Archives de catégorie : better to know…?

Les idéologues de l’hystérie climatique vus à l’ombre du Coronavirus

by Samuel Furfari, 26 mars 2020 in LaTribune

OPINION. Il semble morbide et cynique, alors que des milliers de personnes meurent du Coronavirus, d’insister en ce moment sur l’impérieuse nécessité d’agir contre le changement climatique. Pourtant, des idéologues, qui sont aussi et surtout ceux de la remise en cause de l’économie de marché, osent le faire. Ils ne ratent aucune occasion d’essayer de faire croire que le changement climatique cause ou exacerbe cette crise. Il est nécessaire de les dénoncer pour préparer l’avenir. Par Samuel Furfari, Professeur à l’Université Libre de Bruxelles et Président de la Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels.

Un climatologue français semble regretter que « ce qu’on fait pour le Coronavirus, c’est deux ans de financement climat » car, d’après lui, si on dépense de l’argent pour sauver des vies, on pourrait tout aussi bien redoubler d’effort pour sauver la planète. Un climatologue belge a eu l’outrecuidance de tweeter à la Première ministre belge et à son vice-Premier ministre en charge du budget qu’ils profitent de cette crise pour introduire une taxe sur l’énergie : « #Covid_19 : C’est le bon moment pour instaurer une vraie taxe CO2 sur les carburants, le mazout [fioul en Belgique] et le gaz fossile. Leur prix ayant fortement baissé, ce sera indolore. Cela permettra de dégager des ressources pour compenser les effets de la crise. » Sur Facebook, ce membre éminent du GIEC s’est fait traiter de « charognard », entre autres épithètes. En pleine crise, « presque hilare », un commentateur politique bien connu a apprécié que ce « virus révolutionnaire » empêchait la privatisation des aéroports de Paris et  s’en est pris aux « banques mondiales [qui] échouent lamentablement face à la crise climatique en injectant des billions dans les combustibles fossiles».

Heartland Institute Launches

by P. Homewood, March 24, 2020 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

WUWT has news of a new website launched by the Heartland Institute, to augment the excellent factchecking site, Climate At A Glance:

Nearly every day, the establishment media promotes new climate propaganda themes designed to scare people into believing a climate crisis is at hand. When the Climate Scare goes unrebutted, people are likely to believe by default that the propaganda is true. Yet most of the media’s climate propaganda is misleading or outright false. will address and debunk the media’s most prominent climate-related tall tales.

Lunar Recession and the Age of the Earth: How Uniformitarianism Works

by D. Middleton, March 24, 2020 in WUWT

One of the things I love about writing for Watts Up With That, is the fact that reader comments often inspire me to research and write subsequent posts. In my recent post about the origins of the Moon, one commentator suggested that the rate of lunar recession (tidal acceleration) indicated that the Earth was much younger than 4.5 billion years old and/or somehow disproved the geological Principle of Uniformitarianism. I didn’t give much thought to my reply. I simply calculated the distance from the Earth to the Moon 1 billion and 4.5 billion years ago. The Moon is currently receding (moving away) from the Earth at a rate of about 3.8 cm/yr. This has been directly measured with lasers.

At 3.8 cm/yr, the Moon would have been 215,288 miles away from Earth a billion years ago. It is currently an average of 238,900 miles away. At 3.8 cm/yr, it still would have been 132,646 miles away 4.5 BY.

If the Moon did did originate from a collision with Earth, it would have been a lot closer to Earth 4.5 BY than 100,000 miles.

How much human-caused global warming should we expect?

by Andy May, March 21, 2020 in WUWT

C3S20 asks, how much human-caused warming will occur if we do nothing, that is, continue “business-as-usual?” It’s unfortunate, but the IPCC, for all their work, do not adequately answer that question, their projections are all based on abstract “scenarios.” C3S20 break this overall question into five parts:

  1. What would greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) be, if we did nothing and continued normally?
  2. For each GHG, how do emissions relate to the change in atmospheric concentration?
  3. What would the global temperature be if GHG concentrations were at “preindustrial” levels?
  4. How sensitive are global temperatures to GHG concentrations?
  5. How much warming should we expect if we do nothing?

C3S20 tell us the Paris Agreement conclusion that we need to limit global warming to 2°C above preindustrial levels suffers from several unknowns.

