Day: November 1, 2023

Modeling Gone Wild

Venus is the least understood of the terrestrial planets. Despite broad similarities to the Earth in mass and size, Venus has no evidence of plate tectonics recorded on its young surface, and Venus’s atmosphere is strikingly different. Numerical experiments of long-term planetary evolution have sought to understand Venus’s thermal–tectonic history with indeterminate results. 

From Watts Up With That?

Every once in awhile I read a news release and do a facepalm. I note that “simulations” are not “evidence” and chaos (and uncertainty) works backward in time too. – Anthony

From EurekAlert – Venus had Earth-like plate tectonics billions of years ago, study suggests

Simulations produced by a Brown-led research team offer evidence that Venus once had plate tectonics — a finding that opens the door for the possibility of early life on the planet and insights into its history.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — Venus, a scorching wasteland of a planet according to scientists, may have once had tectonic plate movements similar to those believed to have occurred on early Earth, a new study found. The finding sets up tantalizing scenarios regarding the possibility of early life on Venus, its evolutionary past and the history of the solar system.

Writing in Nature Astronomy, a team of scientists led by Brown University researchers describes using atmospheric data from Venus and computer modeling to show that the composition of the planet’s current atmosphere and surface pressure would only have been possible as a result of an early form of plate tectonics, a process critical to life that involves multiple continental plates pushing, pulling and sliding beneath one another.

On Earth, this process intensified over billions of years, forming new continents and mountains, and leading to chemical reactions that stabilized the planet’s surface temperature, resulting in an environment more conducive to the development of life.

Venus, on the other hand, Earth’s nearest neighbor and sister planet, went in the opposite direction and today has surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead. One explanation is that the planet has always been thought to have what’s known as a “stagnant lid,” meaning its surface has only a single plate with minimal amounts of give, movement and gasses being released into the atmosphere.

The new paper posits that this wasn’t always the case. To account for the abundance of nitrogen and carbon dioxide present in Venus’ atmosphere, the researchers conclude that Venus must have had plate tectonics sometime after the planet formed, about 4.5 billion to 3.5 billion years ago. The paper suggests that this early tectonic movement, like on Earth, would have been limited in terms of the number of plates moving and in how much they shifted. It also would have been happening on Earth and Venus simultaneously.

“One of the big picture takeaways is that we very likely had two planets at the same time in the same solar system operating in a plate tectonic regime — the same mode of tectonics that allowed for the life that we see on Earth today,” said Matt Weller, the study’s lead author who completed the work while he was a postdoctoral researcher at Brown and is now at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston.

This bolsters the possibility of microbial life on ancient Venus and shows that at one point the two planets — which are in the same solar neighborhood, are about the same size, and have the same mass, density and volume — were more alike than previously thought before diverging.

The work also highlights the possibility that plate tectonics on planets might just come down to timing — and therefore, so may life itself.

“We’ve so far thought about tectonic state in terms of a binary: it’s either true or it’s false, and it’s either true or false for the duration of the planet,” said study co-author Alexander Evans, an assistant professor of Earth, environmental and planetary sciences at Brown. “This shows that planets may transition in and out of different tectonic states and that this may actually be fairly common. Earth may be the outlier. This also means we might have planets that transition in and out of habitability rather than just being continuously habitable.”

That concept will be important to consider as scientists look to understand nearby moons — like Jupiter’s Europa, which has shown proof of having Earth-like plate tectonics — and distant exoplanets, according to the paper.

The researchers initially started the work as a way to show that the atmospheres of far-off exoplanets can be powerful markers of their early histories, before deciding to investigate that point closer to home.

They used current data on Venus’ atmosphere as the endpoint for their models and started by assuming Venus has had a stagnant lid through its entire existence. Quickly, they were able to see that simulations recreating the planet’s current atmosphere didn’t match up with where the planet is now in terms of the amount nitrogen and carbon dioxide present in the current atmosphere and its resulting surface pressure.

The researchers then simulated what would have had to happen on the planet to get to where it is today. They eventually matched the numbers almost exactly when they accounted for limited tectonic movement early in Venus’ history followed by the stagnant lid model that exists today.

Overall, the team believes the work serves as a proof of concept regarding atmospheres and their ability to provide insights into the past.

“We’re still in this paradigm where we use the surfaces of planets to understand their history,” Evans said. “We really show for the first time that the atmosphere may actually be the best way to understand some of the very ancient history of planets that is often not preserved on the surface.”

Upcoming NASA DAVINCI missions, which will measure gasses in the Venusian atmosphere, may help solidify the study’s findings. In the meantime, the researchers plan to delve deep into a key question the paper raises: What happened to plate tectonics on Venus? The theory in the paper suggests that the planet ultimately became too hot and its atmosphere too thick, drying up the necessary ingredients for tectonic movement.

“Venus basically ran out of juice to some extent, and that put the brakes on the process,” said Daniel Ibarra, a professor in Brown’s Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences and co-author on the paper.

The researchers say the details of how this happened may hold important implications for Earth.

“That’s going to be the next critical step in understanding Venus, its evolution and ultimately the fate of the Earth,” Weller said. “What conditions will force us to move in a Venus-like trajectory, and what conditions could allow the Earth to remain habitable?”

The study also included Alexandria Johnson from Purdue University. It was supported by NASA’s Solar System Workings program.

United Nations?

United Nations (UN), international organization established on October 24, 1945. The United Nations (UN) was the second multipurpose international organization established in the 20th century that was worldwide in scope and membership. Its predecessor, the League of Nations, was created by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and disbanded in 1946. Headquartered in New York City, the UN also has regional offices in Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi. Its official languages are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.


From Climate Scepticism

BY MARK HODGSON

Taking one’s eye off the ball

Every article that appears at Cliscep is very much the work of its author, and does not necessarily represent a collective view. Indeed, it’s always possible that authors who contribute articles will disagree fundamentally with the contents of articles written by others. In the “Legal stuff” at the end of the website’s “about” section this is made clear: “Each individual contributor is solely responsible for his/her own articles, and the views expressed in any article are not necessarily those of any other contributor”.I stress this for the simple reason that what follows is possibly a little off topic in Cliscep terms, represents my own thoughts, and hasn’t been discussed with (and certainly not “cleared” by) others.

