Archives mensuelles : novembre 2019

climate-debate, to keep an eye on...

Scientists: Climate Records ‘Correlate Well’ With Solar Modulation…A Grand Solar Minimum Expected By 2030

by K. Richard, November 11, 2019 in NoTricksZone

International and NASA solar scientists find their Total Solar Irradiance reconstruction extending to 1700 can “correlate well” with Earth’s global temperature records, including a positive net TSI trend during 1986-2008. A new Grand Solar Minimum is expected to commence during the 2030s.

Surface climate records that have been uncorrupted by coastal (ocean-air)/urbanization biases suggest there has been a long-term oscillation in temperature since 1900, with peaks during the 1920s-1940s and again during recent decades (Lansner and Pepke Pedersen, 2018).

…

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Paris Won’t Cut Emissions–Bob Watson

by P. Homewood, November 10, 2019 in NotaLotofPeople KnowThat

It’s apparently taken ex IPCC Chair Bob Watson four years to work out that the Paris Agreement did nothing to reduce emissions.

It’s a pity he did not read this blog, because I was saying the same thing when it was signed!

Steve Milloy reports:

 

The truth behind the Paris Agreement climate pledges

Almost 75% of 184 Paris Agreement pledges were judged insufficient to slow climate change; Only 28 European Union nations and 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2030

UNIVERSAL ECOLOGICAL FUND

  • Only 28 European Union nations & 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030
  • China & India, top emitters, will reduce emissions intensity, but their emissions will increase
  • U.S., second top emitter, has reversed key national policies to combat climate change
  • Almost 70 percent of the pledges rely on funding from wealthy nations for their implementation

Almost three-quarters of the 184 climate pledges made under the Paris Agreement aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions are inadequate to slow climate change, and some of the world’s largest emitters will continue to increase emissions, according to a panel of world-class climate scientists. It is these increasing greenhouse emissions that are driving climate change.

The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges, a new report published by the Universal Ecological Fund, examines in great detail the 184 voluntary pledges under the Paris Agreement, the first collective global effort to address climate change.

…

better to know...?, energy and fields

The Fossil Fuel Dilemma

by David L. Debertin, November 9, 2019 in WUWT

California again easily could become one of the top three fossil fuel producing states in the nation, but the largely liberal state has made drilling for fossil fuels within the state very difficult if not impossible. So the drillers have wisely looked elsewhere for locations that pose less of a political burden. North Dakota and its leaders welcomed the drillers. The result is tax dollars flowing into the state treasury from a variety of oil-related taxes levied not only on the drillers, but on individuals receiving mineral royalty income. In the past dozen years or so this has meant that taxpayers outside the oil producing counties have seen state-level taxes drop and the state can pursue projects that benefit the residents in a host of different ways simply by using funds that would not have been available had the drilling not occurred.

The new revenue coming into New Mexico as a result of recent oil drilling on the New Mexico side of the Permian basin via fracked oil wells is a more recent phenomena, only about 3-years old. The dilemma is that New Mexico has long been left-leaning politically whereas North Dakota has been a right-leaning state. Left-leaning politicians when they hear about new state revenue from an unexpected source generally think about new government program benefiting certain favored groups (maybe the younger voters who tend to favor left-leaning politicians) rather than lowering other taxes (sales, income) that would benefit a broader base of residents both young and old. Hence, we have the New Mexico idea of offering free college tuition to the state’s residents using oil-related tax revenue.

…

better to know...?

Predictions are Hard, Especially About the Future

by Les Johnson, November 10, 2019 in WUWT

Gasoline vs Electric Vehicle Future Fuel Costs

Assumptions:

1. There will be no Idiot Swan events. There will be no outright bans on drilling or frac’ing. Tax policy will not provide heavy subsidies for renewable power or batteries, nor will tax policy unduly burden oil and gas production.
2. The difference in purchase price for an EV and ICE vehicle will be almost immaterial to the economics of vehicle choice. This is based on the assumption that TAAS will push vehicle lifetime mileage closer to 1,000,000 miles, at which point the dominant economic driver will be fuel cost.

