temperature impact of cloudiness changes .
The term dTCLOUD has not been used in the IPCC model because this effect has been integrated into the term dTANTR .
The temperature effects of SW radiation and anthropogenic factors have been calculated using the equation applied both in the IPCC model and my model where λ is the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ K/ ( W/m2 ) in the IPCC model and in my model 0.27 K/ ( W/m2 ) and RF means radiative forcing ( W/m2 ) .
The IPCC has normalized the anthropogenic factors to correspond to SW radiation changes at the top of the atmosphere .
Therefore , SW radiation changes and anthropogenic factors per the IPCC can be applied directly in Eq .
( 2 ) .
I have used the total RF values of the IPCC reports .
In my own model , I have used only the carbon dioxide effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GH gas changes are below 0.001°C during the pause , Ref .
3. where C is the concentration of carbon dioxide ( ppm ) .
The temperature effects of ENSO events I have calculated in both models using Eq .
( 4 ) where ONI is the Oceanic El Nino Index used for reporting and assessing the magnitude of ENSO effects .
ONI is the three months running-average value of the seawater temperature in the area of Nino3.4 .
The coefficient value of 0.1 is based on the empirical data between global temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Ref .
1 ) have used the same method and the same value .
By using the correlation analysis , I found out that there was a delay of 6 months between the ONI index and the global temperature .
The temperature effects of cloudiness change I have calculated using the relationship from my earlier research study ( Ref .
4 ) where CL- % is the change of cloudiness in percentages .
The equations above do not include any dynamic factors , which means that they do not describe in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effects during shorter time intervals when all-climate drivers variate continuously .
I have used the climate drivers – i.e .
the input data – in monthly steps .
The residence time of the mixing layer of the oceans is 2.74 months and the same of the land is 1.04 months ( Ref .
4 ) .
The accurate simulation method for stepwise changes of inputs can be found in my research study ( Ref .
2 ) .
The results of the study The results showed some surprises and new findings .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model and the observed satellite temperature of the UAH in Fig .
2 .
Fig .
2 .
The results of the Ollila model .
In Fig.2 we can see that the model calculated temperature ( a black curve ) follows well the observed global temperature .
The ENSO effects and the SW radiation changes are the main reasons for temperature changes .
During the super El Nino 2015-16 , the temperature impact is slightly more than 50 % about the total temperature change .
This kind of observation has not been reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ La Nina 2017 was very weak , but the temperature remained at about 0.2°C higher level in comparison to the average pause temperature of 2000-2014 .
The reason can be identified directly , and it is the SW radiation .
The overall effect of cloudiness is small , but its impact is in the right direction .
Fig .
3 .
The results of the IPCC model .
The curve ” Forcing by all anthropogenic factors per IPCC ” includes other factors than GH gases , and therefore its temperature impact is lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I have depicted the results of the IPCC model in Fig .
3 .
The black curve is the model calculated temperature and the red one is the GISTEMP .
The IPCC model has a rather great error during the El Nino 2015-16 and thereafter .
I have calculated the Mean Absolute Error ( MAE ) in four different cases for the period of 2000-2018 : The error of my model is relatively small with respect to both temperature curves and it is about 100 % smaller than the same as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The reason for the IPCC model greater errors is pretty clear and it is the positive water feedback duplicating the impacts of anthropogenic ( GH gases ) changes and the SW radiation changes .
The increase in temperature from the beginning of 2001 to the average of 2018 was according to UAH 0.29 °C and according to Gistemp 0.50 °C .
Respectively the increase per the Ollila model was 0.23 °C and per the IPCC model 0.73 °C .
The error of my own model was thus +0.06 °C with respect to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Gistemp .
The IPCC model error was +23 °C with respect to the Gistemp and 0.44 °C with respect to the UAH .
The conclusion is that the IPCC model runs too hot due to the too great radiative forcing of carbon dioxide and the positive water feedback .
Thinking these errors for 20 years only , we can imagine how great errors might be to the end of 2100 .
We have a new climate change factor in the form of an SW radiation increase since 2014 .
We will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take this matter into account .