Chapter one of the United Nations (UN) Charter tells us that the purposes of the United Nations are four-fold. First:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

Second:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.

Third:

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

And fourth:

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

These are all worthy aims, and while climate change wasn’t considered in 1945, it might just about be argued that it falls under part of the third category, namely “…international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character…”.

It isn’t clear whether the four objectives are set out in order of deemed importance, but if so, I would support the prioritisation involved. Given that climate change, as an issue, at best sneaks in as a stretched interpretation of what may well be a tertiary priority, it seems odd that an obsession with it appears to have taken over pretty much every aspect of the UN’s activities, while arguably its other (and more important) purposes are today largely left lying in the dust.

One of the early activities of diplomats at the UN was the setting up of a global health organisation. BY 22nd July 1946 the constitution of the World Health Organisation was finalised and signed by representatives of 51 Members of the UN and of 10 other nations. Those signatures required ratifications by home governments, and the WHO’s constitution came into force only on 7th April 1948 when the 26th signature ratification occurred. Today it has 194 member states. Over the decades the WHO has carried out much important work, but it became mired in controversy with regard to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, not least with regard to the easy ride some considered it gave to the Chinese authorities with regard to the question of how the virus emerged. It’s a curious coincidence that the WHO arguably owes its existence to the fact that in April 1945, when delegates to the putative UN were first meeting in San Francisco, it was representatives from China and Brazil who proposed that an international health organization be established and a conference to frame its constitution convened.

There are now plans (controversial to some) for a WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty. While some, such as the Telegraph have worried about the implications of such a treaty for national sovereignty (claiming that “[l]ockdown measures could be imposed on the UK by the World Health Organisation (WHO) during a future pandemic under sweeping new powers…”), others, such as the Lancet say that “the bureau text includes provisions safeguarding national sovereignty, which has been consistently emphasised by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) during negotiations.” It is to be hoped that this is true, given that Article 2 of the UN Charter contains this as its seventh principle:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

After all, perhaps some at the UN need reminding of this principle. Here’s the heading of a UN press release from 19th April 2021 – “UN Experts Condemn UK Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report”. I have not looked into the details of the claims and counter-claims concerning the issue in question, but whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue I find it remarkable, in view of the seventh principle, that the UN should use the language it does here:

The UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent categorically rejects and condemns the analysis and findings of the recently published report by the UK’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities…

…Stunningly, the Report also claims that, while there might be overt acts of racism in the UK, there is no institutional racism. The Report offers no evidence for this claim, but openly blames identity politics, disparages complex analyses of race and ethnicity using qualitative and quantitative research, proffers shocking misstatements and/or misunderstandings about data collection and mixed methods research, cites “pessimism,” “linguistic inflation,” and “emotion” as bases to distrust data and narratives associated with racism and racial discrimination, and attempts to delegitimize data grounded in lived experience while also shifting the blame for the impacts of racism to the people most impacted by it. For example, the Report seeks to rely on police reports of hate crimes …

…[It] is a tone-deaf attempt at rejecting the lived realities of people of African descent and other ethnic minorities in the UK.

Finally, the Report’s mythical representation of enslavement is an attempt to sanitize the history of the trade in enslaved Africans. This is a reprehensible, although not unfamiliar tactic, employed by many whose wealth came directly from the enslavement of others, ever since slavery was outlawed. Seeking to silence the brutal role of enslavers, the mind-numbing generational wealth they accrued, and the social capital and political influence they gained from exploiting black bodies is a deliberate attempt at historical misrepresentation…

…We urge the British government to categorically reject the findings of the Report…

Even if the criticisms are justified (and the lack of objectivity in comments which accuse the original report of a lack of objectivity must at the very least make it questionable), the only possible response is to ask why the UN has chosen to “intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of [the UK] state”, in breach of the principles set out in its Charter?

The answer to that question, I suggest, is that organisations of this sort inevitably seek to expand their remit. They are never satisfied with the constraints upon them, are anxious to increase their influence, yet will retreat if met with serious opposition, while pushing into areas where opposition is limited or non-existent. Hence, perhaps, the retreat from probing the origins of SARS-CoV-2 when met with opposition from China, one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The make-up of the Security Council, with its five permanent members, might be understandable in a 1945 context, but it’s arguable that it makes little sense today, especially given the power of any one of those members to veto resolutions which might otherwise be passed with almost unanimous support.

I would suggest that the presence of Russia on the Security Council renders the UN impotent to intervene in a meaningful way with regard to the conflict in Ukraine. The presence of the United States makes it impossible for the UN to intervene wherever the USA sees its interests as being affected. Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the dreadful situation in Palestine, it is undeniable that the USA is deeply interested in the situation, and that it is strongly supportive of Israel (even if, perhaps, behind the scenes, it is seeking to control or limit Israel’s actions). Thus we find a situation where the USA seems to have far more to say about, and far more influence over, events in Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine than does the UN. As Gordon Brown recently wrote in the Guardian:

…it is a sad commentary on the polarised times we live in that this week, the UN security council could not even bring forward an agreed resolution that provides explicit safeguards for the rights of children currently caught up in the conflict, reinforcing a perception that the international community is as powerless to protect children in Israel and Gaza as it has been in a succession of tragedies in Yemen, Sudan, Myanmar and Ukraine.

The UN, then, is powerless to protect children in conflicts around the world where they are clearly in danger. Instead, it busies itself writing reports blaming climate change for the problems of children around the world. In fairness, it also writes about children affected by conflict:

Around the world, attacks on children continue unabated. The number of countries experiencing violent conflict is the highest it has been in the last 30 years. The result is that more than 30 million children have been displaced by conflict. Many of them are being enslaved, trafficked, abused and exploited. Many more are living in limbo, without official immigration status or access to education and health care. From Afghanistan to Mali, to South Sudan, Yemen and beyond, warring parties are flouting one of the most basic rules of war: the protection of children….

Between 2005 and 2022, more than 315,000 grave violations were verified against children, committed by parties to conflict in more than 30 conflict situations across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. The actual number is undoubtedly far higher. 

