Archives de catégorie : better to know…?

better to know...?, climate-debate

News Outlet Relies On Flawed ‘Attribution Studies’ To Blame Climate Change For Extreme Weather

by A. Watts, Nov 19,2024 in ClimateChaneDispatch

On Monday, November 18, The Guardian published an “explainer” piece titled “How do we know that the climate crisis is to blame for extreme weather?” This is false. [emphasis, links added]

Actual data on extreme weather does not support their claim, and the claim is mostly based on flawed “attribution studies.”

The narrative that severe weather events are worsening due to climate change has become a mainstay in today’s media. However, a closer look at the data and the science behind these claims often reveals inconsistencies that should give us pause.

Attribution studies, which are widely used to link specific extreme weather events to climate change, frequently lack rigorous peer review and are published hastily to garner headlines, raising significant concerns about their reliability.

Attribution studies work by using climate models to simulate two different worlds: one influenced by human-caused climate change and another without it. These models then assess the likelihood of extreme weather events in each world.

Yet the validity of such studies is only as good as the models and assumptions underpinning them.

This methodology is prone to overestimating risks because climate models often reflect overheated worst-case scenarios rather than actual observations.

Moreover, these studies are often published without proper peer review. Climate Realism has documented how media outlets run stories based on these model-driven studies, ignoring real-world data that often contradicts the alarming conclusions.

For example, articles frequently cite reports that heatwaves, floods, or hurricanes are “worsening” without disclosing that these claims rely on theoretical simulations rather than measured evidence.

Empirical data does not support claims of worsening severe weather. In fact, long-term trends for many extreme weather events have remained stable or even declined.

According to Climate at a Glance, heatwaves in the United States were most severe in the 1930s, with temperatures and frequency outstripping recent records.

The number of strong hurricanes making landfall in the United States has not increased either. The country even experienced a record 12-year lull in major hurricanes between 2005 and 2017.

Additionally, droughts have not intensified in the U.S. The nation saw historically low levels of drought in recent years, with 2017 and 2019 setting records for the smallest percentage of the country affected by drought. These data points highlight a crucial disconnect between what is reported and what is actually happening.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

German Researcher: Doubling Of Atmospheric CO2 Causes Only 0.24°C Of Warming …Practically Insignificant

by P. Gosselin, Nov 19, 2024 in NoTricksZone

The CO2 scam and “climate denial”

German researcher concludes CO2 warming immensely exaggerated…. IR radiation of clouds considerably reduces the greenhouse effect of CO2.”

The prosperity and political stability of our countries are in grave danger. The reason for this is an ideology that claims catastrophic climate change caused by the alleged “greenhouse gas” CO2 and is intent to destroy our civilization and prosperity. Its supporters are spreading a witch-hunt atmosphere against anyone who questions their ideology. So-called “climate deniers” are also denied any scientific expertise.

Every Swiss person can already see the first financial consequences on their electricity bill: In this country, the price of a kilowatt hour has shot up by up to 300% for some households in just four years. And this is just the beginning, as the Swiss government is pursuing the goal of switching to solar and wind power and thus to sources that cost 20 instead of 6 rp/kWh.

…

…

Conclusions

In his summary, Prof. Reinhart comes to the following conclusions:

“- The heat retention (“forcing”) by atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2 ) causes a maximum temperature increase of 0.24 K (0.24°C) when the concentration doubles from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, based on a simplified absorption model that is independent of climate.

– This value depends only on the accepted mean earth temperature, T = 288 K, and is relatively insensitive to its uncertainty of 2 K.

– The temperature increase since the industrial revolution amounts to a maximum of 0.12 K, which is within the range of measurement accuracy. The anthropogenic contribution is therefore practically insignificant.

– The behavior of glacial and current temperature trends is not causally linked to carbon dioxide concentrations.

– The causes of global warming have not been clarified. However, they are most likely linked to the solar system and the water cycle.

– Measures to control CO2 emissions and the earth’s temperature are unsuitable, even dangerous means”.

better to know...?, climate-debate

Climate scientists officially declare ‘climate emergency’ at an end

by ClintelGroup, Nov 20, 2024 in WUWT

The Chamber of Deputies in session

Climate scientists have issued a shock declaration that the “climate emergency” is over.

A two-day climate conference in Prague, organised by the Czech division of the international Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel), which took place on November 12-13 in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague, “declares and affirms that the imagined and imaginary ‘climate emergency’ is at an end”.

The communiqué, drafted by the eminent scientists and researchers who spoke at the conference, makes clear that for several decades climate scientists have  systematically exaggerated the influence of CO2 on global temperature.

The high-level scientific conference also declared:

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.”

The declaration supports the conclusions of the major Clintel report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC [presented to the Conference by Marcel Crok, Clintel’s co-founder].

Moreover, the scientists at the conference declared that even if all nations moved straight to net zero emissions, by the 2050 target date the world would be only about 0.1 C cooler than with no emissions reduction.

So far, the attempts to mitigate climate change by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement have made no difference to our influence on climate, since nations such as Russia and China, India and Pakistan continue greatly to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas.