By knowing the practices of the IPCC , I would not be surprised if this change will be assessed to be anthropogenic by nature .
It would be interesting to see , what are the pieces of evidence .
One may also observe in Fig .
3 a great difference between the impacts of GH gases and the total anthropogenic factors about 0.2°C in 2011 .
In order to concretize this issue , I use the numbers of the year 2011 in AR5 for the change from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes the impacts of aerosols ( -0.27 W/m2 ) , the albedo changes due to land use ( -0.15 W/m2 ) and the cloud adjustment ( -0.55 W/m2 ) ; totally -0.97 W/m2 corresponding to the temperature impact of -0.5 °C .
The RF of GH gases in 2011 per the IPCC was 3.18 W/m2 corresponding to the temperature impact of 1.6°C .
A question is that what is the scientific method and data that the IPCC knows the radiative forcings of aerosols , land-use , and the cloud adjustments of the year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not know these figures even today .
For me , these factors are really pure adjustments to tamper down the over-all temperature impacts and to cover up the sky-high impacts of GH gases .
The observational data between the temperature and the absolute amount of the atmospheric water do not show this mechanism , Fig .
4 .
Fig .
4 .
Short- and long-term effects of water vapor on a global scale .
It can be noticed that for 1982–2003 , the global temperature anomaly has been increasing but long-term water vapor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of positive water feedback .
This figure illustrates very well that the global temperature effects of ENSO events happen about 50 % through the absolute humidity changes in the atmosphere .
It means that the positive water feedback works in short-term events like ENSO but in the long-term trends , this effect disappears .
Water is about 12 times stronger GH gas than carbon dioxide .
The great impact of SW radiation in the El Nino 2015-16 came as a big surprise .
Therefore , I looked for the radiative information during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CERES data started in 2001 but the ERBE data was available and the results are depicted in Fig .
5 .
Fig .
4 shows that also during super El Nino 1997-98 the temperature impact of SW radiation has been slightly over 50 % .
The retrospective analysis reveals that the pause ended by 2014 .
The most important factor has been the abnormal positive SW radiation anomaly .
I sent this paper to six different journals in category 2 .
I did not expect positive publication decisions , but I gathered information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The collection of rejection comments would be another story .
It is a well-known fact among the contrarian researchers that they do not get papers through in the categories 1 ( Science and Nature ) and in category 2 ( more than 100 journals ) if the content is clearly against the IPCC science .
In the final phase of this process , I received a useful comment from a reviewer that there is a research study of Loeb et al .
published in 2018 ( Ref .
5 ) .
Some readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible person for the CERES data in NASA and he surely follows the observational data trends .
There is a comprehensive analysis of the CERES data in this study .
The researchers showed that the SW radiation change was due to the end of hiatus and it is also the dominant reason for the “ increased temperature tendency during the post-hiatus period ” as they have formulated this matter .
As an example , about the rejection comments , there was a comment that a reviewer did not accept the SW radiation changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperatures or thereafter .
Maybe this reviewer would have rejected also the paper of Loeb et al .
– do you think so ?
So , I can not say that I was the first one who found out the role of SW radiation in the temperature changes after pause even though I did my work independently without knowing the study of Loeb et al .
What I can still say is that I have observed the role of SW radiation as an important part of super El Nino temperature impacts .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mechanism and it may be a pure coincidence .
We can see in Fig .
2 that the El Nino 2010 was in a category “ strong ” .
It could have developed into “ very strong ” super El Nino but the SW radiation anomaly was in the wrong phase .
I also carried out the analysis between “ the anti-IPCC model ” and the IPCC model showing that the IPCC model does not work properly .
Loeb et al .
found that the correlation of SW radiation flux anomalies to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not go further to analyze what factors could cause variations to the low-level cloudiness changes .
As we know , Dr. Henrik Svensmark has proposed a theory about the cosmic radiation modulating the cloud formation process and having major impacts on the surface temperature through cloudiness changes .
This is , of course , a forbidden subject to any researcher wanting to belong to the climate establishment , because the IPCC wants to avoid any theories about the cosmic forces having a role in the climate change .