The report is powerful and moving, but its conclusions are limp. It says we must act now, but offers no mechanism by which such action might be implemented. There is no suggestion that we should hold an annual conference of the parties to agree actions to deal with violations against children. There is no blueprint to reform the UN, to change the structure of the Security Council, to render the UN a meaningful international body that has in place structures capable of meeting the objectives set out in its Charter.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands are due to attend the 28th annual jamboree that will fail to achieve anything with regard to climate change. The resources devoted to this are huge, probably because it’s an area where no push-back to the process is ever encountered (though only lip-service is ever paid to the objectives, especially by two of the permanent members of the Security Council, China and Russia, who probably see the whole COP process as a means of empowering the useful idiots who seek to undermine the west).

A visit to the relevant part of the UN website reveals an organisation which sees itself as central to a massive policy agenda which is arguably peripheral at best in terms of its Charter obligations. Vast amounts of money and resources are devoted to this area where it should be patently obvious by now that it is making no meaningful difference to levels of greenhouse gas emissions or to climate change. Meanwhile it stands around limply wringing its hands with regard to areas that are central to its Charter obligations. My advice to the President of the UN General Assembly and to the UN’s Secretary-General is to stop grandstanding with regard to issues where the UN can achieve nothing, and to concentrate instead on the day job, however difficult that job might be. The world is on fire, but not in the way that the UN wants us to believe. Do something about it.


Texas Record Summer Temperatures? Or UHI.

All of this must come as surprise to anybody old enough to remember the killer heatwaves of the 1930s and 50s in the State.

FILE – In this April 15, 1935 file photo, a dust cloud approaches a ranch in Boise City, Okla. The Oklahoma and Texas panhandles, the geographic center of the 1930s Dust Bowl, are hoping for an uptick in tourism following a two-part television series about what many call the nation’s worst man-made disaster. PBS’ series on “The Dust Bowl” concluded Monday, Nov. 19, 2012. (AP Photo, File)

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series/

According to NOAA, Texas has just had its second warmest summer; only 2011 was hotter. And it’s a similar story in Dallas, which uses data from the Dallas Love Field FAA Airport:

All of this must come as surprise to anybody old enough to remember the killer heatwaves of the 1930s and 50s in the State.

So step forward the small city of Corsicana, which has a population of 25000 and is located 50 miles from Dallas:

The weather station at Corsicana has been part of the high quality U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) since 1880, which for years was used to quantify national and state temperature trends. By and large, USHCN sites were in small towns and rural areas, for obvious reasons. All USHCN stations had to meet high standards of equipment, siting and recording practices, to ensure the data was reliable.

Lo and behold, when we check the data there, we find that this summer was a long way from being the second warmest. Not only was it hotter in 2011, it was also in 1925, 1934, 1954 and 1998:

http://climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu/

For instance, the summer of 1954 averaged 87.3F, compared to 86.7F this year, a difference of 0.6F. But in Dallas the comparative figures were 88.9F and 89.6F, a difference of 0.7F.

Overall since 1954 therefore, temperatures in Dallas have increased by 1.3F in comparison to Corsicana, (0.6 + 0.7F).

Obviously there can be no climatological reason for this, as the two locations are so close. And metadata confirms that there have been no significant location changes at Corsicana, or any changes in time of observation.

The only possible cause of the discrepancy is, of course, UHI.

Further evidence that the Corsicana data is telling the real story lies in the number of days over 100F. Clearly the 1930s and 50s stand out for their heat:

Meanwhile, the correct climate trends have been adjusted away by GISS, homogenised to agree with all of the big city and airport temperature data:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00412019&ds=14&dt=1

According to NOAA, Texas has warmed by 1.5F since the start of the 20thC, but their own data indicated that nearly all of this “warming” has been due to UHI:

https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/tx/

Some people would call this outright fraud!

UK government drops support for controversial deep sea mining as it backs temporary pause

Greenpeace International activists paint the word ‘RISK!’ on the starboard side of Normand Energy, a vessel chartered by the Belgian company Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR). The Rainbow Warrior is bearing witness to equipment tests carried out by GSR using the Patania II nodule collector, at approximately 4500 metres deep in the Clarion Clipperton Zone. The mining company is aiming to commercially extract minerals from the seabed in the future. The Greenpeace ship is in the Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Pacific to bear witness to the deep sea mining industry. Part of the ongoing ‘Protect the Oceans’ campaign.

Environmentalists have warned deep sea mining could be “catastrophic” for the vast and little understood habitat, which holds minerals needed for green technologies.

The UK has for the first time come out in support of a pause in highly controversial mining of the deep sea bed, having previously supported it, reports Sky News.

On Monday, the government added its name to a group of countries seeking a moratorium on new licences to exploit minerals such as lithium, copper and cobalt – vital for green energy – from the deep sea.

The environment department said the precautionary pause is designed to protect the world’s ocean from such projects, which involve heavy machinery scraping deposits from the world’s largest habitat, until more evidence on the impact is available.

It said it would establish a new UK-based network of experts to collect further scientific data.

Components of a subsea mining machine pictured in 2014

Environment Secretary Therese Coffey said the UK will use “our scientific expertise to fully understand the impact of deep sea mining on precious ecosystems; and in the meantime, we will not support or sponsor any exploitation licences”.

The announcement comes as negotiations at the United Nations regulator, the International Seabed Authority, start on Monday, and take place one month before the COP28 climate talks commence in Dubai in December.

Previously, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government had been in favour of exploratory licences, a position criticised by Labour and dozens of scientists.

Other than from a few small tests, no commercial mining has happened at scale yet, and campaigners say it will be extremely destructive, with full environmental impacts hard to predict.

But deep sea mining is regarded as a potential solution to the expected global shortage of raw materials considered critical to a greener energy future, and used in things like batteries and renewable power.

It is also seen as a way to reduce dependence on the relatively few countries that hold deposits on land, including China, Australia, Russia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Read the fullreport here.

Will China pay climate change “loss and damage”?

The debate over what China owes to countries that are least responsible for global warming — but most harmed by its effects — had dramatically intensified in the wake of the recent U.N. Climate Change Conference in Egypt. At the end of the two-week summit, known as COP27.