  1. The preindustrial period is not formally defined. The preindustrial temperature and greenhouse gas level are not specified. In fact, several time periods, temperatures and GHG levels are used as “preindustrial” in the latest IPCC AR5 report.

  2. The assumptions that warming is bad and increasing levels of CO2 are bad, are not supported with any data. Numerous studies have concluded that some warming is good for humankind and additional CO2 is good for plants.

  3. The penultimate draft of AR5 identified the period 1850 to 1900 as the preindustrial baseline for CO2 and temperature. This was the end of the Little Ice Age, the coldest periodin the last several thousand years. Why use that period as a baseline (Luning and Vahrenholt 2017)? This is not explained, and the final draft of the report removed the reference to the 1850 to 1900 baseline.

  4. If the UNFCC and the Paris Agreement assume “climate change” and “Human-caused Climate Change” are synonymous, how do they explain that climate has change much quicker and much more dramatically many times in the past 13,000 years before human civilization began and well before industrialization?

How exactly do they plan to replace fossil fuels?

by P. Driessen, March 16, 2020 in WUWT

They want to ban coal, oil and gas. Exactly how will they replace them? Who wins? Who loses?

Berkeley, CA, Takoma Park, MD and other cities; California, Connecticut, New York, Virginiaand other states; Germany, England and other countries; the European Union – all plan to banish oil, natural gas and coal within 10, 20 or 30 years. A number of US states have joined Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives and proudly say We Are Still Inthe Paris climate treaty, no matter what President Trump says or does.

Forget the headlines and models, and look at hurricane, tornado, sea level and other historic records. There is no crisis, no unprecedented warming or weather events, certainly nothing that proves humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate changes and weather events.

But for now, let’s just examine their zero-carbon plans. How exactly will they make this happen? Where do they plan to get the turbines, panels and batteries? the raw materials to manufacture them? How do they plan to function as modern societies with pricey, erratic energy and frequent power disruptions?


Continuer la lecture de How exactly do they plan to replace fossil fuels?

Greenhouse Gases Not Behind The End Of The Warming Pause

by Dr A. Ollila, March 16, 2020 in ClimateChange Dispatch

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.

UN should change course on climate

by D. Woljick, March 15, 2020 in CFACT

The UN’s climate action machinery is on the verge to collapse, beginning this November in Glasgow, Scotland. This time the annual climate summit, called COP 26, is most likely to end in complete disarray, even more than COP 25 did last year in Madrid, Spain.

The failure of COP 25 was widely noted with sadness, but Madrid was a minor COP, with little of substance on the table. In contrast COP 26 is hugely important. When it fails, the UN has to rethink its entire approach to climate action.

One of the six principles stated in CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration captures the situation very succinctly. It says “Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.” If it does not, such a policy must fail. See

Continuer la lecture de UN should change course on climate

ESO telescope observes exoplanet where it rains iron

by C. Rotter, March 13, 2020 in WUWT

Researchers using ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) have observed an extreme planet where they suspect it rains iron. The ultra-hot giant exoplanet has a day side where temperatures climb above 2400 degrees Celsius, high enough to vaporise metals. Strong winds carry iron vapour to the cooler night side where it condenses into iron droplets.

“One could say that this planet gets rainy in the evening, except it rains iron,” says David Ehrenreich, a professor at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. He led a study, published today in the journal Nature, of this exotic exoplanet. Known as WASP-76b, it is located some 640 light-years away in the constellation of Pisces.

This strange phenomenon happens because the ‘iron rain’ planet only ever shows one face, its day side, to its parent star, its cooler night side remaining in perpetual darkness. Like the Moon on its orbit around the Earth, WASP-76b is ‘tidally locked‘: it takes as long to rotate around its axis as it does to go around the star.

Despite Mild Winter, Europe February Mean Temperatures Show No Warming Over Three Decades

by P. Gosselin, March 13, 2020 in NoTricksZone

By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin

It’s been a particularly mild winter in Europe this year. But that hasn’t changed the long-term trend over the past 30 years.

Now that the February 2020 data have been coming in, we plot the mean February temperatures for some countries in Europe.


Three of 5 stations show February mean temperature in Greta Thunberg’s Sweden have had a cooling trend since 1988! The real data will probably make the climate alarmists upset.