• Trenberth KE , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among top‐of‐atmosphere radiation and atmospheric state variables in observations and CESM .
J. Geophys .
Res .
Atmos .
2015 ; 120:10074–10090 .
https : //doiorg/101002/2015JD023381 • None Ollila , Antero .
The Pause End and Major Temperature Impacts During Super El Niños are Due to Shortwave Radiation Anomalies .
Physical Science International Journal , 24 ( 2 ) , 1-20 , 2020. http : //www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30174/56612 • None Ollila , Antero .
The Potency of Carbon Dioxide ( CO2 ) as a Greenhouse Gas , 2014 , URL : https : //www.researchgate.net/publication/274956207_The_potency_of_carbon_dioxide_CO2_as_a_greenhouse_gas • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Norris JR , Wang H , Su W. Changes in earth ’ s energy budget during and after the “ pause ” in global warming : an observational perspective .
Climate .
2018 ; 6:62 .
DOI:103390/cli6030062 .
Dr. Antero Ollila is an Adj .
Ass .
Prof. ( Emeritus ) at Aalto University in Finland and runs the website ClimatExam .

Written by Dr. Antero Ollila on Mar 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
During the years 2000-2014, the global temperature hardly increased, and that period has been called the temperature pause or hiatus.
The debate among the climate community has resulted in more than 200 research studies in some cases with opposite results about the reasons.
This amount of papers can be compared to the research studies of Earth’s energy balance and the greenhouse effect. I have found about 10 publications for both subjects.
During the years 2000-2014, the emissions of carbon dioxide were 126 gigatons carbon (GtC) being 31% of the total emission after 1750, but the greenhouse (GH) gases were not able to increase the temperature.
According to the IPCC, the temperature increase should have been 0.4°C from 2000 to 2014 (Ref. 1).
It looks like that the pause ended to the super El Nino 2015-2016 because the temperature has been thereafter about 0.2 °C above-the-pause average.
Research study about the pause and the ENSO
The impulse for my research study came from a story figure on WUWT that showed shortwave (SW) radiation variations during the pause.
A curve showed increased values around El Nino 2015-16 and thereafter. I decided to find out what could be the impact of this finding on the temperatures.
In Fig. 1, I have depicted the total solar irradiance (TSI), SW radiation and LW radiation from 2000 onward. This data is available from the CERES databank maintained by NASA.
Fig.1. TSI, SW radiation and LW radiation trends normalized to the altitude of 20 kilometers.
TSI has been in decreasing mode since 2000 but it is surprising that SW radiation has an increasing trend with a maximum during El Nino 2015-16.
I decided to carry out a research study about the factors which should explain the temperature variations during the pause including ENSO events.
I have used two dynamic models with the same structure naming them as the Ollila model and the IPCC model. In my own model, I have used the results of my earlier research studies. This newest study has been published, Ref.2.
Both models include the same terms
dT = dTSW + dTENSO+ dTANTR + dTCLOUD, (1)
where dT is the total temperature change, dTSW is the temperature impact of SW radiation, dTENSOis the temperature impact of ENSO event, dTANTR is the temperature impact of greenhouse (GH) gases and other anthropogenic factors, and dTCLOUD the temperature impact of cloudiness changes.
The term dTCLOUD has not been used in the IPCC model because this effect has been integrated into the term dTANTR.
The temperature effects of SW radiation and anthropogenic factors have been calculated using the equation applied both in the IPCC model and my model
dT = λ*RF, (2)
where λ is the climate sensitivity parameter having a value of 0.5 K/(W/m2) in the IPCC model and in my model 0.27 K/(W/m2) and RF means radiative forcing (W/m2).
The IPCC has normalized the anthropogenic factors to correspond to SW radiation changes at the top of the atmosphere.
Therefore, SW radiation changes and anthropogenic factors per the IPCC can be applied directly in Eq. (2). I have used the total RF values of the IPCC reports.