From  CFACT

By David Wojick

I normally despise the bogus issue of “loss and damage,” which is featured in the upcoming COP 28 extravaganza. But for now, I love it because it has squarely raised the long overdue issue of China’s status as a so-called developing country.

The simple issue is, will China pay into the new Loss and Damages Fund? Assuming they ever get it going. It seems obvious they should, and a lot of countries are calling for it, including the US, which might even make it a condition of our participation.

I mean, China is the world’s largest CO2 emitter, right? They produce more electricity than the US, EU, and UK combined, mostly by burning billions of tons of coal a year. What could be simpler?

Well, it turns out to be really complicated, for legal reasons, of all things. COP 28 is the 28th Conference of Parties to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the grand climate treaty that everyone signed onto.

Core to that massive treaty is a division between developed and developing countries. China was dirt poor in 1992, so of course, they are on the developing list. Today, they are the industrial powerhouse of the world, but the list has not been changed.

The Loss and Damage Fund is also under that treaty, so it is supposed to accept money from developed countries and distribute it to developing ones. Thus, there is no provision for China to pay, a point China happily repeats endlessly. So sorry.

The obvious solution is to change the UN climate treaty to reflect reality, but that would be an almost impossible task, especially since any COP member country can veto any change.

In fact, when you look at the list of big CO2-emitting countries, it quickly becomes apparent that we are not just talking about mighty China. Thanks to their wonderful economic progress in the last 20 years, a good number of those developing countries now emit a lot more than some on the developed list.

China is number 1 in CO2 emissions, but India is 3rd, Iran is 8th, Indonesia is 10th, Brazil is 12th, Mexico 13th, and so it goes. Basing who pays on emissions would open a Pandora’s box of impossible wrangling. After all, Denmark is number 70.

The press coverage is hopeless, as usual. This issue gets almost no attention. More broadly, their whole perspective is wrong as they keep saying the next step is to iron out the details. The opposite is true.

UN negotiations always work from the easy issues to the middle ones and, finally, the really hard ones, which is where we are now. Who pays, how much, and to whom are not details. They are the core, make-or-break issues. The issue getting all the attention, whether the World Bank handles the money or a new UN fund, is tiny in comparison.

Another huge press confusion is repeatedly describing loss and damage as rich countries paying for the climate damage they are causing. The greener version is to call it reparations.

There is nothing about causation or liability in the UN text. It reads like an agreement for the developed countries to send aid to the developing ones for a specific cause, namely climate (actually weather) caused losses and damages. This lack of liability language was a requirement for the US and some other developed countries to agree to kick off trying to set up a fund of some sort. If this fund ever gets set up, which is far from clear at this point, I am sure the US will see its contributions as foreign aid. Certainly not a reparations.

In the meantime, the issue of China paying looks pretty impossible. China has said it does not want any of the aid, but that does not resolve the glaring fact they are by far the world’s biggest CO2 emitter.

It is all looking pretty funny at this point, which is just how I like it.

Stay tuned to CFACT as the COP 28 loss and damage fiasco plays out.

Author

David Wojick

David Wojick

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an inDr. David Wojick is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT.

As a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science, he brings a unique perspective to complex policy issues.

His specializes in science and technology intensive issues, especially in energy and environment.

As a cognitive scientist he also does basic research on the structure and dynamics of complex issues and reasoning.

This research informs his policy analyses. He has written hundreds of analytical articles. Many recent examples can be found at https://www.cfact.org/author/dwojick/ Often working as a consultant on understanding complex issues, Dr. Wojick’s numerous clients have included think tanks, trade associations, businesses and government agencies.

Examples range from CFACT to the Chief of Naval Research and the Energy Department’s Office of Science.

He has served on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the staff of the Naval Research Laboratory.

He is available for confidential consulting, research and writing.

Health & Democracy: Expert Hearing in the EU Parliament – Part 1/3

The WHO – with its worldwide striving for more and more power and higher financial resources – has become a central danger for our democratic basic order.

In the worst case the now threatening “WHO-pandemic-treaty” means nothing else than the de facto self-deprivation of power of national parliaments and the transfer of political decision-making authority to an unelected supranational organization. This “world health government,” which could be activated at any time by means of an emergency clause, would not be democratically legitimized and would no longer be accessible to us – the citizens – not even through elections.

Christine Anderson, MdEP

Therefore, together with my colleagues from “Team Freedom”, I recently invited renowned international experts to a hearing in the EU Parliament to discuss this totally underestimated danger from a

⚖️ legal,
💊 medical,
💡 psychological,
📜 historical &
💰 financial perspective to shed light on and to understand.

EXPERTS: Prof. Mattias Desmet (Belgium) Prof. Michael Geistlinger (Austria) Prof. Andreas Sönnichsen (Austria) Dr. Peter McCollough (USA) Dr. Beate Pfeil (Germany) Dr. David E. Martin (USA) Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg (Austria) Dr. Renate Holzeisen (Italy) Philipp Kruse, Attorney at law (Switzerland)

Hosting MEPs: MEP Christine ANDERSON (Germany) MEP Mislav KOLAKUŠIĆ (Croatia) MEP Ivan SINČIĆ (Croatia) MEP Cristian TERHES (Romania) MEP Virginie JORON (France) MEP Rob Roos (Netherlands)

Watch now part 1 of my new and exciting three-hour series on this important as well as disturbing issue.

In this episode, the following speakers take the floor:

MEP Christine Anderson (Germany)
Philipp Kruse, Attorney at law (Switzerland)
Dr. Renate Holzeisen (Italy)
Prof. Michael Geistlinger (Austria)
Dr. Beate Pfeil (Germany

This expert hearing in 3 episodes is the perfect opportunity to get an in-depth look at the “WHO-pandemic-treaty” and to understand the WHO’s hidden background and its entanglements with the global fake elites.

Part 2 and 3 will follow soon here on my channel. Therefore, it’s best to subscribe now, so you don’t miss the sequels!