Les glaces terrestres, la cryosphère (1/3)

by J.C. Maurin, 13 mars 2020 in ScienceClimatEnergie

On désigne par cryosphère l’ensemble des glaces terrestres. Son évolution, lors des dernières décennies, est souvent présentée comme préoccupante: il en résulterait une forte hausse des niveaux marins et un changement d’albédo et donc du bilan énergétique de la Terre. Cette première partie de l’article présentera quelques ordres de grandeurs pour les glaces terrestres.
On utilisera principalement les données du chapitre 4 du rapport AR5 WG1 (5th Assessment Report, Working Group 1) qui a été publié en 2013 par l’organisme intergouvernemental GIEC.





4. Conclusions

  • La cryosphère c’est en premier lieu les zones proches du pôle Sud : banquises et glaciers ne représentent ensemble que 0,7% du volume de la cryosphère alors que la seule partie Est de l’Antarctique, bien moins connue, représente plus de 75% de la cryosphère, soit 107 fois plus.
  • La simple correction du volume de glace en Antarctique, entre les rapports du GIEC AR4 (2007) et AR5 (2013), est 4 fois plus grande que le volume (Banquises + Glaciers).
  • Les variations actuelles de la cryosphère restent négligeables si on les compare à celles du passé : l’ensemble des glaces terrestres, il y a 20 millénaires, devait avoir un volume au moins double du volume actuel. En effet, la fonte des glaces (entre -18 ka et -8 ka) fait monter le niveau des océans de ≈ 120 m  contre 66 m SLE (Sea Level Equivalent à la Figure 1).

La deuxième partie de l’article (2/3) commentera les choix rédactionnels du GIEC pour le chapitre 4 de l’AR5 et donnera des ordres de grandeurs complémentaires pour les banquises et les glaciers.

Delingpole: Wikipedia Airbrushes List of Climate Sceptic Scientists Out of History

by J. Delingpole, March 9, 2020 in WUWT

Wikipedia has deleted its ‘List of Scientists Who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming’.

Stalin — who set the template for airbrushing inconvenient people out of history — would no doubt have heartily approved of this wanton act of censorship.

But what would probably have pleased him more is the magnificently twisted justification offered by the editor responsible.


Full text here

Met Office Does Not Know What “Extreme Weather” Is.

by P. Homewood, March 9, 2020 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

According to the Met Office, 2019 was a year of weather extremes in the UK. There is actually very little evidence to back this claim up, but this does not stop them ludicrously claiming one mild day in February as “extreme”!

To most people, extreme weather would be the sort of stuff our ancestors experienced in this very week in 1891:

Russia Just Told the World, “No.”

by Tom Luongo, March 6, 2020 in GoldGoats’NGuns

There is real power in the word “No.”

In fact, I’d argue that it is the single most powerful word in any language.

In the midst of the worst market meltdown in a dozen years which has at its source problems within global dollar-funding markets, Russia found itself in the position to exercise the Power of No.

Multiple overlapping crises are happening worldwide right now and they all interlock into a fabric of chaos.

Between political instability in Europe, presidential primary shenanigans in the U.S., coronavirus creating mass hysteria and Turkey’s military adventurism in Syria, the eastern Mediterranean and Libya, markets are finally calling the bluff of central bankers who have been propping up asset prices for years.

But, at its core, the current crisis stems from the simple truth that those prices around the world are vastly overvalued.

Western government and central bank policies have used the power of the dollar to push the world to this state.

And that state is, at best, meta-stable.

But when this number of shits get this freaking real, well… meeting the fan was inevitable.

And all it took to push a correction into a full-scale panic was the Russians saying, “No.”

The reality has been evident in the commodity markets for months.  Copper and other industrial metals have all been in slumps while equity markets zoomed higher.

But it was oil that was the most confounding of all.

Most of 2019 we saw oil prices behaving oddly as events occurred with regularity to push prices higher but ultimately see them fall.

Since peaking after the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani oil prices have been a one-way trade. Down.

Guerre du prix du pétrole : revanche de la technologie sur l’OPEP

by Samuel Furfari, 9 mars 2020 in Contrepoints

Le monde regorge de pétrole grâce au développement de la technologie. C’est elle qui est le vecteur de la marche du monde de l’énergie.

Je vous avoue que je ne suis pas le cours du pétrole tous les jours. Cela n’a d’importance que pour les traders et les spéculateurs qui engrangent des bénéfices plantureux en jouant sur quelques centimes de volumes gigantesques.

Si vous voulez comprendre la géopolitique du pétrole et donc de l’énergie , il faut observer les tendances lourdes, comme celle du week-end dernier.