Vehicle Fuel Cost:

Based on today’s cost of gasoline and electricity (my latest bill) the cost of each at the wheel is:

• Gasoline: $0.3415/kWh ($2.50/gallon, 20% efficiency)
• Electricity: $0.2667/kWh ($0.16/kWh, 60% efficiency)

(efficiencies from your link https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/09/14/the-future-of-electric-vehicles-in-the-u-s-part-1-65-75-new-light-duty-vehicle-sales-by-2050/#76551c18e289)

This places gasoline at a 30% price disadvantage relative to electricity (not the more than 2:1 price disadvantage in your link https://www.globalxetfs.com/future-of-transportation-is-autonomous-electric)

So if fuel cost for an electric vehicle is lower and the initial purchase price differential is assumed to not be a factor and TAAS effectively eliminates the charging management and range issues that affect EV acceptance, then why do I believe the EV’s will not take over the world anytime soon?

Simple. I have reason to believe that the cost of electricity will rise both because of rising demand and the move to renewable power generation. I also have reason to believe that the availability of electricity will be a constraining factor; we just can’t build it fast enough.

The Future Cost of Electricity:

…

climate-debate

Scientists and Their Petitions

by Donna  Laframboise, November 11, 2019 in BigPictureNews

Many scientists are now activists. They’re just another flavour of politician. Armed with a particular worldview, they’re willing to do questionable things to advance that worldview – including dragging the good name of science through the mud.

As I’ve explained recently, this isn’t a new phenomenon. It was well underway by the 1970s. Those of us who are aware of this history aren’t likely to get overly excited by the latest 11,000 scientists say it’s time to panic headlines (see here, here, here, and here).

The typical journalist, on the other hand, is a babe in the woods, totally lacking in historical perspective. Every iteration of this very old song gets treated like something fresh and new.

2019’s statement/petition is published in BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Down in the ‘Conclusions’ section we read the following. The bolding has been added by me:

As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future…such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being…prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency…

Nope, these people don’t have a messiah complex. If all of humanity drops whatever it’s doing and follows their advice, they won’t just save us from the climate emergency. They promise to toss in universal justice and equity, as well.

…

climate-debate

New Paper: Ocean Temperature Changes Are Uneven And Uncertain

by DR.  B. Peiser, Nov. 8, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

A new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation looks at how scientists monitor changes in ocean temperatures and finds a story of huge uncertainties and surprising findings.

For example, while warming might be expected to be fairly uniform, measurements suggest that it is regionalized, with parts of the South Pacific, in particular, warming more than elsewhere.

As the report’s author, Dr. David Whitehouse, says, it is hard to draw firm conclusions about what is happening in the seas:

“The oceans can absorb far more heat than the atmosphere, so temperatures changes are extremely small and therefore hard to measure reliably.”

“The energy that would raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 4 degrees C would only raise the ocean temperature by thousands of a degree, barely detectable.”

“Measuring changes in the ocean heat content are at the limits of our current capability and are made with significant uncertainties and unknowns.”

A recent claim that warming of the oceans was accelerating had to be withdrawn after errors were found in its uncertainty estimates by an independent scientist.

Cold Water? The Oceans and Climate Change can be downloaded here (PDF)

better to know...?, climate-debate

How Bad Science & Horrific Journalism Misrepresent Wildfires and Climate

by Jim Steele, November 9, 2019 in WUWT

As one wildfire expert wrote, “Predicting future fire regimes is not rocket science; it is far more complicated than that.” But regardless of accuracy, most people are attracted to very simple narratives such as: more CO2 causes global warming causes more fires. Accordingly in the summer of 2019, CNN trumpeted the headline California wildfires burn 500% more land because of climate change. They claimed, “the cause of the increase is simple. Hotter temperatures cause drier land, which causes a parched atmosphere.” CNN based their claims on a scientific paper by lead authors Park Williams and John Abatzoglou titled Observed Impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Wildfire in California. The authors are very knowledgeable but appear to have hitched their fame and fortune to pushing a very simple claim that climate change drives bigger wildfires. As will be seen, their advocacy appears to have caused them to stray from objective scientific analyses.