Sincerely
Yours Christine Anderson, MEP

Over 200 health journals call on the UN & WHO to recognize ‘climate change’ as ‘a global health emergency’

British Medical Journal: Published 25 October 2023: Over 200 health journals call on the United Nations, political leaders, and health professionals to recognize that climate change and biodiversity loss are one indivisible crisis and must be tackled together to preserve health and avoid catastrophe. This overall environmental crisis is now so severe as to be a global health emergency…
Human health is damaged directly by both the climate crisis, as the journals have described in previous editorials, and the nature crisis. …
The World Health Organization should declare the indivisible climate and nature crisis as a global health emergency. The three preconditions for WHO to declare a situation to be a public health emergency of international concern are that it is serious, sudden, unusual, or unexpected; carries implications for public health beyond the affected state’s national border; and may require immediate international action. Climate change seems to fulfil all those conditions. … 
We must recognise this crisis for what it is: a global health emergency.”
#

The Weather Channel: World’s Biggest Journals Join Forces, Demand Climate Crisis be Declared a Global Public Health Emergency

From ClimateDepot.com

By Marc Morano

https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2355

Published 25 October 2023

BMJ 2023; 383 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p2355 (Published 25 October 2023)Cite this as: BMJ 2023;383:p2355

Editorials

Time to treat the climate and nature crisis as one indivisible global health emergency

BMJ 2023; 383 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p2355 (Published 25 October 2023)Cite this as: BMJ 2023;383:p2355

  1. Kamran Abbasi, editor in chief1,
  2. Parveen Ali, editor in chief2,
  3. Virginia Barbour, editor in chief3,
  4. Thomas Benfield, editor in chief4,
  5. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, editor in chief5,
  6. Stephen Hancocks, editor in chief6,
  7. Richard Horton, editor in chief7,
  8. Laurie Laybourn-Langton8,
  9. Robert Mash, editor in chief9,
  10. Peush Sahni, editor in chief10,
  11. Wadeia Mohammad Sharief, editor in chief11,
  12. Paul Yonga, editor in chief12,
  13. Chris Zielinski13

Author affiliations

  1. Correspondence to: C Zielinski chris.zielinski@ukhealthalliance.org

Joint action is essential for planetary and human health

Over 200 health journals call on the United Nations, political leaders, and health professionals to recognise that climate change and biodiversity loss are one indivisible crisis and must be tackled together to preserve health and avoid catastrophe. This overall environmental crisis is now so severe as to be a global health emergency.

The world is currently responding to the climate crisis and the nature crisis as if they were separate challenges. This is a dangerous mistake. The 28th UN Conference of the Parties (COP) on climate change is about to be held in Dubai while the 16th COP on biodiversity is due to be held in Turkey in 2024. The research communities that provide the evidence for the two COPs are unfortunately largely separate, but they were brought together for a workshop in 2020 when they concluded: “Only by considering climate and biodiversity as parts of the same complex problem … can solutions be developed that avoid maladaptation and maximize the beneficial outcomes.”1

As the health world has recognised with the development of the concept of planetary health, the natural world is made up of one overall interdependent system. Damage to one subsystem can create feedback that damages another—for example, drought, wildfires, floods, and the other effects of rising global temperatures destroy plant life and lead to soil erosion and so inhibit carbon storage, which means more global warming.2 Climate change is set to overtake deforestation and other land use change as the primary driver of nature loss.3

Nature has a remarkable power to restore. For example, deforested land can revert to forest through natural regeneration, and marine phytoplankton, which act as natural carbon stores, turn over one billion tonnes of photosynthesising biomass every eight days.4 Indigenous peoples’ approaches to land and sea management have a particularly important role in regeneration and continuing care.5

Restoring one subsystem can help another—for example, replenishing soil could help remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere on a vast scale.6 But actions that may benefit one subsystem can harm another—for example, planting forests with one type of tree can remove carbon dioxide from the air but can damage the biodiversity that is fundamental to healthy ecosystems.7

…

Human health is damaged directly by both the climate crisis, as the journals have described in previous editorials,89 and the nature crisis. …

Global health emergency

In December 2022 the biodiversity COP agreed on the effective conservation and management of at least 30% of the world’s land, coastal areas, and oceans by 2030.23 Industrialised countries agreed to mobilise $30bn a year to support developing nations to do so.23 These agreements echo promises made at climate COPs.

Yet many commitments made at COPs have not been met. …

The World Health Organization should declare the indivisible climate and nature crisis as a global health emergency. The three preconditions for WHO to declare a situation to be a public health emergency of international concern are that it is serious, sudden, unusual, or unexpected; carries implications for public health beyond the affected state’s national border; and may require immediate international action. Climate change seems to fulfil all those conditions.25 …

Political leaders must recognise both the severe threats to health from the planetary crisis and the benefits that can flow to health from tackling the crisis.26 But, first, we must recognise this crisis for what it is: a global health emergency.

#

https://weather.com/en-IN/india/climate-change/news/2023-10-27-biggest-journal-climate-crisis-global-public-health-emergency

World’s Biggest Journals Join Forces, Demand Climate Crisis be Declared a Global Public Health Emergency

By Ankush Banerjee

These health journals are urging world leaders and health professionals to recognise that the climate crisis and biodiversity loss are interconnected crises, both of which pose a severe threat to human health, even insisting that the World Health Organisation (WHO) officially declare a global health emergency.

As climate change exacerbates extreme weather, pollution and disease, humans — particularly those from marginalised communities — continue to face its weighty interlinked consequences. In addition to harming ocean life, deteriorating water quality continues to worsen water-borne disease spread and the seafood crisis. Further, rapid changes in land use and climbing temperatures are breeding the perfect conditions for more pathogens to make the deadly jump to humans, leading to worrisome new diseases and pandemics.

Many studies have shown that access to green spaces is crucial for healthier communities as they help filter air pollution, reduce temperatures, and provide opportunities for physical activity. Nature has a positive impact on mental health, while also reducing stress, loneliness and depression, but these benefits are under threat due to increasing urbanisation.

Despite official goals to conserve 30% of the world’s land, coastal areas and oceans by 2030, many ecosystems are at the brink of their breaking points. Tipping over could lead to catastrophic harm to health, even if global warming is kept below a 1.5°C increase over pre-industrial levels.

Therefore, it is imperative that national climate plans be integrated with biodiversity goals. Health professionals, who command a ton of influence and trust in the public domain, have been urged to advocate for both restoring biodiversity and addressing climate change. Political leaders have also been called upon to recognisze the severe threats to health from this planetary crisis and the health benefits that can arise from taking action.

