Archives de catégorie : better to know…?

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.

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:

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?

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.”

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

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

 

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.

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).

 

Simulations explain giant exoplanets with eccentric, close-in orbits

by University of California – Santa Cruz, Oct 30, 2019 in ScienceDaily


As planetary systems evolve, gravitational interactions between planets can fling some of them into eccentric elliptical orbits around the host star, or even out of the system altogether. Smaller planets should be more susceptible to this gravitational scattering, yet many gas giant exoplanets have been observed with eccentric orbits very different from the roughly circular orbits of the planets in our own solar system.

Surprisingly, the planets with the highest masses tend to be those with the highest eccentricities, even though the inertia of a larger mass should make it harder to budge from its initial orbit. This counter-intuitive observation prompted astronomers at UC Santa Cruz to explore the evolution of planetary systems using computer simulations. Their results, reported in a paper published in Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggest a crucial role for a giant-impacts phase in the evolution of high-mass planetary systems, leading to collisional growth of multiple giant planets with close-in orbits.

German Portrait Of The Thunberg-Ernman Family: Acutely Dysfunctional, “An Infinitely Sad Family History”

by U. Stockman, October 26, 2019 in NoTricksZone


At the German libertarian site achgut.com here, guest writer Ulrike Stockmannwrites a portrait of climate activist Greta Thunberg’s family. The title: “The Thunberg-Ernmans: An infinitely sad family history“.

 

Stockmann portrait is based on the published book by Greta Thunberg’s mother, Malena Ernman: “Scenes from the Heart”, which describes Greta’s past life and her path to becoming an environmental activist.

Family a drama and tragedy

Having read the book, Stockmann writes that “nothing surprises any more and that Greta being climate prophet is merely the tip of the iceberg of a family drama.”

What follows are excerpts of Stockmann’s portrait of the Ernman-Thunberg family:

Malena Ernman is a successful opera singer. Her husband Svante Thunberg is an actor. […] By the time Greta enters the fifth grade, suddenly she is no longer feeling well at all. She refuses to eat, cries all day long and is depressed. […]

Greta’s hunger strike becomes life-threatening: she eats almost nothing for two months. The parents take her to the hospital and the Centre for Eating Disorders. [..] In addition, Asperger’s syndrome, highly functional autism and OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder) are diagnosed.

One day at school Greta sees a film about the pollution of the oceans showing a huge island of plastic waste and bursts into tears. Overall Greta is unhappy at school. […]  She doesn’t feel well at school. Everything becomes too much for her.”

Stockmann sees parental neglect, quoting Ernman in the book

Does the Climate System Have a Preferred Average State? Chaos and the Forcing-Feedback Paradigm

by Roy Spencer, October 25, 2019 in GlobalWarming


The UN IPCC scientists who write the reports which guide international energy policy on fossil fuel use operate under the assumption that the climate system has a preferred, natural and constant average state which is only deviated from through the meddling of humans. They construct their climate models so that the models do not produce any warming or cooling unless they are forced to through increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases, aerosols, or volcanic eruptions.

This imposed behavior of their “control runs” is admittedly necessary because various physical processes in the models are not known well enough from observations and first principles, and so the models must be tinkered with until they produce what might be considered to be the “null hypothesis” behavior, which in their worldview means no long-term warming or cooling.

What I’d like to discuss here is NOT whether there are other ‘external’ forcing agents of climate change, such as the sun. That is a valuable discussion, but not what I’m going to address. I’d like to address the question of whether there really is an average state that the climate system is constantly re-adjusting itself toward, even if it is constantly nudged in different directions by the sun.

 

1575 Winter Landscape with Snowfall near Antwerp by Lucas van Valckenborch.Städel Museum/Wikimedia Commons

La science classique s’arrête où commence le chaos…

Prof. Igr. H. Masson, 25 octobre 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


1. Un nouveau paradigme : les systèmes chaotiques

« Depuis les premiers balbutiements de la Physique, le désordre apparent qui règne dans l’atmosphère, dans la mer turbulente, dans les fluctuations de populations biologiques, les oscillations du cœur et du cerveau ont été longtemps ignorées ».