If Williams and Abatzoglou were not so focused on forcing a global warming connection, they would have at least raised the question, ‘why did much bigger fires happen during cooler decades?’ The 1825 New Brunswick fire burned 3,000,000 acres. In Idaho and Montana the Great Fire of 1910 burnt another 3,000,000 acres. In 1871, the Great Michigan Fire burned 2,500,000 acres. Those fires were not only 6 times larger than California’s biggest fire, they occurred in moister regions, regions that don’t experience California’s Mediterranean climate with its guaranteed months of drought each and every summer. If those huge devastating fires occurred in much cooler times, what are the other driving factors of big wildfires?

…

climate-debate

Paris Climate Accord — A Blank Check For CO2 Emissions By China And India

by Dr. Benny Peiser, Nov. 5, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

The Paris Climate Agreement, far from securing a reduction in global CO2 emissions, is fundamentally a blank cheque that allows China and India to increase their emissions as they see fit in pursuit of economic growth.

This is the conclusion of a new paper by Law Professor David Campbell (Lancaster University Law School) and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

For the last 25 years, international climate change law has failed to agree on a program of global emissions reductions.

Indeed this law grants permission to major emitters such as China and India to emit as much as they see fit. Global emissions reductions, therefore, have always been impossible and since 1992 global emissions have enormously increased.

Indeed, the Paris Agreement contains a categorical statement that countries such as China and India will not be obliged to undertake any reductions.

The UK Government proposes to continue with decarbonization even though Britain’s unilateral decarbonization is utterly pointless and thus wholly irrational.

Read the full paper here (PDF)

better to know...?, climate-debate

Russia Scraps Plans to Set Climate-Change Goals for Businesses

by Natasha Doff, November 7, 2019 in Bloomberg

Bloomberg) — Russia has ditched plans to set greenhouse-gas emissions targets for companies as a sign of its commitment to fighting climate change, following lobbying from big businesses that risked fines if they didn’t comply.

The measure was part of a bill intended to accompany Russia’s ratification of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change in September. Instead, the world’s fourth-largest carbon polluter scrapped the proposal after the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP) warned it would raise costs for companies and delay investment.

“After consultations with the government, it was decided to abandon the specific regulatory requirements,” the press department of the Economy Ministry, which is drafting the bill, said by email. “The government will have the right to decide after Jan. 1, 2024 what measures to introduce if Russia is forecast to miss its emissions targets.”

…

better to know...?, climate-debate, to keep an eye on...

Doomsday poll shrinks 25%: Now just 11,000 MeToo scientists say “panic now”

by JoNova, November 2019

Who remembers that 15,000 scientists signed some climate declaration in 2017? The same Prof Ripple, and Bioscience probably hope you don’t, because two years later there is the same rehashed, but with only 11,000 signatories. So 4,000 disappeared without a trace. There are however, the same comic indefendable graphs. Call it “extreme graphing” — every line needs to be diagonal. All “pauses” are disappearing. No fallacy remains unbroken.

To stop storms we apparently need to reduce the global population, stop mining “excessive” minerals, eat more veges,  and we need to preserve biodiversity, reefs, forests and greenery at whatever it was in 1685 or whenever the sacred preindustrial year of Life On Earth is declared. You know the drill — coal and oil are demon spirits. Exorcise them now! Then rinse, repeat and …hand-wash your undies.

…

After crowing about how unqualified skeptics were, only 156 (1%) of the 11,000 have the word “climate” in their job title or specialty. And even these climate experts mostly seem to be experts in adapting or mitigating climate change. They know things about food, forests, ecology, land use, disease, law, agriculture, policy, economics, communication and tree survival. This is not to say that they are wrong because of their qualifications (they’re wrong because of the arguments they make), but isn’t it rather odd, that the real experts in the field of climate modeling are all missing? Could it be that these 11,000 scientists are the me-too propaganda arm endorsing graphs and arguments that real modelers can’t afford to?

…

Also here and  here

climate-debate

FINLAND’S COLDEST-EVER AUTUMN TEMPERATURE HAS JUST BEEN SMASHED + SNOW-DEPTH AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL IN [AT LEAST] 60 YEARS

Cap Allon, November 5, 2019 in Electroverse

Brutal Arctic fronts have engulfed Scandinavia over the past few weeks. The record for Finland’s lowest-ever Autumn temp has just been smashed (for the second time this week), as has Sodankylä’s all-time snow-depth record (for early Nov).