The cost of achieving that 0.1 C reduction in global warming would be $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ worldwide gross domestic product.

Finally, the conference “calls upon the entire scientific community to cease and desist from its persecution of scientists and researchers who disagree with the current official narrative on climate change and instead to encourage once again the long and noble tradition of free, open and uncensored scientific research, investigation, publication and discussion”.

The full text of the communiqué follows:

The International Scientific Conference of the Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel), in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague assembled on the Twelfth and Thirteenth Days of November 2024, has resolved and now declares as follows, that is to say –

  1. The modest increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity.
  2. Foreseeable future increases in greenhouse gases in the air will probably also prove net-beneficial.
  3. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists

Continuer la lecture de Climate scientists officially declare ‘climate emergency’ at an end →

better to know...?

The Climate Case of the Century

by L. Bergkamp, Nov 14, 2024 in WUWT

On the 12th of November, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in the “climate case of the century” that Milieudefensie (“FoE”) filed against Shell in 2019. FoE demands that Shell reduce emissions throughout the entire chain by at least 45% by 2030. The foundation “Man & Environment” (M&E) joined the case to represent the interests of Dutch citizens.

The Court of Appeal was not impressed by FoE’s “go green or go extinct” rhetoric and rejected its claims.  Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal’s ruling leaves much to be desired and did not eliminate the threat of activist NGOs launching climate cases to effect “system change,” i.e., set aside democracy, subordinate citizens and destroy the economy.

Climate science

Although M&M had offered strong rebuttals with expert reports, the Court of Appeal uncritically adopted many of FoE’s factual statements about the urgency and seriousness of the climate problem.  In doing so, the Court relied on the authority of the IPCC and the alleged “consensus” that would emerge from their reports, in particular the SPMs.

The Court not only took the IPCC reports as irrebuttable proof, but also attributed normative force to them. For example, the Court ruled that climate scientists have determined that the average temperature on earth may not rise by more than 1.5 degrees. In doing so, the Court, like the Dutch Supreme Court, ignored that science cannot set norms and that scientists are not authorized to set social standards. The Dutch judiciary’s scientistic tendency is extremely worrisome and does not bode well for future climate-related judgments.

…

better to know...?

Climatologists Shocked By Nature Op-Ed Arguing Objectivity In Climate Science Is Problematic

by K. Killough, Nov 13, 2024 in ClimateChangeDispatch

protest 15 degrees

Three climate researchers took to the pages of Nature to argue that objectivity in climate science is problematic because it hinders their political advocacy, which they argue is too important to deny. [emphasis, links added]

Therefore, the authors argue, the values of objectivity in scientific research should be reconsidered.

“The public has watched as national and sub-national governments have declared climate emergencies, all the while continuing to grant new permits for the extraction of fossil fuels, seemingly ignoring increasingly urgent scientific messages that this locks the world into passing 1.5 °C of warming above preindustrial levels by 2030, if not sooner,” the researchers explain.

While the researchers equate a refusal to stop the production of fossil fuels with ignoring science, energy experts argue these policies will result in enormous economic problemsand widespread poverty.

The authors of the Nature op-ed, seemingly unaware or unconcerned with the impacts of such policies, argue that it’s unfair to expect climate researchers not to get emotional when governments don’t adopt these policies. 

“Scientists who express their feelings and worries about climate change are often not encouraged by their colleagues and are instead expected to carry on without acknowledging or communicating the continued inadequacy of action required to secure a liveable and sustainable future,” the authors state.

By just about every measure — including life expectancy, wealth, and deaths from natural disasters— the human race is doing better than ever. Despite this, the authors believe their fears are based on indisputable facts. 

Climate advocacy versus straight reporting

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Azerbaijan’s COP29 Speech: A Masterclass in Irony So Thick, It’s Flammable

by C. Rotter, Nov 13, 2024 in WUWT

Picture this: COP29, the annual climate circus where the world’s leaders gather to wag fingers and wring hands over carbon emissions, is hosted in none other than Azerbaijan—a country whose economy runs on fossil fuels like a muscle car guzzling premium gas. Then comes the pièce de résistance: Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev steps up to the mic and declares oil and gas to be “God’s gift” to his nation.

…

You can’t make this up. It’s like hosting a vegan potluck and having the guest of honor arrive with a tray of prime rib.

The “Climate” Conference in an Oil Nation

Let’s start with the hilarious choice of venue. Azerbaijan is one of those countries where crude oil isn’t just a commodity—it’s practically a national sport. Hosting COP29 in Baku is akin to holding a Weight Watchers meeting in a donut shop. And yet, the global climate elites packed their bags and flew to the Land of Hydrocarbons to sit through speeches about how we’re all doomed unless we ban the very thing that keeps Azerbaijan afloat.