 « Il a fallu attendre le début des années soixante-dix, pour que quelques scientifiques américains commencent à déchiffrer le désordre, il s’agissait surtout de mathématiciens, médecins, biologistes, physiciens, chimistes cherchant tous des connections entre diverses irrégularités observées. Le syndrome de la mort subite fut expliqué, les proliférations puis disparitions d’insectes furent comprises et modélisées, et de nouvelles méthodes d’analyse de cours boursiers virent le jour, après que les traders aient dû se rendre à l’évidence que les méthodes statistiques conventionnelles n’étaient pas adaptées. Ces découvertes furent ensuite transposées à l’étude du monde naturel : la forme des nuages, les trajectoires de la foudre, la constitution de galaxies. La science du chaos (« dynamical systems » pour les anglo-saxons) était née et allait connaître un développement considérable au fil des années ».

 

Figure 4. L’effet papillon : analogie entre les ailes d’un papillon et l’attracteur étrange découvert par E. Lorenz.

Who Are the “Experts” on Climate Change?

by John Droz, Jr October 22, 2019 in WUWT


We live in complicated times, immersed in a society of incessant, loud, conflicting voices. Nowhere is this more true than in the discussion of the impact of carbon dioxide on the planet, oceans, better known as “climate change.” When interested citizens try to get to the bottom of such a highly complex issue, the standard, and proper, rejoinder is: “Listen to the Experts.”

Although that sounds like common sense, such advice is not as simple as it’s made out to be. For millennia, it was safe to assume that mainstream scientists (as a matter of principle) faithfully adhered to high scientific standards (see below). In our lifetime that has dramatically (and disappointingly) changed.

Today there is an ever-increasing number of scientists driven by political agendas, peer pressure, job security, etc. rather than scientific mores. This change has extraordinarysocietal implications — and none of them are beneficial.

Real Experts on a science-related subject have six distinguishing characteristics, which are really no more than the traditional scientific standards:

1 – They have a high degree of competence in the topic at hand.

[For example, out of 1000 people, they would know more than 999.]

2 – They have a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

[They are not one of the blind people examining just a part of the elephant.]

3 – They are objective in their conclusions and recommendations.

[They are not influenced by economic incentives, or undeclared political agendas.]

4 – They are genuinely open-minded regarding their positions.

[They encourage other parties to critique their analyses and conclusions.]

5 – Their research and data are transparent.

[No pertinent information is hidden behind such claims as “work product.”]

6 – Their research and data are based on empirical evidence.

[Real world data always takes priority over computer-generated information.]

Antarctic ice cliffs may not contribute to sea-level rise as much as predicted

by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 21, 2019 in ScicnceDaily


Researchers report that in order for a 90-meter ice cliff to collapse entirely, the ice shelves supporting the cliff would have to break apart extremely quickly, within a matter of hours — a rate of ice loss that has not been observed in the modern record.

A realistic picture

The results suggest that the Earth’s tallest ice cliffs are unlikely to collapse catastrophically and trigger a runaway ice sheet retreat. That’s because the fastest rate at which ice shelves are disappearing, at least as documented in the modern record, is on the order of weeks, not hours, as scientists observed in 2002, when they captured satellite imagery of the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf — a chunk of ice as large as Rhode Island that broke away from Antarctica, shattering into thousands of icebergs over the span of two weeks.

“When Larsen B collapsed, that was quite an extreme event that occurred over two weeks, and that is a tiny ice shelf compared to the ones that we would be particularly worried about,” Clerc says. “So our work shows that cliff failure is probably not the mechanism by which we would get a lot of sea level rise in the near future.”

Réchauffement des océans, Tchernobyl, cancer et pesticides, liste bio, QI mondial… une semaine de fake news scientifiques

by J.P. Oury, 11 octobre 2019 in EuropeanScientist


Si le sujet « vérité et connaissance scientifique » est un pilier de la philosophie classique et de l’épistémologie contemporaine, il se pourrait bien que, dans une ère de post-vérité, ce thème soit progressivement remplacé par celui de la chasse aux « fausses informations ». Pour le dire autrement, ce qui compte, ce n’est plus la quête d’un sens métaphysique ou une recherche de cohérence logique, mais qu’un énoncé tienne le plus longtemps possible à la Une de l’actualité avant d’être remis en cause.