The temperature in Enontekiö –a municipality in the Finnish part of Lapland– plunged to a Santa-freezing –28.2C(-18.8F) on Tuesday, Nov 5; beating-out the nation’s previous all-time autumnal low set just the previous day — Muonio’s -26.4C (15.5F) –located in far-northern Finland.

The previous record low for any autumn day in Enontekio was -26.3C (-15.3F).

Temperatures below -27C (-16.6F) were also recorded in Sodankylä, Luosto, and Kittilä on Tuesday, breaking local all-time record lows.

climate-debate

New climate models – even more wrong

by P. Matthews, Nov. 5, 2019 in ClimateScepticsim

The IPCC AR5 Report included this diagram, showing that climate models exaggerate recent warming:

If you want to find it, it’s figure 11.25, also repeated in the Technical Summary as figure TS-14. The issue is also discussed in box TS3:

“However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error.”

Well, now there is a new generation of climate models, imaginatively known as CMIP6. By a remarkable coincidence, two new papers have just appeared, from independent teams, giving very similar results and published on the same day in the same journal. One is UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, with a long list of authors, mostly from the Met Office, also announced as a “New flagship climate model” on the Met Office website.  The other is Structure and Performance of GFDL’s CM4.0 Climate Model, by a team from GFDL and Princeton. Both papers are open-access.

Now you might think that the new models would be better than the old ones. This is mathematical modelling 101: if a model doesn’t fit well with the data, you improve the model to make it fit better. But such elementary logic doesn’t apply in the field of climate science.

…

climate-debate

Paris Climate Accord — A Blank Check For CO2 Emissions By China And India

by Dr. B. Peiser, No. 5, 2018 in ClimateChangeDispatch

The Paris Climate Agreement, far from securing a reduction in global CO2 emissions, is fundamentally a blank cheque that allows China and India to increase their emissions as they see fit in pursuit of economic growth.

This is the conclusion of a new paper by Law Professor David Campbell (Lancaster University Law School) and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

For the last 25 years, international climate change law has failed to agree on a program of global emissions reductions.

Indeed this law grants permission to major emitters such as China and India to emit as much as they see fit. Global emissions reductions, therefore, have always been impossible and since 1992 global emissions have enormously increased.

Indeed, the Paris Agreement contains a categorical statement that countries such as China and India will not be obliged to undertake any reductions.

The UK Government proposes to continue with decarbonization even though Britain’s unilateral decarbonization is utterly pointless and thus wholly irrational.

Read the full paper here (PDF)

unclassified

4 New Papers, One Alarm-Dispelling Conclusion: Future Sea Level Rise May NOT Threaten Islands After All

by K. Richard, November 4, 2019 in NoTricksZone

As reported in 4 separately-published papers, scientists have discovered a mechanism whereby islands can build themselves up naturally, thwarting the threat of sea level rise.  Tuck et al. (2019) affirm the “implications of island building are profound, as it will offset existing scenarios of dramatic increases in island flooding.”

Earlier this year, Duvat (2019) identified a global trend in island shoreline net growth despite recent sea level rise.

The welcome news is that none of the islands larger than 10 ha – and just 1.2% of the 334 islands larger than 5 ha – have decreased in size since the 1980s. Nearly 90% of the world’s islands have been stable to expanding in coastal area during recent decades.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

A STAGGERING 1,204 U.S. SITES RECORDED THEIR COLDEST-EVER OCTOBER TEMPERATURES LAST MONTH

by Cap Allon, November 4, 2019 in Electroverse

According to official NOAA data, more than twelve-hundred monthly low temperature records fell ACROSS the U.S. in October 2019 — multiple Arctic air masses rode anomalously-far south on the back of a wavy jet stream flow, itself associated with historically low solar activity.