In my own model, I have used only the carbon dioxide effects, because of the impacts of other GH gas changes are below 0.001°C during the pause, Ref. 3.
dTANT= 0.27 * 3,12 * ln (C/280), (3)
where C is the concentration of carbon dioxide (ppm). The temperature effects of ENSO events I have calculated in both models using Eq. (4)
dTENSO = 0,1 * ONI, (4)
where ONI is the Oceanic El Nino Index used for reporting and assessing the magnitude of ENSO effects. ONI is the three months running-average value of the seawater temperature in the area of Nino3.4.
The coefficient value of 0.1 is based on the empirical data between global temperature and ONI.
Trenberth et al. (Ref. 1) have used the same method and the same value. By using the correlation analysis, I found out that there was a delay of 6 months between the ONI index and the global temperature.
The temperature effects of cloudiness change I have calculated using the relationship from my earlier research study (Ref. 4)
dT = – 0,11 * CL-%, (5)
where CL-% is the change of cloudiness in percentages.
The equations above do not include any dynamic factors, which means that they do not describe in which way the changes would have their temperature effects during shorter time intervals when all-climate drivers variate continuously.
I have used the climate drivers – i.e. the input data – in monthly steps. The residence time of the mixing layer of the oceans is 2.74 months and the same of the land is 1.04 months (Ref. 4).
The accurate simulation method for stepwise changes of inputs can be found in my research study (Ref. 2).
The results of the study
The results showed some surprises and new findings. I have depicted the essential results of my model and the observed satellite temperature of the UAH in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. The results of the Ollila model.
In Fig.2 we can see that the model calculated temperature (a black curve) follows well the observed global temperature. The ENSO effects and the SW radiation changes are the main reasons for temperature changes.
During the super El Nino 2015-16, the temperature impact is slightly more than 50% about the total temperature change. This kind of observation has not been reported before.
Another important observation is that La Nina 2017 was very weak, but the temperature remained at about 0.2°C higher level in comparison to the average pause temperature of 2000-2014.
The reason can be identified directly, and it is the SW radiation. The overall effect of cloudiness is small, but its impact is in the right direction.
Fig. 3. The results of the IPCC model. The curve ”Forcing by all anthropogenic factors per IPCC” includes other factors than GH gases, and therefore its temperature impact is lower than the impact of GH gases only.
I have depicted the results of the IPCC model in Fig. 3. The black curve is the model calculated temperature and the red one is the GISTEMP. The IPCC model has a rather great error during the El Nino 2015-16 and thereafter.
I have calculated the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) in four different cases for the period of 2000-2018:
The Ollila model versus UAH 0.075°C
The Ollila model versus GISTEMP 0.082°C
The IPCC model versus UAH 0.191°C
The IPCC model versus GISTEMP 0.128°C.
The error of my model is relatively small with respect to both temperature curves and it is about 100 % smaller than the same as the IPCC model the correlation is 0.82.
The reason for the IPCC model greater errors is pretty clear and it is the positive water feedback duplicating the impacts of anthropogenic (GH gases) changes and the SW radiation changes.
The increase in temperature from the beginning of 2001 to the average of 2018 was according to UAH 0.29 °C and according to Gistemp 0.50 °C.
Respectively the increase per the Ollila model was 0.23 °C and per the IPCC model 0.73 °C. The error of my own model was thus +0.06 °C with respect to the UAH temperature and -0.31 °C with respect to the Gistemp.
The IPCC model error was +23 °C with respect to the Gistemp and 0.44 °C with respect to the UAH. The conclusion is that the IPCC model runs too hot due to the too great radiative forcing of carbon dioxide and the positive water feedback. Thinking these errors for 20 years only, we can imagine how great errors might be to the end of 2100.
We have a new climate change factor in the form of an SW radiation increase since 2014. We will see in which way the IPCC shall take this matter into account.
By knowing the practices of the IPCC, I would not be surprised if this change will be assessed to be anthropogenic by nature. It would be interesting to see, what are the pieces of evidence.
One may also observe in Fig. 3 a great difference between the impacts of GH gases and the total anthropogenic factors about 0.2°C in 2011.
In order to concretize this issue, I use the numbers of the year 2011 in AR5 for the change from 1750 to 2011.