En affirmant ceci notre objectif n’est pas de donner un blanc seing au relativisme ou d’abandonner la méthode scientifique, bien au contraire. Il s’agit de réfléchir sur la possibilité de redonner à celle-ci  sa superbe ; d’autant plus qu’elle n’est plus simplement une affaire de scientifiques : les médias, les politiques, les ONG et l’opinion s’emparent immédiatement de la moindre expérience rendue publique et se trouvent engagés de manière quasi instantanée dans le processus de « vérification » qui passe d’abord souvent par l’acceptation. Ce qui montre la nécessité d’éduquer l’opinion pour lui apprendre à détecter les différentes typologies d’erreurs scientifiques. Voici donc une petite grille de lecture que nous avons établie en classant cinq grandes typologies d’informations scientifiques qui se sont révélées fausses…

 

Rétractation d’un article sur le réchauffement des océans : l’erreur scientifique

 

It’s Time To Move Beyond The Toy Models that Guide Climate Policy

by Roger Pielke, October 7, 2019 in Forbes


Underlying discussion and debate of climate policies are computer models that bring together idealized representations of policies, economics and climate to estimate the impacts of future climate change and the benefits of mitigation. Such models, typically called integrated assessment models, are incredibly technical and complex. At the same time, they are also simplistic toys. Here I argue that while these models are valuable for exploring concepts and ideas, they have come to serve as a huge distraction when it comes to the development of actual policies that have a chance to accelerate rates of decarbonization in the real world.

Before proceeding, it is important to note that climate change poses real risks to our collective future, and aggressive mitigation and adaptation policies make good sense. However, the pace of progress, particularly on mitigation, has been frustratingly slow.

One way that integrated assessment models warp our discussion of climate policies is through the pervasive use of what are called “baseline scenarios.” These scenarios seek to represent where the world may be headed into the future in the absence of climate policies. Here is how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines such scenarios, and their role in evaluating futures with climate policy (called “mitigation scenarios”):

Methodological debates are of course common in policy research. But in no area of policy that I have encountered over the past 30 years as a policy researcher have I come across a subject matter both as important as climate change and completely captured by one school of thought.

Scenario planning has an important role to play in the tool box of policy analysts. However, in the case of climate change, scenarios generated by integrated assessment models have overwhelmingly become the main tool of analysis in climate policy, to the exclusion of other valuable approaches. The result of this methodological myopia is that much of our collective intellectual attention has been spent on trying to figure out how to address climate change in models, and not in the real world.

WWF Apologizes Over Doctored Polar Bear Image In Climate Campaign

by Uutiset, October 8, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch


Environmental NGO WWF Finland has apologized for using a retouched photo of a polar bear and cub standing on a tiny ice floe, apparently adrift in an ocean.

However, the organization’s communications head, Anne Brax, also defended the use of the image as an advertising tool commonly used as shorthand for climate change and its impact on arctic regions, rather than as a news item.

The photo was used as part of an anti-climate change fundraising campaign aimed at students participating in Finland’s annual “taksvärkki” or “day’s work” program, where middle schoolers work for a day to collect money for worthy causes.

The image used in the campaign was originally shot by nature photographer Steven Kazlowski and depicts a polar bear and a cub. In the original photo, however, the polar bears are set against an icy landscape with no ocean in sight.

Alongside the manipulated image used in the WWF Finland campaign is the text “sulaa hulluutta kun ilmasto lämpenee”, which roughly translated means “pure madness as the climate warms”, with a play on the word “sulaa”, which also means “to melt” in Finnish.

WWF Finland: “We Made A Mistake”

A Democratic professor explains what his party gets wrong about climate

by Caleb Rossiter, July 18, 2019 in WashingtonExaminer


As the Republican-called witness at a recent hearing, I was denounced by the Democrats for denying a fossil-fueled “climate crisis” that, as their witnesses testified, results in violence against women, asthma and obesity in children, and deadly storms. But few actually questioned me. After all, “the debate is over.”

So instead, the latest belle of my party’s ball, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, left the dais to urge protestors outside to drown me out. She’d previously written Google and Facebook, asking them to block me and the CO2 Coalition of 50 unalarmed scientists I direct from speaking at conferences they sponsor.