The sun is currently in its deepest solar minimum of the past 100+ years, and the jet stream has weakened as a result; its usual tight ‘zonal’ flow has more-often-than-not reverted to a loose ‘meridional’ one. This wavy flow has diverted brutal Arctic air into the lower-latitudes, and is responsible for the U.S. either busting or tying a staggering 1204 all-time MONTHLY low temperature records in October 2019 (double the number of new heat records).

…

…

 

See also here and  here

 

better to know...?, climate-debate

U.S. Starts withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord.

by A. Watts, November 4, 2019 in WUWT

President Trump is fulfilling his most important de-regulatory promise.  This is a great day for America, and 4th November 2020 when U. S. withdrawal becomes final will be an even greater day. 

On the U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

Press Statement by Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State

November 4, 2019

Today the United States began the process to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.  Per the terms of the Agreement, the United States submitted formal notification of its withdrawal to the United Nations.  The withdrawal will take effect one year from delivery of the notification.

As noted in his June 1, 2017 remarks, President Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because of the unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by U.S. pledges made under the Agreement.  The United States has reduced all types of emissions, even as we grow our economy and ensure our citizens’ access to affordable energy.  Our results speak for themselves:  U.S. emissions of criteria air pollutants that impact human health and the environment declined by 74% between 1970 and 2018.  U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions dropped 13% from 2005-2017, even as our economy grew over 19 percent.

The U.S. approach incorporates the reality of the global energy mix and uses all energy sources and technologies cleanly and efficiently, including fossils fuels, nuclear energy, and renewable energy.  In international climate discussions, we will continue to offer a realistic and pragmatic model – backed by a record of real world results – showing innovation and open markets lead to greater prosperity, fewer emissions, and more secure sources of energy.  We will continue to work with our global partners to enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change and prepare for and respond to natural disasters.  Just as we have in the past, the United States will continue to research, innovate, and grow our economy while reducing emissions and extending a helping hand to our friends and partners around the globe.

climate-debate, to keep an eye on...

Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale

by Zharkova V. V. et al., June  24, 2019 in Nature OPEN ACCESS

Abstract

Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic field associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the Sun indicate that the solar activity is heading in the next three decades (2019–2055) to a Modern grand minimum similar to Maunder one. On the other hand, a reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that since the Maunder minimum there is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar irradiance (TSI) by a value of about 1–1.5 Wm−2 closely correlated with an increase of the baseline (average) terrestrial temperature. In order to understand these two opposite trends, we calculated the double dynamo summary curve of magnetic field variations backward one hundred thousand years allowing us to confirm strong oscillations of solar activity in regular (11 year) and recently reported grand (350–400 year) solar cycles caused by actions of the double solar dynamo. In addition, oscillations of the baseline (zero-line) of magnetic field with a period of 1950 ± 95 years (a super-grand cycle) are discovered by applying a running averaging filter to suppress large-scale oscillations of 11 year cycles. Latest minimum of the baseline oscillations is found to coincide with the grand solar minimum (the Maunder minimum) occurred before the current super-grand cycle start. Since then the baseline magnitude became slowly increasing towards its maximum at 2600 to be followed by its decrease and minimum at ~3700. These oscillations of the baseline solar magnetic field are found associated with a long-term solar inertial motion about the barycenter of the solar system and closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature in the past two centuries. This trend is anticipated to continue in the next six centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the terrestrial temperature by more than 2.5 °C by 2600.

…

…

unclassified

Half of 21st Century Warming Due to El Nino

by Roy Spencer, May 13, 2019 in GlobalWarming

A major uncertainty in figuring out how much of recent warming has been human-caused is knowing how much nature has caused. The IPCC is quite sure that nature is responsible for less than half of the warming since the mid-1900s, but politicians, activists, and various green energy pundits go even further, behaving as if warming is 100% human-caused.

The fact is we really don’t understand the causes of natural climate change on the time scale of an individual lifetime, although theories abound. For example, there is plenty of evidence that the Little Ice Age was real, and so some of the warming over the last 150 years (especially prior to 1940) was natural — but how much?

The answer makes as huge difference to energy policy. If global warming is only 50% as large as is predicted by the IPCC (which would make it only 20% of the problem portrayed by the media and politicians), then the immense cost of renewable energy can be avoided until we have new cost-competitive energy technologies.