The irony was lost on precisely no one except, apparently, the COP29 organizers.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Green Grifters: Another elite-laden conference demonstrates the staggering hypocrisy of climate-change activism

by H. Mac Donald, Nov 12, 2024 in /CityJournal

The latest global climate conference opened Monday in Azerbaijan. The timing is excellent. Any doubt regarding the wisdom of the next Trump administration’s likely pullout from such meetings should be dispelled by the conference photos alone. Here are tens of thousands of well fed, well-dressed members of the global elite—activists, employees of lavishly funded NGOs, armies of government bureaucrats, hundreds of heads of state—who have all travelled via jet and private plane to this remote corner of the Earth and who expect that every minute of their day will be supported by abundant, magically available energy. None has sacrificed a single personal comfort to save the planet. They assume that their smartphones will draw on an invisible web of transmitters and that they will be able to search the Internet and run AI queries at will, notwithstanding that doing so requires voracious energy use from a growing archipelago of server farms. They expect their PowerPoints to be well lit and their conference and hotel rooms to be heated or air conditioned as needed. They’re never without their bottled water, which is carried thousands of miles by carbon-emitting trucks and planes and kept sterile by plastic containers whose manufacture requires petrochemicals and plenty of energy. They do not wait on the sun to shine or the wind to blow to light their rooms, run their elevators, or power up their devices; they want energy now and without interruption.

You don’t have to be a “climate denier” to see that climate-change politics have become the largest global grift in history, one that grows in proportion with each new conference. It was just a matter of time before Third World basket-case countries exploited the First World’s virtue signaling. This year’s UNFCC COP 29 conference in Azerbaijan (COP stands for Conference of the Parties) features the demand that developed countries fork over billions, if not trillions, more dollars to the Global South, ostensibly to help it adjust to climate change. Those billions will follow all previous foreign aid into the same sinkhole of corruption and incompetence.

…

better to know...?

Hague court denies claim for reduction in Shell’s CO2 emissions

by The Hague, 12 November 2024, in deRechtspraak

The Hague Court of Appeal today handed down its judgment in the appeal proceedings between Milieudefensie and Shell. At issue in the appeal was whether Shell must have reduced its CO2 emissions by 45% in 2030 compared to 2019. The court of appeal ruled that Shell is obliged to reduce its CO₂ emissions, but that it was unable to determine which percentage should apply. The court of appeal therefore rejected the claims of Milieudefensie.

According to Milieudefensie, Shell is acting unlawfully. Milieudefensie is of the opinion that under the social standard of care, Shell is obliged to reduce its CO2 emissions. Milieudefensie and several other environmental organisations submitted a claim for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% in 2030 compared to 2019. This includes Shell’s own CO2 emissions as well as those of its suppliers and customers, known as scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.

The Hague District Court upheld the claim of Milieudefensie, after which Shell lodged an appeal. The Stichting Milieu en Mens joined as a party in the proceedings before the court of appeal on the side of Shell.

In today’s judgment, the court of appeal held that Shell has an obligation towards citizens to limit its CO2 emissions. This obligation is based on the human right to protection against dangerous climate change. It is first and foremost up to governments to ensure the protection of human rights, but indirectly those rights also have a bearing on the social standard of care which companies like Shell must observe. In its assessment of whether Shell is acting unlawfully, the court of appeal therefore took as a starting point that citizens also have a right vis-à-vis Shell to protection from dangerous climate change.

Nevertheless, the court of appeal denied the claims of Milieudefensie because the court was unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage. There is currently insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage to which an individual company like Shell should adhere. Moreover, Shell is already working to reduce its own scope 1 and 2 emissions. Lastly, the court of appeal is of the opinion that an obligation for Shell to reduce CO2 emissions caused by buyers of Shell products, scope 3 emissions, by a particular percentage would be ineffective in this case. Shell could meet that obligation by ceasing to trade in the fuels it purchases from third parties. Other companies would then take over that trade. This would consequently not result in a reduction in CO2 emissions.

In conclusion, The Hague Court of Appeal overturned the district court’s judgment and denied the claims of Milieudefensie. An appeal in cassation against this ruling may be brought before the Dutch Supreme Court.

Also here

Climate Litigation: The Dutch Case and a Pattern of Vexatious Lawsuits

better to know...?, climate-debate

Media Hypes Report That 2024 Will Break 1.5°C Limit, But Data Doesn’t Back It Up

by L. Lueken, Nov 11, 2024 in ClimateChangeDispatch

valencia flood aftermath

Multiple outlets have posted articles covering a report from the European Copernicus Climate Change Service (“Copernicus”) which says that 2024 will be the first to surpass 1.5°C warming since preindustrial times, which the media claims will cause untold weather disasters. [emphasis, links added]

This is mostly false.

Although 2024 will likely have higher average temperatures than in recent decades, it is not the end of the year yet, and there is limited evidence to support the claim that it will represent the highest temperatures humans have ever experienced and no evidence whatsoever that weather disasters have gotten or will get worse.

The BBC and CNN are among the numerous mainstream media outlets reporting on Copernicus’ report.

CNN describes the report as “devastating news for the planet that comes as America chooses a president that has promised to undo its climate progress both at home and abroad.”