The editors of these prestigious journals have also backed a petition calling for WHO to declare a global public health emergency in May 2024. This united effort underscores the urgency of recognising and addressing the intertwined climate and nature crisis as a global health emergency.

The editorial can be accessed here.

#

British Medical Journal: Published 25 October 2023: Over 200 health journals call on the United Nations, political leaders, and health professionals to recognize that climate change and biodiversity loss are one indivisible crisis and must be tackled together to preserve health and avoid catastrophe. This overall environmental crisis is now so severe as to be a global health emergency…

Human health is damaged directly by both the climate crisis, as the journals have described in previous editorials, and the nature crisis. …

The World Health Organization should declare the indivisible climate and nature crisis as a global health emergency. The three preconditions for WHO to declare a situation to be a public health emergency of international concern are that it is serious, sudden, unusual, or unexpected; carries implications for public health beyond the affected state’s national border; and may require immediate international action. Climate change seems to fulfil all those conditions. … 

We must recognise this crisis for what it is: a global health emergency.”

#

The Weather Channel: World’s Biggest Journals Join Forces, Demand Climate Crisis be Declared a Global Public Health Emergency

Big Pharma all in on merging climate into health scare! CEO of AstraZeneca: ‘Climate emergency is the biggest health crisis of our time – bigger than Covid’ – ‘Radical action is needed on greenhouse gas emissions’

Touring Texan Turbine Graveyards Becomes Latest Green Tourism Venture

wind_blade_graveyard

Finding an environmentally friendly and economical way to dispose of the blades will become a growing problem. In the U.S. alone, there are an estimated 54,000 turbines in operation at the moment with 164,000 blades, according to Global Fiberglass Solutions. Over the next two years, an estimated 35,000 of those blades will be decommissioned and need somewhere to go.

From STOP THESE THINGS

A while back, wind industry spinners reckoned tourists would flock to see a view of these whirling wonders in action, now they’re flocking to their graveyards. Texans now have the opportunity to visit the growing piles of toxic turbine blades and other junk left over after these things give up the ghost.

James Morrow and Ron Kendall have put together a video tourist brochure, propounding the latest in ‘green’ tourism.

Sweetwater prides itself on its energy production as shown with its welcome sign along the Interstate 20. (Spectrum News/Ashley McElroy)

‘Turbine graveyards’ sprawled across Texas
YouTube
James Morrow and Ron Kendall
6 October 2023

Graveyard of broken wind turbine blades near Roscoe, Texas

Independent journalist Ron Kendall Jr warns of “turbine graveyards” which have been popping up over the US state of Texas as turbine blades reach their useable life.

Texas is home to more than 15,000 wind turbines and has been dubbed a “clean energy powerhouse”.

In a documentary produced by Yucca Films, Mr Kendall Jr investigates the lifespan of the turbines and where they go once used.

“Once they reach their usable life we are seeing more of these, I like to call them turbine graveyards, popping up throughout the state, some to the scale of over 20 to 40 acres of maybe ten tall stacked up,” he told Sky News host James Morrow.

“It doesn’t seem like there was much thought into the end of life for a lot of these renewable energy sources.”

Mr Kendall Jr added many blades are being replaced within two years on some of the newer facilities.

Transcript

James Morrow: Now, Texas has been dubbed a clean energy powerhouse with wind energy being a big part of the state’s grid. Texas is home to more than 15,000 wind turbines. That is only set to grow as the Biden administration pushes more and more green policies. But as we know, there are challenges when it comes to this sort of technology, including their own negative impacts on the environment. That’s one of the big questions explored by Ron Kendall Jr. from Yucca Films, who’s created a documentary about the lifespan of wind turbines and where they go once they’ve been all used up. Here’s a little bit.

Ron Kendall: These are all expired blades that have reached their usable life and have come here to die. A lot of claims of recycling these blades, but we’re not seeing any of it. These have been here for years and you can see, these are some of the in sections of the blades and they’ve been cut in half. Some of them been cut in half to maybe increase stacking efficiency. Some out there have just been kind of chopped up and they’re really decaying.

James Morrow: I’m pleased to be joined now by independent journalist, filmmaker and wildlife specialist Ron Kendall Jr. Ron, thanks so much for coming to talk about this here. As we saw in this clip, these blades are being held at a facility in Texas. What happens? Is this just normally what happens to wind farms or windmills when they’ve reached the end of their useful life?

Ron Kendall: Yeah, James, thanks for having me. This is becoming an increasing problem that we’re seeing throughout the state of Texas, and a lot of the footage that we were collecting recently and what you’re viewing on the screen now are blades from a facility just outside of Sweetwater, Texas. This farm has been in operation for about 10 years and those blades have reached their usable life. They’re made 100% out of fibreglass and they have some other internal components, but mainly fibreglass and there’s no real process or mechanism to recycle these blades, and so once they reach their usable life, we’re seeing more of these, I like to call them turbine graveyards, popping up throughout the state, some to the scale of over 20 to 40 acres of just maybe 10 tall stacked up, so doesn’t seem like there was much thought into the end of life of a lot of these renewable energy sources.

James Morrow: What you’re saying here is then these blades, what? They’re no more than 10 years old and they’re already headed for the junkyard, is that correct?

Ron Kendall: That is correct. We’ve been monitoring a lot of the newer facilities as well, and I’ve found it very interesting. We’re seeing a lot of turbines and I don’t understand the cause and I don’t have a good grasp on this yet, but a lot of blades are being replaced within two years now, what we’re seeing on some of the newer facilities.

James Morrow: It seems to me then, we’re sold in Australia, this whole idea that wind farms are this completely clean green energy, and yet we see here, I don’t know if you’ve got the same problem in Texas, that you get bird life kills, you get the whole cost of making the windmills, of course, which are big industrial sorts of things as well, and now you’ve got this whole waste problem here. Are the producers, are the people who put up these wind farms, they sell it as a green technology, zero waste, and all of that, are these sorts of factors factored in in Texas when people are trying to sell people on the glories of wind farms and the new green technology?