Lorsque j’ai publié en mars 2014 un livre intitulé Vive les énergies fossiles qui indique qu’il n’y a aucune raison objective ou technologique pour que le prix du brut dépasse les 100 dollars le baril, on m’a pris pour un farfelu. Même si j’étais probablement le seul à oser le dire ouvertement en milieu francophone, nombreux étaient ceux qui l’affirmaient de vive voix et par écrit dans le monde. Les faits nous ont donné raison.


Face à la chute brusque de l’activité économique occasionnée par l’épidémie de coronavirus, la demande de pétrole est en chute libre. La consommation chinoise de pétrole a chuté de plus de 3 millions de barils par jour.

De toute évidence, cette crise sera bien plus profonde pour l’économie mondiale que celle déclenchée par les subprimes en 2008. On s’attend à un net recul de la demande en énergie primaire et singulièrement du pétrole.

Cela va de soi : les avions qui ne volent pas, les voitures qui restent au garage, les restaurants désertés, les stades fermés, les vacances annulées font dégringoler la consommation de produits pétroliers et partant, de toute l’économie. De quoi réjouir les écologistes profonds !

Vendredi dernier à Vienne, à la réunion de l’OPEP, comme d’habitude la Russie – non membre – a été conviée à participer aux travaux. L’OPEP, qui manipule le prix du brut depuis 1973 voulait réduire sa production pour maintenir le prix au niveau précédant l’arrivée sur scène du virus dévastateur. Par la même occasion Ryad aurait mis l’Iran encore plus à genoux pour le peu de pétrole que celui-ci parvient à écouler au marché noir (l’Iran ne sait plus où stocker le pétrole pompé qu’il ne peut pas vendre).


Il est vrai que depuis trois ans, l’OPEP et la Russie se sont accordés pour ajuster leurs extractions à la demande mondiale. Il y a bien eu une tentative de faire chuter le prix de manière à restreindre le développement du pétrole de roche-mère des USA, mais en vain.

Cette fois, Moscou n’a pas voulu suivre le leader de l’OPEP – Ryad – et a refusé d’adhérer à la réduction de la production pour soutenir le prix. L’Arabie Saoudite, piquée au vif, a réagi de manière inverse et a déclaré son intention de porter sa production de brut à plus de 10 millions de barils par jour en avril, après l’expiration de l’accord actuel entre l’OPEP et la Russie fin mars – connu sous le nom d’OPEP+.

De plus, elle a réduit le prix de tous ses bruts vers toutes les destinations de 6 à 8 dollars le baril. La conséquence ne s’est pas fait attendre : le prix du brut a chuté à environ 32 dollars le baril.

Les contrats à terme sur le pétrole ont subi leur plus grosse perte quotidienne depuis 1991 lors de la guerre du Golfe. Lors de la crise asiatique de 1998, le Financial Times du 10 septembre 1998 titrait que la seule chose qui était plus basse que le cours du pétrole était le moral de l’économie. On pourrait dire la même chose aujourd’hui.



Continuer la lecture de Guerre du prix du pétrole : revanche de la technologie sur l’OPEP


by H. Hardrada, March 8, 2020 in Electroverse

I [Harry Hardrada] recently unearthed an intriguing piece of literature from a 19th century periodical named ‘Ho! For the Pole!’ in Littell’s Living Age, Volume 66 (1860).

The paper highlights various voyages to the North Pole throughout the 17th-18th centuries with meticulous detail. It appears, according to the article, that many wooden ships penetrated as far north as the 89th latitude in ‘open iceless seas’ during this time — as in 1665 and 1675.

A bit far-fetched?

Perhaps, on the face of it… but there is some good evidence out there which may suggest otherwise.

Arctic Meltdown Latest

by P. Homewood, March 3, 2020 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

Arctic sea ice extent continues to run well ahead of the last few years, as it has done for most of this year so far, and continues to grow at a time of year when it normally begins to stabilise and recede.

Average extent in February was the highest since 2013, and stands greater than 2005 and 2006:

New Study Asserts Cloud Cover Changes Drove The Post-1980s Solar Radiation Increase Important To Recent Warming

by K. Richard, March 2, 2020 in NoTricksZone

Using NASA’s MERRA-2 radiation data, scientists find shortwave radiation (SW) has been rising since the 1980s. The SW increase has been larger and faster than longwave radiation (LW) changes during this same timespan. Cloud variability has been the “main driver” of these trends.