The Copernicus group estimates that 2024 will end up 1.55°C hotter than the 1850-1900 average, which is 0.05°C above the warming limit set by the Paris Agreement. This may be true, but there is no evidence that the 1.5℃ threshold is some kind of deadly tipping point for weather disasters.

The same organization sounded the alarm last year that the “limit” was breached for several months in a row while ignoring natural factors like an underwater volcano eruption.

As for the 1.5-degree limit itself, it was not established by professional climate scientists. Only one of the people who were on the panel who came up with the value was even a meteorologist.

Two other points worth noting. The claim is a bit of sleight of hand, cherry-picking the data for comparison. Earth was only just coming out of the Little Ice Age at the onset of the 1850 period, one of the coldest periods during the past millennia.

When you pick an unusually cold period for comparison, modest warming seems more dramatic than it is.

Second, the 1.5℃ is an arbitrary temperature choice. As Climate Realism has discussed repeatedly here, here, and here, it was chosen by politicians for political reasons.

There is no scientific evidence it represents some tipping point for catastrophic climate change. The world has likely warmed more than 2°C since the 1700s, with no apocalypse.

One would think that if warming causes more extreme weather there would be solid data and identifiable consistent trends showing an increase in extreme weather, but there is none.

Three of the weather events CNN cites at the end of their article as proof of a supposed climate emergency, Hurricane Milton, the flooding in Spain, and low snow amounts at Mt. Fuji are not proof of a climate emergency.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

New Study: Human Contribution To Enhancement Of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect A Negligible 0.2 Percent

by K. Richard, Nov 12, 2024 in NoTricksZone

“[T]he contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is 4% – 5%. Human CO2 emissions represent 4% of the total, which means that the total human contribution to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect is 0.16% to 0.20% – a negligible effect.” – Dr. Demetris Koutsoyiannis (2024)

New research exposes the vacuousness of the “imaginary world” models proclaiming CO2 the dominant regulator of the Earth’s climate.

A CO2-less or CO2-only atmosphere…an imaginary-world thought experiment

An oft-heard claim is that, due to the prominence of CO2 as the Earth’s climate “control knob” (see Lacis et al., 2010), the greenhouse effect could not exist – indeed, it would collapse – if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, it should go without saying that this CO2-less atmospheric condition itself is an imaginary-world conceptualization. Thus, fantasizing about what would happen if the atmosphere was comprised 0 ppm CO2, 1,000,000 ppm CO2, 0 ppm water vapor…are all just untestable, never-observable thought experiments. They cannot be subjected to the scientific method. Thus, they are unfalsifiable.

CO2’s climate effects are undetectable

Of course, this very unfalsifiable thought experiment is what believers in the CO2-is-the-climate-control-knob narrative rest their case on. But even if we do use this imaginary-world premise, the existing models (MODTRAN, HITRAN) that allegedly support the CO2-controls-climate orthodoxy actually undermine it.

For example, as Dr. Koutsoyiannis points out in his extensively-referenced paper, the MODTRAN data show that the Earth’s temperature remains at the default greenhouse-effect value if the water vapor scale is adjusted upwards slightly, by just 30%. The greenhouse effect does not “collapse” as claimed by Lacis et al. disciples – the control-knob believers.

The HITRAN database also indicates the imaginary-world condition of doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would only alter the radiation flux at the top of the atmosphere by -1.1%, a hypothetical realization that could not even be detected in future macroscopic measurements (if the atmosphere ever were to reach a CO2 concentration of 800 ppm).

MODTRAN models further affirm that (1) there is only a 1% temperature difference between either doubling (800 ppm) or halving (200 ppm) the atmospheric CO2 concentration, and (2) the change in the downwelling radiation resulting from an increase from 300 ppm (1900) to 420 ppm (2023) is only 0.5%. These tiny changes “could not be discerned by observations.”

…

better to know...?

«The Monster That Challenged the World»

by D. Middleton, Oct 10, 2024 in WUWT

Guest “When Sci-Fi predicted paleontology” by David Middleton

Anyone else out there remember this classically awful 1957 science fiction movie?

…

By James Ashworth

First published 9 October 2024

Well-preserved fossils uncovered in France have revealed new insights into one of the biggest invertebrates to ever walk on Earth.

Arthropleura was a millipede-like animal which lived more than 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period, with some individuals reaching more than two metres long.

The head of one of history’s biggest arthropods has been revealed in detail for the first time.

Arthropleura is an arthropod, the group containing insects, crustaceans, arachnids and their relatives. For many years, only fossils of its body survived, which saw it placed among the earliest millipedes. Now, the discovery of the first complete head has revealed a surprising twist.

While the new fossils are not from fully grown Arthropleura, some of which reached 2.6 metres long, they reveal important characteristics. Most notably, the head has some features of early centipedes, suggesting millipedes and centipedes might be more closely related than previously accepted.

[…]

Natural History Museum

While Arthropleura wasn’t a mollusk, the first thing I thought of when I read the article was The Monster That Challenged the World.