The recently published paper Recent Global Warming as Confirmed by AIRSused 15 years of infrared satellite data to obtain a rather strong global surface warming trend of +0.24 C/decade. Objections have been made to that study by me (e.g. here) and others, not the least of which is the fact that the 2003-2017 period addressed had a record warm El Nino near the end (2015-16), which means the computed warming trend over that period is not entirely human-caused warming.

If we look at the warming over the 19-year period 2000-2018, we see the record El Nino event during 2015-16 (all monthly anomalies are relative to the 2001-2017 average seasonal cycle):

 

…

…

climate-debate

Ancient Air Challenges Prominent Explanation For A Shift In Glacial Cycles

by E. W. Wolf, November 4, 2019 in WUWT

From Nature

An analysis of air up to 2 million years old, trapped in Antarctic ice, shows that a major shift in the periodicity of glacial cycles was probably not caused by a long-term decline in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

Eric W. Wolff

During the past 2.6 million years, Earth’s climate has alternated between warm periods known as interglacials, when conditions were similar to those of today, and cold glacials, when ice sheets spread across North America and northern Europe. Before about 1 million years ago, the warm periods recurred every 40,000 years, but after that, the return period lengthened to an average of about 100,000 years. It has often been suggested that a decline in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was responsible for this fundamental change. Writing in Nature, Yan et al.1 report the first direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from more than 1 million years ago. Their data show that, although CO2levels during glacials stayed well above the lows that occurred during the deep glacials of the past 800,000 years, the maximum CO2 concentrations during interglacials did not decline. The explanation for the change must therefore lie elsewhere.

Understanding what caused the shift in periodicity, known as the mid-Pleistocene transition (MPT), is one of the great challenges of palaeoclimate science. The 40,000-year periodicity that dominated until about 1 million years ago is easily explained, because the tilt of Earth’s spin axis relative to its orbit around the Sun varies between 22.1° and 24.5° with the same period. In other words, before the MPT, low tilts led to cooler summers that promoted the growth and preservation of ice sheets.

But after the MPT, glacial cycles lasted for two to three tilt cycles. Because the pattern of variation in Earth’s orbit and tilt remained unchanged, this implies that the energy needed to lose ice sheets2 had increased. One prominent explanation3 is that atmospheric levels of CO2 were declining, and eventually crossed a threshold value below which the net cooling effect of the decline allowed ice sheets to persist and grow larger.

…

energy and fields

Southeast Asia: Coal Demand To Double By 2040

by Charles the moderator, November 1, 2019 in WUWT

There’s just no stopping coal in Southeast Asia. Surging investments in wind and solar energy won’t be enough to shake the fuel’s dominance in the region for decades to come, according to the International Energy Agency.

 

Coal demand is expected to double to almost 400 million tons a year by 2040, the agency said in its Southeast Asia Energy Outlook published Wednesday. That’s 2.5% higher than its forecast from two years ago, even as renewable power capacity is seen more than tripling through 2040.

“Coal is rather resistant because it is affordable,” said Keisuke Sadamori, IEA’s director for energy markets and security. “It’s really hard for Southeast Asian countries to move away from affordable coal immediately.”

…

climate-debate

Halloween Surprise: 96-Year-Old Record Snowfall In Chicago, Across U.S.

by K. Rodriguez, November 1, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

A storm that made many areas of the Midwest feel more like winter than fall shattered a 96-year-old winter weather record in Chicago.

The historic storm system— which brought snow and cold over the Colorado Rockies this week— made it to the Midwest on Thursday morning, unleashing moderate-to-heavy snowfall in northeastern Kansas, eastern Iowa, Illinois, and southern Wisconsin.

The total accumulation expected in these areas is 3 to 5 inches of snow.

Chicago experienced its earliest snow day of the year where an inch or more of snow fell since October 20, 1989, and smashed its previous record of 0.7 inches at Chicago O’Hare International Airport on Wednesday with a whopping 1.2 inches of snow.

…
to keep an eye on...