In a new Nature journal paper (Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020) published in Scientific Reports, scientists use radiation records from NASA to conclude shortwave (SW) changes are “mainly determined” by cloud modulation.

Clouds are “showing a declining trend” from 1984-2014. Fewer clouds means less SW radiation is reflected to space and more is absorbed by the Earth’s surface.


by Cap Allon, March 2, 2020 in Electroverse

Australia’s “Grand Solar Minimum” summer –which brought record cold/heat, drought/floods, fires, and dust storms– had one final sting in the tail: another flurry of rare summer snow.

While summer down-under officially ended on Saturday, Feb 29, another blast of heavy, unexpected snow began burying parts of Tasmania on Wednesday, Feb 26.

Mountainous areas of the isolated island state reported large accumulations to close out the week, with local meteorologists warning yet more snow could settle above 1,000 m (3,280 ft) –including at Mount Field and Wellington– over the coming days.



Why are polar bears going extinct? (Spoiler: They’re not)

by S. Crockford, February 24, 2020 in WUWT

Google says many people ask this question so here is the correct answer: polar bears are not going extinct. If you have been told that, you have misunderstood or have been misinformed. Polar bears are well-distributed across their available habitat and population numbers are high (officially 22,000-31,000 at 2015 but likely closer to 26,000-58,000 at 2018): these are features of a healthy, thriving species. ‘Why are polar bears going extinct?’ contains a false premise – there is no need to ask ‘why’ when the ‘polar bears [are] going extinct’ part is not true.1


It is true that in 2007, it was predicted that polar bear numbers would plummet when summer sea ice declined to 42% of 1979 levels for 8 out of 10 years (anticipated to occur by 2050) and extinct or nearly so by 2100 (Amstrup et al. 2007). However, summer sea ice has been at ‘mid-century-like’ levels since 2007 (with year to year variation, see NOAA ice chart below) yet polar bear numbers have increased since 2005. The anticipated disaster did not occur but many people still believe it did because the media and some researchers still give that impression.

The Death Of Science Is The Real Climate Emergency

by M. Phillips, February 25, 2020 in ClimateChangeDispatch

A few commentators have begun to stumble towards the fact that the policy of becoming “carbon neutral” by 2050, as adopted by the UK and the EU, would undo modernity itself.

On Unherd, Peter Franklin observes that, if carried through, the policy will have a far greater effect than Brexit or anything else; it will transform society altogether.

“It will continue to transform the power industry, and much else besides: every mode of transport; how we build, warm and cool our homes; food, agriculture and land use; trade, industry, every part of the economy”.

Franklin is correct. Even so, he seems not to grasp the full implications of the disaster he intuits – because he thinks there’s some kind of middle way through which the imminent eco-apocalypse can be prevented without returning Britain to the Middle Ages.

In a similar vein, he quotes Rachel Wolf, a co-author of the 2019 Conservative manifesto, who is prone to the same kind of magical thinking. She wrote:

“Government has committed to ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions because it does not want the side effects of the energy sources we have used for centuries to destroy the planet. At the same time, we do not want to return to an era where children (and their mothers) regularly died, and where the majority of people lived in what would now in the UK be considered wholly unacceptable poverty. This is a staggering challenge.”

This is what we might call an understatement. What is truly staggering is, first, that any sentient person thinks this can be done and, second, that it should be done.


Continuer la lecture de The Death Of Science Is The Real Climate Emergency

New Study: Greenland’s Largest Glacier Has Rapidly Thickened Since 2016…Fueled By 1.5°C Regional Ocean Cooling

by K. Richard, February 17, 2020 in NoTricksZone

Greenland’s largest glacier (Jakobshavn) has quite abruptly thickened since 2016. The thickening has been so profound the ice elevations are nearly back to 2010-2011 levels. The nearby ocean has cooled ~1.5°C – a return to 1980s-era temperatures.

The world’s glaciers have not been following along with the CO2-driven catastrophic melting narrative.