 

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Prophets Of Doom: Why A New 2024 Climate Report Is Fueled By Fear, Not Facts

by Dr M. Wielicki, Oct , 2024 in ClimateChange Dispatch 

The recent article published in BioScience, “The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth,” is a parade of exaggerated claims and half-truths, a propaganda piece designed to scare the public into adopting misguided policies while turning a blind eye to the real drivers of human progress. [emphasis, links added]

While it projects an image of scientific rigor, a closer look reveals that most of these dire warnings don’t even align with the IPCC‘s latest report, particularly when scrutinizing the IPCC AR6’s scientific foundations.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Climate Activists Frustrated by IPCC’s Refusal to Link Extreme Weather with Carbon Emissions

by C. Morrison, Oct 10, 2024 in WUWT

Last June, the state-reliant BBC reported that human-caused climate change had made U.S. and Mexico heatwaves “35 times more likely”. Nothing out of the ordinary here in mainstream media with everyone from climate comedy turn ‘Jim’ Dale to UN chief Antonio ‘Boiling’ Guterres making these types of bizarre attributions. But for those who closely follow climate science and the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “such headlines can be difficult to make sense of”, observes the distinguished science writer Roger Pielke. In a hard-hitting attack on the pseudo-scientific industry of weather attribution, he states: “neither the IPCC nor the underlying scientific literature comes anywhere close to making such strong and certain claims of attribution”.

Pielke argues that the extreme position of attributing individual bad weather events is “roughly aligned” with the far Left. “Climate science is not, or at least should not serve as a proxy for political tribes,” he cautions. But of course it is. The Net Zero fantasy is a collectivist national and supra-national agenda that increasingly relies on demonising bad weather. With global temperatures rising at most only 0.1°C a decade, laughter can only be general and side-splitting when IPCC boss Jim Skea claims that British summers will be 6°C hotter in less than 50 years. Two extended temperature pauses since 2000 have not helped the cause of global boiling. In addition there are increasing doubts about the reliability of temperature recordings by many meteorological organisations that seem unable to properly account for massive urban heat corruptions.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

New Study: Human Emissions ‘Irrelevant’ In Determining Changes In Atmospheric CO2 Since 1959

by K. Richard, Sept 2, 2027 in NoTricksZone

“The main factor governing the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the SST [sea surface temperature] rather than human emissions.” – Ato, 2024

Another day, another new scientific paper has been published reporting efforts to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions are “meaningless.”

In this study multiple linear regression analysis was performed comparing SST versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions as explanatory factors and the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 as the objective variable over the period 1959-2022.

The model using the SSTs (NASA, NOAA, UAH) best explained the annual CO2 change (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P = <0.0002), whereas human emissions were not shown to be an explanatory factor at all in annual CO2 changes (regression coefficient B = 0.0027, P = 0.863).

Most impressively, the predicted atmospheric CO2 concentration using the regression equation derived from 1960-2022 SSTs had an extremely high correlation coefficient of r = 0.9995.

Thus, not only is the paradigm that says humans drive atmospheric CO2 changes wrong, but “the theory that global warming and climate change are caused by human-emitted CO2 is also wrong.”

“SST has been the determinant of the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and […] anthropogenic emissions have been irrelevant in this process, by head-to-head comparison.”

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

The Atlantic Is Cooling at a Mysteriously Fast Rate After Record Warmth

by P. Homewood, Aug 25, 2024 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

For over a year, surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean hit new highs, but that trend has reversed at record speed over the past few months, and nobody knows why.

In June, temperatures in the Atlantic were 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) hotter than normal in much of the ocean, with some areas getting as much as 9 degrees F (5 degrees C) warmer than average. Those temperatures weren’t a one-off, as the Atlantic had regularly seen record-breaking levels since March 2023. That year marked the fourth in a row that the world’s oceans set new heat records.

The hot water was partially a result of human-caused climate change, but it was also due to a particularly strong El Niño in 2023 and 2024. But that system appears to have passed, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

NOAA data shows Atlantic sea surface temperatures have cooled at a surprising rate since May. Since June began, temperatures have been a degree or two Fahrenheit colder than normal for this time of year. That means El Niño will likely be replaced by its counterpart, La Niña, a weather system that allows cold water to rise to the surface of the Atlantic, some time between September and November. Both El Niño and La Niña are complex systems driven by trade winds, solar heating, and rainfall in the tropic regions, and can be difficult to predict. Still, the sudden shift in Atlantic temperatures has been puzzling, and nobody seems to know why it’s happened so quickly.

“We’ve gone through the list of possible mechanisms, and nothing checks the box so far,” Frans Philip Tuchen, a postdoctoral student at the University of Miami, told New Scientist.

https://gizmodo.com/the-atlantic-is-cooling-at-a-mysteriously-fast-rate-after-record-warmth-2000488967

.So they do not have a clue why the Atlantic has suddenly got colder, but they think they know that global warming made it hotter in the first place, even though there is no physical for the claim that a slightly warmer atmosphere can make any measurable difference to ocean temperatures!