At the hearing, I presented data from the United Nations contradicting the accepted wisdom that extreme weather is destroying the planet and is traceable directly to a man-made climate crisis. There are no such trends in rates of sea-level rise, hurricanes, floods, or droughts. One Democrat who stuck around to actually question me simply asserted that our coalition is funded by energy companies. I wish! Another wanted to know, “Do you believe in climate change or not?” When I asked him to define it, he cut me off with: “That answers it all…That gives us a hint where you’re coming from.”

Indeed it does. Where I’m coming from is academia, where defining the scientific terms we discuss is elemental.

The whole affair shows just how much has changed. A decade ago I’d been the one pummeling a Republican-called witness, a little-known pollster named Kellyanne Conway, in my role as counsel to a Democratic committee chairman. And the last time I’d been a witness, as director of a foreign policy group in 1994, I’d been called in by Democrats who were backing our “no arms to dictators” bill. But now I am a heretic for using scientific facts to dispute exaggerated talking points.

Where I’m coming from is academia, where defining the scientific terms we discuss is elemental. (Photo by Graeme Jennings/Washington Examiner)

Solar activity drives CO2 levels

by R. Mac, August 10, 2014  in TheHockeySchtick


Hypothesis: Increasing accumulated solar activity [sunspot time-integral] since the Maunder Minimum 1645-1715 AD has warmed the oceans and land, warming of the oceans has increased ocean outgassing of CO2 [Henry’s Law] and has been the primary cause of increased atmospheric CO2 levels. Ocean temperatures driven by solar activity control atmospheric CO2 levels on short, intermediate, and long-term timescales.

Also note if increased solar activity warms the oceans, the solubility of CO2 in the oceans decreases due to Henry’s Law, thus preventing “acidification” of the oceans. If the oceans are warming due to any cause, Henry’s Law says solubility of CO2 decreases and outgassing increases, preventing “acidification” from man-made and natural sources of CO2. Warnings about ocean acidification are misleading and overblown:

Solar-Climate Theory Sheds New Light On History Of Chinese Civilization

by S. Chen, Sep; 24, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch


Scientists say they have found evidence beneath a lake in northeastern China that ties climate change and 500-year sun cycles to ups and downs in the 8,000 years of Chinese civilization.

According to the study by a team at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics in Beijing published in the science journal Nature Communications this month, whenever the climate warmed, Chinese civilization prospered and when it cooled, it declined.

While historians have used various social and economic factors to explain changes over the millennia, Dr. Xu Deke, lead author of the paper, and his colleagues said that while people played their part, their study indicated that cycles in solar activity influenced human activity.

“We just point out there is a natural constraint on human efforts,” Xu said.

Previous research linking Chinese history to climate relied on written records, but ancient texts contained only subjective descriptions of the weather and social development. The records also go back only so far – writing in China was not invented until 3,600 years ago.

For this latest study, the team and its leader, Chinese Academy of Sciences professor Lu Houyuan, took plant and lake bed sediment samples to track climate change over the centuries and compared them with written records.

 

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie A (re)lire absolument…

by Alain Préat,  3 octobre 2019 inScienceClimatEnergie


S’il est un livre, et un des premiers, à s’être penché de manière aussi détaillée sur l’évolution (récente) du climat, c’est celui d’Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie ‘Histoire du climat depuis l’an mil’, publié en 1967.

Rappelons cependant le livre précurseur de Joseph-Jean-Nicolas Fuster publié en 1845 et récemment analysé ici même à SCE (et toujours disponible, voir ici).

 

1/ Introduction

A lire ou relire ce livre de 366 pages (Figure 1), on ne peut qu’être stupéfié par l’analyse rigoureuse qui met en évidence la variabilité naturelle du climat aux échelles pluriséculaire et décennale, qui décortique et privilégie  avec finesse le caractère local du climat par rapport à un climat global et fournit à partir d’indicateurs fiables des fourchettes de températures pour les variations climatiques observées à l’échelle pluriséculaire.