For example, in a study of 50 Alaskan glaciers for the warming period between 1972-2012, researchers (McNabb and Hock, 2014) found there was
“…no corresponding change in the number of glaciers retreating nor do we see corresponding acceleration of retreat rates. To the contrary, many glaciers in the region have advanced…”

Jan 2020: Coldest ever day in Greenland -65C comes, goes, no one notices

by JoNova, February 2020

The coldest ever day recorded in Greenland stands at -63.3 C  (minus 81 F).  But on January 2nd in 2020, after Greenland suffered a century of global warming, the thermometer at Summit Camp sunk to at least -64.9C. I say, at least, because it may have been even colder. Sharp eyes of Cap Allon at Electroverse saw it hit minus 66C. Ryan Maue also saw it and predicted there would be cold as the Arctic Oscillation broke down.

I sought confirmation at the time (among the Bushfire days in Australia). I looked for any official tweet even, but couldn’t find any. How’s that work — a new all time record for a whole continent for any month of the year, and no one who was paid to care about these things even writes a paragraph?

Good for Paul Homewood, who wrote to the DMI (Danish Met Institute) and has now confirmed that the NOAA GeoSummit  records showed it got down to -64.9 C, an all time record.

Do We Really Have Only 12 Years to Live?

by Andy May, February 23, 2020 in WUWT

Why have uninformed celebrities and politicians been telling everyone, who will listen, we are all going to die in a climate catastrophe in 10 to 30 years? U.N. General Assembly President María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés of Ecuador warned us…


However, these absurd statements are not supported by even the most fanatical climate alarmists, like Kate Marvel (NASA), Gavin Schmidt (NASA), Katharine Hayhoe (Texas Tech), or Andrea Dutton (University of Florida) (link). The original inspiration for these statements came from a 2018 IPCC report entitled Global Warming of 1.5°C. Even the alarmist Scientific American does not think the world is ending in twelve years.

We will discuss this IPCC report below, but first let’s look at some critical evidence that is not in the report. As usual the IPCC dodges the current benefits of warming and additional CO2, so we need to fill in this gap.

A little over two years ago I posted an essay entitled “Calculating the Cost of Global Warming,” it did not calculate a cost, but discussed calculations made by others. Global warming and the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere are not existential threats to mankind or to nature. Global warming will not go “runaway,” this idea, discussed here, has been discredited by climate change skeptics and by climate alarmists alike (see here and here for examples). So, given that global warming and additional CO2 will not harm us, we are reduced to a discussion of the economic impacts and benefits, both positive and negative, of global warming and additional CO2.


Figure 2. A graph of CMIP5 global tropospheric temperatures (5-year averages) versus satellite and weather balloon observations. These predictions are for the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5, a moderate case. Source: House of Representatives report by Dr. John Christy.

Unexpected ice

by N. Vizcarra, February 2020 in EarthData/NASA

Paul Holland, a climate modeler with the British Antarctic Survey, has spent the last ten years studying Antarctica’s sea ice and the Southern Ocean. Lately, he has been scrutinizing the seasons of Antarctica and how fast the ice comes and goes. Holland thinks these seasons may be a key to a conundrum: If Earth’s temperatures are getting warmer and sea ice in the Arctic has been shrinking fast, why then is sea ice in the Antarctic slowly increasing?

Spring surprise

Holland used data from NASA’s National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center (NSIDC DAAC) to calculate the ice concentration rate of growth for each single day, which he called intensification; and the total ice area rate of growth, which he called expansion. “I did that for all thirty years of data and plotted the trends,” he said. Holland’s plots showed that the different regions in the Southern Ocean contributed to the overall increase, but they had very diverse trends in sea ice growth. This suggested that geography and different wind patterns played a role. So to gain more insight Holland looked at seasonal wind trends for the different regions.

Holland found that winds were spreading sea ice out in some regions and compressing or keeping it intact in others and that these effects began in the spring. It contradicted a previous study in which, using ice drift data, Holland and Ron Kwok from the NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) found that increasing northward winds during the autumn caused the variations.

“I always thought, and as far as I can tell everyone else thought, that the biggest changes must be in autumn,” Holland said. “But the big result for me now is we need to look at spring. The trend is bigger in the autumn, but it seems to be created in spring.”

“Paul has created two more sea ice metrics that we can use to assess how Antarctic sea ice is responding,” said researcher Sharon Stammerjohn, referring to the measures of intensification and expansion. The new metrics help assess how the system is responding as opposed to simply monitoring the state of the system. “Say your temperature is at 99.2 degrees Fahrenheit,” Stammerjohn said. “You don’t have any insight to that temperature unless you take it again an hour later and you see that it changed to 101 degrees. Then you can say, okay, my system is responding to something.”