They also get their knickers in a complete twist stating that El Ninos in the Pacific raise SSTs in the Atlantic!

…

better to know...?, energy and fields

Yet More Reasons Why Green Hydrogen Is Going Nowhere

by F. Menton, Aug 28, 2024 in WUWT

In the fantasy of the zero-emissions electricity future, there will either be regular devastating blackouts, or something must back up the intermittent wind and solar generation. In New York we call that imaginary something the “DEFR” (Dispatchable Emissions Free Resource). But what is it? Nuclear has been blocked for decades, especially in the blue jurisdictions that are most aggressively pursuing the wind/solar future. Batteries are technologically not up to the job, and also wildly too expensive. That leaves hydrogen. Anybody with another idea, kindly speak up.

I’ve had several posts discussing the question of whether hydrogen could do this job, for example this one on February 14, 2024, and this one on July 20. Those posts focused on the initial cost of making hydrogen by electrolysis from water. That cost turns out to be a multiple of the cost of producing natural gas by drilling into rock (for comparable energy content). From time to time I have alluded to other potential problems with having hydrogen replace natural gas in the electricity system — things like leaks, explosions, and the need for an entire new infrastructure of pipelines and trucks to carry the stuff and power plants to burn it. But until now I haven’t found a detailed study on just how bad these additional problems might be.

Now comes along an August 18 article in a peer-reviewed journal called Energy Science & Engineering, with the title “A review of challenges with using the natural gas system for hydrogen.” The article was linked on August 23 by Paul Homewood at the Not a Lot of People Know That site, and then further linked by Watts Up With That on August 24.

The lead author is a guy named Paul Martin. Unusually for an article in such a journal, no academic affiliation is given for Mr. Martin. Looking him up on LinkedIn, I find that he is not an academic, but rather identifies himself as a “chemical process development expert” who has spent “years in industry,” and is currently with Spitfire Research, Inc., which in turn states that it specializes in “consulting for a decarbonized future.” Mr. Martin then identifies several of his co-authors on the paper as a “team of people at the Environmental Defense Fund.” That information may well color your perception of what Martin, et al., have to say in their paper.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Math Confirms Foolishness of Climate Alarmism

by G. Wrightstone, Aug 11, 2024 in WUWT

The science of climate change often is presented in complicated language that speaks of computer models and the theoretical inputs and outputs thereof and concludes that the globe is on the verge of “boiling.” Well, leave it to three physicists — steeped in calculus and such arcane matters as the behavior of molecules and the nuclear charge of atoms — to simplify the analysis and arrive at a much less alarming determination.

“Straightforward calculations … show that eliminating U.S. CO2 emissions by the year 2050 would avoid a temperature increase of 0.0084 degrees Celsius,” states a brief paper authored by Drs. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Happer, Princeton University; and William A. van Wijngaarden, York University, Toronto. On the Fahrenheit scale, the value of averted warming is 0.015 degrees.

In short, the amount of warming averted by eliminating CO2 emissions in the United States would be too small to measure. The paper bolsters the position of those who argue that a changing climate is the product of natural forces, that human-induced carbon dioxide emissions can have only a minuscule effect on global temperature, and that CO2 is a valuable plant food and not a pollutant.

Rather than using theoretical assumptions about various factors that are fed into computers, the paper’s calculation relies almost exclusively on “observable data” that are widely accepted and publicly available, says Dr. Happer.

“This is something anybody with a calculator can figure out,” said the scientist, who may be best known for his contribution to a laser-based technology for destroying incoming ballistic missiles as part of the so-called Star Wars program of the 1980s. Continuer la lecture de Math Confirms Foolishness of Climate Alarmism →

better to know...?, energy and fields

Natural Gas Industry’s Smear of Coal Is False and Self-Defeating

by G. Wrightstone, July 22, 2024 in RealClearEnergy

Smearing coal has become a marketing strategy of a natural gas industry that embraces pseudoscientific views of coal combustion as being hazardous.

In so doing, gas supporters give credence to a fallacious regulatory regime of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which erroneously classifies carbon dioxide as a pollutant and assigns health effects to low-level pollution without scientific proof. To boot, a false representation of coal, oil and natural gas as environmental bogeymen is perpetuated.

Perhaps the most enthusiastic user of this foolish ploy is Toby Rice, CEO of Pittsburgh-based EQT Corp., who introduced two years ago a global plan to replace coal with liquefied natural gas. Promoting his product as a “decarbonizing force” in June at a RealClearEnergy conference, the head of the country’s largest gas producer (check the video link above to see his part), said:

“What we would like to do at EQT … is focus people on a really practical solution that will allow us to provide energy security for the world and address people’s concerns over global emissions. And that path is very simple: transition the world from coal to gas.”