Climategate: Ten Years Later

by Dr K. Kemm, November 1, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

This month marks the tenth anniversary of “Climategate” – the release of thousands of emails to and from climate scientists who had been (and still are) collaborating and colluding to create a man-made climate crisis that exists in their minds and computer models, but not in the real world.

The scandal should have ended climate catastrophism.

Instead, it was studiously buried by politicians, scientists, activists and crony capitalists, who will rake in trillions of dollarsfrom the exaggerations and fakery, while exempting themselves from the damage they are inflicting on everyday families.

Few people know the Inconvenient Facts about the supposed man-made climate and extreme weather “crisis.”

For example, since 1998, average global temperatures have risen by a mere few hundredths of a degree. (For a time, they even declined slightly.)

Yet all we hear is baseless rhetoric about man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming and climate changes that pose existential threats to humanity, wildlife, and the planet.

Based on this, we are told we must stop using fossil fuels to power economic growth and better living standards. This is bad news for Africa and the world.

We keep hearing that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cause rising global temperatures.

But satellite data show no such thing. In fact, computer model predictions for 2019 are almost a half-degree Celsius (0.9 degrees F) above actual satellite measurements.

…

…

See also here

better to know...?, climate-debate

COLORADO: HEAVY SNOW BREAKS A 102-YEAR-OLD RECORD IN PUEBLO — CANCELS/DELAYS 800+ FLIGHTS AT DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

by Cap Allon, Oct 30, 2019 in Electroverse

The Centennial State has seen a myriad of all-time cold records tumble this fall, and this week is continuing that trend towards cooler climes.

The 3.8 inches (9.7 cm) of snow that accumulated in Pueblo on Monday, October 28 comfortably eclipsed the city’s previous record for the date — the 2.9 inches (7.4 cm) from back in 1917. It also adds to the early-season inches already received during the first week of October.

For reference, Pueblo’s mean date for first measurable snowfall isn’t until Nov 6, according to weather.gov.

And yet more powder is forecast for the city on Wednesday, meaning this year will likely win third spot for snowiest October on record, surpassing the 8.2 inches (20.8 cm) that accumulated in October 1997(solar minimum of cycle 22).

…

 

climate-debate

La COP 25 annulée … catastrophe ou opportunité ?

by SCE-info, 1 novembre 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

Nous revoici plongé une fois de plus dans la énième COP censée répondre à l’Urgence Climatique. Pour rappel c’est lors du Sommet de la Terre, en juin 1992, à Rio de Janiero que cette urgence climatique, qui ne disait pas encore si haut son nom, a démarré. Depuis lors l’Urgence Climatique fait partie de notre quotidien avec ses prédictions apocalyptiques jamais avérées, sauf à établir un amalgame entre climat et catastrophes non liées au climat. Quelques amalgames parmi d’autres ? Les exagérations climatiques extrêmes, analysées à SCE et qui montrent comment les médias par un tour de passe-passe nous vendent du global à partir de ce qui est le plus souvent local, même démarche avec la forêt amazoniennedécrétée à tort ‘poumon de la planète’ ou encore les incendies de grande ampleur de 2017en Californie ‘simplement’ liés à une gestion idéologique des forêts par les pouvoirs publics. Que n’a-t-on pas entendu sur ces phénomènes et bien d’autres…

Oui les COP se succèdent, ne rectifient jamais le tir et n’ont toujours qu’un seul ennemi à combattre, le mal du siècle, le CO2, symbolisé par le ‘bouton CO2’ censé être à l’origine de tous les dérèglements rapportés. Force est de constater que dans cette hypothèse du CO2toutes ces COP se révèlent un échec cuisant, pour preuve l’augmentation de 1,7% de ce gaz en 2018 atteignant ainsi un nouveau record (ici et ici). Non seulement ces grands-messes onusiennes sont des échecs, mais elles entretiennent également une belle incohérence : outre que chaque sommet coûte très cher (130 millions de dollars pour plus de 30 000 participants (sic) au dernier sommet de Katowice en Pologne et environ 2 milliards de dollars depuis la première COP), ces réunions émettent plus de CO2 que 8200 familles américaines en un an, ou l’équivalent de 11700 voitures pendant un an, ou encore 728 camions pour la même période (ici).

…