 Figure 1. Histoire du climat depuis l’an mil, Flammarion, publié en 1967

Avant d’aborder ce sujet en détail, il semble qu’aucun modèle sorti des ‘computers’ (GIEC) n’ait été jusqu’à présent capable de rendre compte des évolutions rapportées dans le livre d’ Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, ces modèles se prétendent ‘globaux’, contrairement à la conclusion du livre en question qui insiste particulièrement sur le caractère local des climats. Enfin il s’agit d’un livre de 366 pages bien illustré (photographies, cartes et graphiques) dans lequel il n’est pas mentionné une seule fois ‘le poison’ des temps modernes, à savoir le CO2. L’auteur, en 1967 (faut-il le rappeler …), propose ou explore quand  même des pistes pour rendre compte de la succession d’épisodes ‘froids’ et ‘chauds’, tout au long de ces 1000 années d’histoire, qui en fait  débutent il y a 3500 ans (mais pour ces temps historiques plus reculés, les données fiables sont moins nombreuses).

 

2/ Alors que dit Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie ?

Trois solutions (et demie) pour le climat

by Prof. Samuel Furfari, 3 octobre 2019 in L’Echo


“Après avoir travaillé pendant plus de 40 ans dans le domaine, mon expérience me pousse à plaider pour une analyse factuelle et objective de la situation, même si elle peut paraître iconoclaste dans le climat actuel…’

Les feux des projecteurs de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU s’étant éteints, il est temps de voir plus sereinement la situation en matière de politique climatique — et donc énergétique – qui menace dangereusement notre démocratie. Après avoir travaillé pendant plus de 40 ans dans le domaine, mon expérience me pousse à plaider pour une analyse factuelle et objective de la situation, même si elle peut paraître iconoclaste dans le climat actuel.

Malgré l’opinion générale, et de certains scientifiques, la science du climat est très jeune. Affirmer que “tout est connu et qu’il n’y a plus qu’à agir” est donc prématuré. Le rapport du GIEC est rempli de conditionnels. Pas de certitudes, mais des hypothèses loin d’être irrécusables, puisque le système climatique possède “une signature chaotique“.

Lorsque durant la vague de chaleur de cet été, le climatologue français Jean Jouzel annonce que la température augmentera de “trois ou quatre” degrés, il omet d’ajouter que le GIEC assortit cette hypothèse d’une probabilité de 1% et que c’est pour un maximum de 3°C et non de 4°C ou de 7°C comme on l’entend parfois.

‘There is no climate emergency,’ hundreds of scientists, engineers tell U.N.

by P. Homewood, October 2, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


Lost amid the coverage of Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg at last week’s U.N. Global Climate Summit were the 500 international scientists, engineers and other stakeholders sounding a very different message: “There is no climate emergency.”

The European Climate Declaration, spearheaded by the Amsterdam-based Climate Intelligence Foundation [CLINTEL], described the leading climate models as “unfit” and urged UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to pursue a climate policy based on “sound science.”

“Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy,” said the Sept. 23 letter signed by professionals from 23 countries.

Most of the signers hailed from Europe, but there were also scientists from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South America.

“We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation,” the letter said.

Full story here.

Greta’s Soros Connections

by P. Homewood, 28 Sep. 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


Andrew Bolt is not afraid to tell the truth about our Greta. It is a pity that the media here have not got the courage to do the same…

 

16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg has quickly risen to become one of the world’s most prominent political leaders, inspiring a mass movement of millions seemingly out of thin air to combat the problem of global warming.

 

However, the young girl’s sudden ascent to prominence is not happening by chance. She has deep connections to the globalist elite and activist parents who are supporters of the far-left domestic terrorist group ANTIFA.

 

Thunberg’s frequent handler is Luisa-Marie Neubauer, an operative from the ONE Movement. Neubauer can be seen behind Thunberg at many of her public events.

 

UK Climate Trends: Plus Ça Change: Climate hysteria is unjustified

by P. Homewood, September 27, 2019 in GWPF


London, 27 September: The UK’s key climate indicators have barely changed for 20 years. That’s according to a new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which rebuts claims that the weather is getting worse.
According to author Paul Homewood, the Met Office’s Central England Temperature Record shows that temperatures have barely changed in 20 years and that there has been no increase in extremely hot days either:
“The summer of 2018 had just one day over 30 degrees, while 1976 had six. The Met Office’s data show that hot days are just not becoming more common.”
And there seems to be little to worry about on bad weather front either. There has been a gentle decline in storminess, and in most of the UK, there has been no change in either average rainfall or rainfall extremes:
“Only in Scotland has there been a noticeable increase”, says Homewood. “Climate hysteria is entirely overdone.”
Paul Homewood: Plus Ça Change: The UK Climate in 2018 (pdf)