Although natural gas emits less carbon dioxide than coal when burned, the underlying premise of Rice’s pitch rests on the popular myth that CO2 emissions will overheat the planet. The organization we lead, the CO2 Coalition, has overwhelming evidence from top scientists showing that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide not only poses no danger but is beneficial to plant growth and crop production.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

The ‘Climate Emergency’ is a Myth, Says Nobel Prize Winner John Clauser. Here’s Why He’s Right

by Dr R. Kalveks, June 8, 2024 in DailySceptic

In a recent lecture, Nobel Laureate physicist John Clauser exposed how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models and analyses, which are relied upon by politicians and activists to support claims of a ‘climate crisis’, do not meet basic standards of scientific enquiry. Clauser received his Nobel prize in 2022 for the observational measurement of quantum entanglement and understands well the problem of distinguishing a physical signal from background noise.

Clauser shows that, when corrected for the IPCC’s error prone arithmetic and statistics, the observational data do not support the power imbalance claimed to be responsible for global warming. Furthermore, the outputs of climate models are at variance with the observational record. Clauser discusses the roles of convection, clouds and their variability in providing a negative feedback mechanism, and proposes that this acts as a thermostat that stabilises surface temperatures. Clauser’s conclusion is that claims of a ‘climate crisis’ lack scientific substance and that Net Zero policies are an unnecessary hindrance.

…

Energy Flows in the Climate System

It is useful to start with a simplified depiction of the solar energy flow that reaches the Earth, its transformation by the Earth’s climate system and the resulting (mostly thermal) energy flow that leaves the Earth’s atmosphere. This is shown in Figure 1, taken from a recent IPCC report.

The IPCC diagram shows an energy imbalance, being the difference between the incoming visible and UV solar radiation 340 W/m2, less the amount reflected (100 W/m2), less the outgoing infra-red (IR) thermal radiation (239 W/m2). The claimed imbalance at the Top of the Atmosphere is 0.7 W/m2 (give or take 0.2) and the IPCC asserts that this is driving the continuing warming of the climate system.

Table. 1. Top of Atmosphere Energy Flows. Energy flows at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, with their errors as per Figure 1. The balance is calculated from its components.

The radiation measurements necessary for this calculation are carried out at different wavelengths by instruments carried by satellites, and observational errors are inevitable. Combining the uncertainty ranges in the incoming, reflected and outgoing streams shown in Table 1, by using the standard statistical Root Mean Square rule, shows that the error margin in the calculated imbalance is actually 3 W/m2, some 15 times greater than the 0.2 W/m2 error margin claimed by the IPCC. In short, there is no observedenergy imbalance. The claimed imbalance of 0.7 W/m2 is swamped by observational error, and, from a scientific perspective, it is described by Clauser as a “fudge”.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems

by A. May & M. Crok, May 29, 2024 in AmJEconSociology

Dear signatories of the Clintel World Climate Declaration

 

We are very excited to announce the publication of our peer reviewed paper titled “Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems“. It was published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. The paper was written by Andy May, retired petrophysicist and currently climate writer and blogger, and Clintel director Marcel Crok.

Crok and May coordinated the ambitious Clintel project to analyse the IPCC AR6 report, which last year led to the publication of the Clintel book The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC. In the book we document serious errors and biases in the latest IPCC report.
The new paper is largely based on the many interesting findings of that book.

The new paper gets a lot of attention, mostly positive and some critical (of course). This has led to an impressive attention score (which gives an indication of how much the paper is being discussed on blogs and on X/twitter). The paper is already in the 99th percentile.

 

It was a little expensive (2330 euros) to make the paper open access so we decided not to do that this time. But our submitted version can be downloaded for free.

Signatories of the World Climate Declaration could help us boosting the paper even further by writing about it on blogs and/or discussing the paper on X (twitter).

Andy May has been responding very promptly to some of the criticism on the paper, see here, here and here.

 

The full abstract of the paper can be read below:

Continuer la lecture de Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems →

better to know...?, climate-debate

Peer reviewed skepticism

by D. Wojick, July 9, 2024 in WUWT

A fine skeptical journal article waded through green pal review. Wonder of wonders!

The journal is the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. The article title is perfectly clear: “Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems”.

See https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12579

But it is an “Early View Online Version of Record before inclusion in an issue” so get it before it gets too hot for the Journal. I understand it is very popular so the green screams are deafening.

Alas it is paywalled but the lengthy free Abstract is as clear as the title. Here is the conclusion:

“Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming (Crok & May,  2023, pp. 140–161; Scafetta,  2024). Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels, even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.”

The authors are Andy May and Marcel Crok and as the first parenthetical reference above indicates they are building on prior work. Their 53 References are not paywalled and quite interesting. Continuer la lecture de Peer reviewed skepticism →

better to know...?, climate-debate

Media Reports Earth’s ‘1.5C Temperature limit’ was ‘breached for 12 months in a row’ – Nothing Bad Happened

by A. Watts, July 10, 2024 in WUWT

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM

Recently, several media outlets claimed that June 2024 was the hottest June on record globally and that it topped off a string of 12 or 13 warmer than normal months, which they blamed on human-induced climate change. Each of the news stories made false claims of reaching climate tipping points, extreme weather events, and that the extended streak of hot temperatures proved a “climate crisis” was at hand.