Ron Kendall: Well, I think it’s still a new enough technology that there’s no real concern of the end of life. We’re just entering into that phase of, yeah, what happens once these have reached their usable life? What happens when the blades have expired and then what happens when the entire structure has reached its full usable life as well? Set aside the carbon cost of developing these farms and building them, putting the structures up, the wildlife cost. We really have to look at who is going to foot the bill for remediating all these sites and bringing these turbines down and restoring.

I work on ranches. I work with protecting native wildlife throughout the state of Texas and who will foot the bill at the complete end of usable life for these wind turbines? I don’t think at this point, that’s really been figured out or discussed much yet. I think you can equate it to oil and gas has very strict guidelines and there’s a lot of ridicule and they’re under a lens and highly monitored when they shut in wells, and I think there has to be a standard put in place to say, at the end of life here, who’s going to cover and remediate all these massive farms that we’re seeing growing throughout the state and around the world?

James Morrow: Ron, that’s a great warning for Australia from Texas. Thank you so much. Filmmaker Ron Kendall Jr.
YouTube

Episode 1 is available here but audio quality is poor – although subitiles are available.

“Energy Choices and Market Decision Making”: A 30-year Retrospective

Landscape

From today’s [1993] vantage point, the energy-policy lesson has been half-learned. It is widely known that major command-and-control regulations do not work. The lessons of the 1970s energy crises have not been forgotten, and another energy crisis cannot be expected without price and allocations regulations.

From  Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

In October 1993, I published a pamphlet in Studies in Market-Based Energy Policy (#3) with the above title. On its thirtieth anniversary, I excerpt its major parts. So how does it read today–and compare to other writings of its time that were critical of fossil fuels? I report: you decide.

“From today’s [1993] vantage point, the energy-policy lesson has been half-learned. It is widely known that major command-and-control regulations do not work. The lessons of the 1970s energy crises have not been forgotten, and another energy crisis cannot be expected without price and allocations regulations.”

Executive Summary (pp. 1–2)

This primer on energy choices and market decision making has direct implications for energy policy. If voluntary choices in a free-market setting result in efficient outcomes, many current energy policies based on taxation, subsidies, and regulation can be critically questioned. Such a re-examination is undertaken in this booklet….

Thorough-going free-market reliance remains a viable and unappreciated policy package for the U.S. energy market. The lessons of history strongly support relying on market processes and minimizing government intervention. While none of the present government energy policies or programs–even the frontal assault on domestic oil drilling–will produce another “energy crisis,” they do uniformly restrict supply and thus raise prices for consumers and/or require taxpayer funding. As part of a broad-based economic recovery and deficit-reduction program, a laissez-faire energy policy of deregulation, privatization, tax reduction and repeal, and de-subsidization should be seriously considered.

The Lessons of History (pp. 3–4)

Eight major conclusions can be gleaned from the long and storied U.S. energy experience:

  1. The free market has reliably served U.S. energy consumers since inception. Energy choices based on market prices and profit-and-loss entrepreneurship have resulted in improved product quality, increasing supply, and falling prices for over a century. Central-planning episodes during World War I, World War II, and the 1970s energy crisis have proven the opposite point: government energy management distorts the market’s inherent order and creates supply and price problems.
  2. From the beginning, crude oil has been more competitive than its synthetic counterpart, coal oil; manufactured gas (coal gas) was eclipsed with the availability of natural gas. Private and government attempts to make synthetic fuels economic have failed.
  3. The conventional fuels (oil, gas, and coal) are characteristically and typically in “oversupply.” Transient fossil-fuel shortages were directly related to government regulation rather than market realities.
  4. Consumers and the general economy have benefited from “the process of creative destruction” as new energies displaced existing ones. Coal displaced fuel wood as the dominant energy source in the 1750–1800 period. Coal oil and whale oil were replaced by crude oil; manufactured gas was displaced by natural gas. Electricity displaced kerosene illumination, while the later development of the internal combustion engine redirected petroleum to a more urgent use. Change also affected regions. At the turn of the century, the Appalachian area (Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, West Virginia, and Kentucky) was the center of the U.S. petroleum industry; two decades later the Southwest–Texas and Oklahoma, in particular–claimed this title. Changing technology–often unforeseen–will change energy fortunes in the future as it has in the past. The process of creative destruction continues to run its course.
  5. Nonrenewable energies, such as oil and gas, have remained more competitive than politically favored renewable energies, such as solar and wind in electrical generation. While the cost differential has narrowed, it is still significant. The development of wind and solar has been largely the result of government and ratepayer subsidies.
  6. Alternative motor fuels to gasoline and diesel are economic only in limited applications and with government favor. The natural gas-vehicle market benefits from a motor-fuel tax exemption and conversion and infrastructure subsidies from utility ratepayers.
  7. Mandatory conservation is unwarranted and inefficient compared to market-oriented conservation because of the innate abundance of energy and the technological ability to control emissions from traditionally polluting sources.
  8. The cleanest of the fossil fuels, natural gas, has been the most disadvantaged by regulation in decades past, while less environmentally preferred fuels–petroleum, coal, and nuclear energy–have been relatively advantaged. This irony illustrates a major theme of political economy: the unintended effects of government intervention. The Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, however, position natural gas as the politically favored fuel of the 1990s and beyond.

These lessons point toward a more fundamental one: the reliability of decentralized market prices and the dangers of centralized energy management through government agencies and edicts.

Conclusion (pp. 36–37)

From today’s [1993] vantage point, the energy-policy lesson has been half-learned. It is widely known that major command-and-control regulations do not work. The lessons of the 1970s energy crises have not been forgotten, and another energy crisis cannot be expected without price and allocations regulations. But with a multitude of smaller regulations, subsidies, and taxes, the sovereignty of the energy consumer has not been respected.

Imagined market failures have given rise to government micromanagement of the energy choices of individuals. If energy consumers can be recognized as forward-looking and intelligent, activist policies can be rescinded and the supply of energies can rise and its prices fall.

In such a world, there would be no place for a Department of Energy or its state corollaries such as the California Energy Commission….

Wrong, Amnesty International, “Climate Change in Mexico” is Not Displacing People

El Bosque, comunidad pesquera de Tabasco

The World Meteorological Organization clearly defines that single weather events are not the same as climate change. There has been no long-term trend in greater numbers of or more severe storms striking this area during the past few decades that would suggest climate change was causing an issue.