The anthropogenic term includes the impacts of aerosols (-0.27 W/m2), the albedo changes due to land use (-0.15 W/m2) and the cloud adjustment (-0.55 W/m2); totally -0.97 W/m2 corresponding to the temperature impact of -0.5 °C. The RF of GH gases in 2011 per the IPCC was 3.18 W/m2 corresponding to the temperature impact of 1.6°C.
A question is that what is the scientific method and data that the IPCC knows the radiative forcings of aerosols, land-use, and the cloud adjustments of the year 1750? I think that they do not know these figures even today.
For me, these factors are really pure adjustments to tamper down the over-all temperature impacts and to cover up the sky-high impacts of GH gases.
The observational data between the temperature and the absolute amount of the atmospheric water do not show this mechanism, Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Short- and long-term effects of water vapor on a global scale.
It can be noticed that for 1982–2003, the global temperature anomaly has been increasing but long-term water vapor amount has been decreasing destroying the theory of positive water feedback.
This figure illustrates very well that the global temperature effects of ENSO events happen about 50 % through the absolute humidity changes in the atmosphere.
It means that the positive water feedback works in short-term events like ENSO but in the long-term trends, this effect disappears.
Water is about 12 times stronger GH gas than carbon dioxide.
The great impact of SW radiation in the El Nino 2015-16 came as a big surprise. Therefore, I looked for the radiative information during the earlier super El Nino 1998-98.
The CERES data started in 2001 but the ERBE data was available and the results are depicted in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4. Super El Ninos of 1997-98 and 2015-16.
Fig. 4 shows that also during super El Nino 1997-98 the temperature impact of SW radiation has been slightly over 50 %.
The retrospective analysis reveals that the pause ended by 2014. The most important factor has been the abnormal positive SW radiation anomaly.
I sent this paper to six different journals in category 2. I did not expect positive publication decisions, but I gathered information about the rejection comments of reviewers.
The collection of rejection comments would be another story. It is a well-known fact among the contrarian researchers that they do not get papers through in the categories 1 (Science and Nature) and in category 2 (more than 100 journals) if the content is clearly against the IPCC science.
In the final phase of this process, I received a useful comment from a reviewer that there is a research study of Loeb et al. published in 2018 (Ref. 5).
Some readers may know that Dr. Loeb is a responsible person for the CERES data in NASA and he surely follows the observational data trends. There is a comprehensive analysis of the CERES data in this study.
The researchers showed that the SW radiation change was due to the end of hiatus and it is also the dominant reason for the “increased temperature tendency during the post-hiatus period” as they have formulated this matter.
As an example, about the rejection comments, there was a comment that a reviewer did not accept the SW radiation changes to have any impact on El Nino temperatures or thereafter. Maybe this reviewer would have rejected also the paper of Loeb et al. – do you think so?
So, I cannot say that I was the first one who found out the role of SW radiation in the temperature changes after pause even though I did my work independently without knowing the study of Loeb et al.
What I can still say is that I have observed the role of SW radiation as an important part of super El Nino temperature impacts. I have not been able to suggest the mechanism and it may be a pure coincidence.
We can see in Fig. 2 that the El Nino 2010 was in a category “strong”. It could have developed into “very strong” super El Nino but the SW radiation anomaly was in the wrong phase.
I also carried out the analysis between “the anti-IPCC model” and the IPCC model showing that the IPCC model does not work properly.
Loeb et al. found that the correlation of SW radiation flux anomalies to the low-level cloud cover was 0.66. They did not go further to analyze what factors could cause variations to the low-level cloudiness changes.
As we know, Dr. Henrik Svensmark has proposed a theory about the cosmic radiation modulating the cloud formation process and having major impacts on the surface temperature through cloudiness changes.
This is, of course, a forbidden subject to any researcher wanting to belong to the climate establishment, because the IPCC wants to avoid any theories about the cosmic forces having a role in the climate change.
References:
Dr. Antero Ollila is an Adj. Ass. Prof. (Emeritus) at Aalto University in Finland and runs the website ClimatExam.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-16--Fact Check: Joe Biden Says Climate Change Caused Darfur Conflict

Written by Sean Moran on .