Here are some of the headlines: Temperatures 1.5C above pre-industrial era average for 12 months, data shows (The Guardian,) June sizzled to a 13th straight monthly heat record, but July might break string (National Public Radio,) and World in line for hottest year as 1.5C limit breached for 12 months in a row (Financial Times.)

That ongoing 1.5C temperature limit scare-story has people around the world rattled. For example, this infographic from The Asia-Pacific branch of the International Union of Food workers (IUF) says (bold author’s):

Global warming caused by human activities reached approximately 1°C over the past 170 years, increasing at 0.2°C per decade. Scientists warn that an average rise of more than 1.5°C in the surface temperature of the earth compared to pre-industrial levels will be catastrophic for the environment and human health.

But despite 12 months of the globe being above the so-called temperature limit, nothing bad happened on a global scale. Claims of climate catastrophe once we passed the so-called 1.5C temperature limit, never happened. The limit was nothing more than a political talking point from the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, as described in this Associated Press article: The magic 1.5: What’s behind climate talks’ key elusive goal. The AP wrote, “in a way both the ‘1.5 and 2 degree C thresholds are somewhat arbitrary,’ Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson said in an email. ‘Every tenth of a degree matters!’”

Now, despite surpassing that arbitrary limit, the “crisis” progressive politicians and alarmists in the mainstream media have been warning about failed to materialize.

First let’s check the global temperature. The source of all these news stories comes from a recent press release by Copernicus, part of the European Commission. A graph by Copernicus, seen in Figure 1 below, illustrates the “limit” and the 12-month temperature peak:

…

better to know...?

Climate Activists Are Wrong About Which Energy Source Reduces Air Pollution

by S. Graham, June 20, 2024 in WUWT

oday’s media are filled with concerns about air pollution. But few people know which energy source has produced the greatest modern reduction in air pollution. The answer isn’t wind or solar energy.

During the 1950s, my grandfather had a coal furnace in his basement, like many homes in Chicago. Five days after a winter snowfall, the snow was covered with a visible black film of dust from coal furnaces. Our younger generation does not know the original reason for “spring cleaning.” Every spring, homeowners would wash their inside walls to remove coal dust.

It was the rising use of gas fuel, primarily natural gas along with propane, that produced the greatest reduction in air pollution in the United States and across the world. Gas furnaces and stoves have replaced wood in businesses and homes in developed nations. And natural gas power plants have replaced coal-fired plants to generate electricity, with gas becoming the leading fuel for industry.

Natural gas and propane are clean-burning fuels that emit no harmful pollutants when burned. When gas heating is substituted for coal or wood heating, indoor particulate pollution is reduced by 1,000 times.

Today, 70% of US homes use natural gas or propane, a percentage that has been rising for decades. Gas fuels have also become the leading heating and cooking source in Europe, providing 83% of heat energy in the Netherlands and 78% in the United Kingdom. But there are still 70 million wood stoves in Europe.

The World Health Organization estimates that 2 billion people in developing nations still cook using open fires or inefficient stoves fueled by kerosene, biomass (wood, charcoal, animal dung, or crop waste), and coal. These fuels generate harmful indoor air pollution. Indoor air pollution is estimated to cause more than 3 million deaths annually in poor nations. Emerging nations need gas fuels to boost health and well-being.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Major problems identified in data adjustments applied to a widely used global temperature dataset

by Ceres Team, Feb 22, 2022 in CeresScience

new climate science study, involving a panel of 17 experts from 13 countries, has just been published in the scientific journal, Atmosphere. The study looked at the various data adjustments that are routinely applied to the European temperature records in the widely used Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) dataset over the last 10 years.

 
 
…
better to know...?

Olympics 2024: how extreme weather could impact Paris games

by S. King, , June 18 2024, BBC

The summer Olympics and Paralympic games in Paris are just over a month away and there is concern about the potential effects of extreme heat.

Some parts of Europe have already registered temperatures over 40C and it is not unreasonable to suggest that elsewhere in Europe will experience heatwaves in the coming months.

In a report published on Tuesday, Lord Coe, President of World Athletics, says “climate change should increasingly be viewed as an existential threat to sport”.

Intense heat could affect the events, competitors, spectators and officials.

Changing climate of Paris

We don’t know what the forecast will be for Paris during the Olympic period, but Meteo France – the national weather service – has said that summer is likely to be warmer than average.

France has experienced deadly summer heatwaves in the past.

The highest recorded temperature in Paris is 42.6C set at the end of July 2019.

And more recently in 2022, during the Olympic period, a lengthy heatwave saw maximum temperatures reach 36C.

That year the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies in France estimated heat-related deaths of 11,000 throughout the summer.

At the last Olympics in Tokyo in 2021, extreme heat made it “torturous” for athletes and volunteers, according to local meteorologists.

It was the hottest Olympic Games on record with sweltering temperatures of 34C and humidity of 70%, which would have made it feel like 47C.

Tennis player Daniel Medvedev spoke of “dying on court” during the heat of a match.

Other competitors vomited and fainted on the finish line because of the high temperatures.

…