Playa El Bosque

From Watts Up With That?

Originally posted at Climate Realism

Image: The shoreline of El Bosque, showing houses destroyed by the eroding beach. Source: The Guardian/Gustavo Graf

In an October 24 Amnesty International News article, titled “We may be the first people displaced by climate change in Mexico, but we won’t be the last,” Guadalupe Cobos Pacheco claims that the tiny seaside fishing town he lives in, the El Bosque community in Tabasco, Mexico, is being overwhelmed by sea level rise driven by climate change. Data and historical imagery show this to be false. Other factors, such as choice of building location, prevailing ocean waves, and beach erosion are the cause.

Pacheco writes:

Before climate change, our daily routine was to go fishing and sell our produce. Like any community, we celebrated our customs and traditions. We celebrated important dates such as Christmas, New Year or the Day of the Dead. We heard about climate change on television, but we never thought it would destroy our community. We could sleep easy.

Since 2019, our lives have completely changed. Now our lives revolve around climate change. That year, a storm swept away the first row of homes, and rising sea levels, coastal erosion, and northerly winds have continued to destroy our community. Our only option now is to leave.

The most important point that Pacheco fails to recognize in his own writing is that one storm in 2019 is not the same as climate change. The World Meteorological Organization clearly defines that single weather events are not the same as climate change. There has been no long-term trend in greater numbers of or more severe storms striking this area during the past few decades that would suggest climate change was causing an issue.

Rather than climate change, Pacheco should blame simple beach mechanics for what is happening at the El Bosque community in Tabasco.

El Bosque is built on a peninsular sand bar, jutting into the ocean. Sandbars are formed from the combination of erosion and deposition processes, which are driven by wave action. That particular section of beach is steeply sloping into the sea, and it is well known that a steeply sloping shore will cause waves to break closer to shore, causing more erosion than on a gently sloping shore.

The storm in 2019 started the process of beach scouring, making the slope steeper, and accelerating the process.

An article in The Guardian illustrates the process that has happened since:

But since 2019, residents of El Bosque say a series of severe weather fronts, bringing heavy rain and powerful winds, have been eroding the shoreline. As the ocean has encroached, more than 60 homes in the village have been destroyed by the waves.

With a steeper beach slope, additional storms have more impact than they have had in the past. Since 2019, the shoreline has eroded faster. This is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1, from a 2015 study, published in Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica, titled, “Mexicana Cambios morfológicos y sedimentológicos en playas del sur del Golfo de México y del Caribe noroeste,” shows how that particular section of beach where El Bosque was built has both expanded and eroded at different periods of time.

Figure 1, from the study cited above, Coastlines for El Bosque beach, Tabasco. The triangle represents the position of the old sampling and the circle represents the recent sampling.

In Figure 1, note that on the south side of the peninsula, in the cove area, there is essentially no beach erosion, or significant growth through deposition, over time. This suggests that the prevailing wave action comes from the north, driven by weather systems.

Figure 2, from Google Earth, shows satellite imagery from February 2023 of the peninsular sand bar that El Bosque is built on. Note that in this image, strong waves are present coming from the northwest, this creates a wave scouring action that rips sand from the beach and deposits it elsewhere, in the direction of the waves. The beach to the far right, as illustrated in Figure 1, is actually growing, as indicated by the black line beach profile.

Figure 2. Google Earth image of the sandbar peninsula which the town of El Bosque is built on. Annotations by A. Watts.

This is not climate change, climate change does not reach out to affect a small section of beach, shrinking one part, and building up another less than one mile away. This is simple and well-known beach mechanics of sand bars. It is established by ocean science that sandbars shift regularly over time.

The article also claims, “Rising sea levels caused by climate change have swept away more than 200 meters of coastline here, destroying more than 50 homes.”

Examining the data for sea level rise in the region, one finds no supporting evidence for that claim. In fact, there is no data available for the last 30 years at all from the two closest tide gauges at Ciudad del Carmen or Coatzacoalcos, Mexico. This is shown in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3: Map showing the two closest tide gauge stations on either side of El Basque, Mexico and the data as plotted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Tides and Currents website, with annotations and compositing by A. Watts

Without such data, it is impossible to honestly claim that sea levels are rising, much less rising at an unusual, global warming accelerated rate.

Looking at the latest available data, however, one can, playing Devil’s advocate, assume that the trends indicated at those two stations has continued rising unchanged since the last readings were available around 1988. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Tides and Currents website has this to say about the data at each station:

Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico:  The relative sea level trend is 3.6 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.94 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1956 to 1988 which is equivalent to a change of 1.18 feet in 100 years.

Coatzacoalcos, Mexico: The relative sea level trend is 2.86 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 1.06 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1952 to 1987 which is equivalent to a change of 0.94 feet in 100 years.

The 100 year sea level rise between the two stations averages out to 1.06 feet per century (1.18 + 0.94 /2 ). For the 35 years since the last data available in 1988, that would be 0.37 feet or 4.45 inches. This is near or well below the average sea level rise that the IPCC projects to occur over the 21st century, so unless the rates of rise have increased dramatically, climate change isn’t causing much sea level rise at El Bosque. In addition, the small estimated amount of rise certainly cannot account for the beach erosion and loss that has happened there. It is far below the average daily tidal variation, which can vary as much as 1.77 feet in a single day according to tide tables for Ciudad del Carmen.

Clearly, the claims of climate driven sea level rise are unsupportable. The likely cause of the recent sandbar erosion is the aforementioned wave driven beach erosion, triggered by the 2019 storm which increased the slope of the beach, making it even more susceptible to ocean storms and waves.

Tragically, the homes of El Bosque were built on the edge of the shifting sandbar. The residents were likely unaware of the dangers of building on sands which shift with such ease and passing storms. With the mainstream media blaming climate change for every natural event that can be portrayed as out of the ordinary, it unsurprising Pacheco has mistakenly blamed his village’s plight on climate change. There are several stories in the media recently making the same claim.

The incompetence of the media and NGOs, like Amnesty International News, in doing even the most basic investigation is disturbing and misleading.

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.