Posted in Latest news Claim : Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed on Sunday during CNN ’ s Democrat presidential debate that the conflict in Darfur , Sudan , was due to climate change .
“ What ’ s Darfur all about ?
Darfur was all about the fact that the sub-Sarahan desert , because of the change in the climate , no longer had enough arable land , ” Biden said during a conversation about the alleged effects of climate change .
However , despite Biden ’ s claim , many analysts have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not climate change .
The United Nations ( U.N. ) estimated that 300,000 had died because of the conflict .
The International Criminal Court ( ICC ) had indicted Sudan President Omar al-Bashir for genocide , war crimes , and crimes against humanity .
James Copnall , a Sudan analyst , wrote in 2013 that the Darfur conflict originated over “ hakurat , ” or land rights .
Copnall also wrote that the conflict arose between Arab militias and African groups such as the Fur , Zaghawa , and Masalit .
The Atlantic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real roots ” of the Darfur conflict was “ global warming ” in a 2007 article .
The Atlantic noted that much of Darfur ’ s lands were “ failing , ” which was explained through “ imprudent land use.
” Atlantic writer Stephan Faris wrote : Why did Darfur ’ s lands fail ?
For much of the 1980s and ’ 90s , environmental degradation in Darfur and other parts of the Sahel ( the semi-arid region just south of the Sahara ) was blamed on the inhabitants .
Dramatic declines in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region ’ s vegetation .
Imprudent land use , it was argued , exposed more rock and sand , which absorb less sunlight than plants , instead reflecting it back toward space .
This cooled the air near the surface , drawing clouds downward and reducing the chance of rain .
“ Africans were said to be doing it to themselves , ” says Isaac Held , a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .
Faris wrote that climate scientists devised an alternative theory : climate change had changed Darfur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not caused by people cutting trees or overgrazing , ” Alessandra Giannini , a Columbia University climate professor , said .
However , even as the Faris noted , it remains an “ open question ” on the extent to which human activity can be blamed for a country ’ s changing environment .

Written by Sean Moran on Mar 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Claim: Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed on Sunday during CNN’s Democrat presidential debate that the conflict in Darfur, Sudan, was due to climate change.
Verdict: False.
“What’s Darfur all about? Darfur was all about the fact that the sub-Sarahan desert, because of the change in the climate, no longer had enough arable land,” Biden said during a conversation about the alleged effects of climate change.
However, despite Biden’s claim, many analysts have blamed racial conflict and land rights, not climate change. The United Nations (U.N.) estimated that 300,000 had died because of the conflict. The International Criminal Court (ICC) had indicted Sudan President Omar al-Bashir for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
James Copnall, a Sudan analyst, wrote in 2013 that the Darfur conflict originated over “hakurat,” or land rights. Copnall also wrote that the conflict arose between Arab militias and African groups such as the Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit.
The Atlantic helped popularize the idea that the “real roots” of the Darfur conflict was “global warming” in a 2007 article.
The Atlantic noted that much of Darfur’s lands were “failing,” which was explained through “imprudent land use.” Atlantic writer Stephan Faris wrote:
Why did Darfur’s lands fail? For much of the 1980s and ’90s, environmental degradation in Darfur and other parts of the Sahel (the semi-arid region just south of the Sahara) was blamed on the inhabitants. Dramatic declines in rainfall were attributed to mistreatment of the region’s vegetation. Imprudent land use, it was argued, exposed more rock and sand, which absorb less sunlight than plants, instead reflecting it back toward space. This cooled the air near the surface, drawing clouds downward and reducing the chance of rain. “Africans were said to be doing it to themselves,” says Isaac Held, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Faris wrote that climate scientists devised an alternative theory: climate change had changed Darfur’s environment.
“This was not caused by people cutting trees or overgrazing,” Alessandra Giannini, a Columbia University climate professor, said.
However, even as the Faris noted, it remains an “open question” on the extent to which human activity can be blamed for a country’s changing environment.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print