Month: April 2024

Coral Reefs are as Good as Dead, so We Don’t have to Try Anymore?

The adult form of coral is immobile, but every year, when conditions are right, coral produces uncounted billions of highly mobile microscopic larvae which seek out new locations to colonise. Coral is continuously probing the boundaries of its range, and establishing new colonies when conditions permit.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

But, but, there is still hope if we restrict fishing, reduce runoff pollution, and immediately commit to reducing CO2 emissions.

The end of coral reefs as we know them

Years ago, scientists made a devastating prediction about the ocean. Now it’s unfolding. 

By Benji Jones@BenjiSJones  Apr 26, 2024, 7:15am EDT

More than five years ago, the world’s top climate scientists made a frightening prediction: If the planet warms by 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to preindustrial times, 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs globally would die off. At 2°C, that number jumps to more than 99 percent. 

…

In not so great news, the planet is now approaching that 1.5°C mark. In 2023, the hottest year ever measured, the average global temperature was 1.52°C above the preindustrial average, as my colleague Umair Irfan reported. That doesn’t mean Earth has officially blown past this important threshold — typically, scientists measure these sorts of averages over decades, not years — but it’s a sign that we’re getting close.

…

What’s become increasingly clear is that climate change doesn’t just deal a temporary blow to these animals — it will bring about the end of reefs as we know them. 

Will there be coral reefs 100 years from now?

In the next few decades, a lot of coral will die — that’s pretty much a given. And to be clear, this reality is absolutely devastating. Regardless of whether snorkeling is your thing, reefs are essential to human well-being: Coral reefs dampen waves that hit the shore, support commercial fisheries, and drive coastal tourism around the world. They’re also home to an incredible diversity of life that inspires wonder.

…

Ultimately, the only real solution is reducing carbon emissions. Period. … “We really have no choice but to stop climate change.”

…

Scientists also see an urgent need to curb other, non-climate related threats, like water pollution and intensive fishing. “To give corals the best possible chance, we need to reduce every other stressor impacting reefs that we can control,” Manzello told Vox. 

These efforts alone will not save reefs, but they’ll buy time, experts say, helping corals hold on until emissions fall. If those interventions work — and if countries step up their climate commitments — future generations will still get to experience at least some version of these majestic, life-sustaining ecosystems.

…Read more: https://www.vox.com/climate/24137250/coral-reefs-bleaching-climate-change

The 70-90% death rate prediction, let alone the 99% death rate prediction, doesn’t pass the smell test.

If the ocean warms a few degrees, beyond current reef survivability, coral organisms will just migrate slightly further away from the equator.

Reef coral is highly mobile.

The adult form of coral is immobile, but every year, when conditions are right, coral produces uncounted billions of highly mobile microscopic larvae which seek out new locations to colonise. Coral is continuously probing the boundaries of its range, and establishing new colonies when conditions permit.

And that range of acceptable conditions is enormous. I live on the southern edge of the Coral Sea on the East Coast of Australia. There are plenty of suitable sites to the south of me, stretching well over a thousand miles South, which could be colonised overnight by coral if the water was a little warmer. That water near my home is too cold for swimming much of the year – but coral does just fine in the waters off my section of the coast. The Great Barrier Reef which starts near where I live stretches thousands of miles North into the sun drenched bathtub warm waters of the tropics.

Further evidence of reef adaptability is that reefs like the Great Barrier Reef have only been in their current location for a few thousand years. During the great melt which marked the end of the last ice age, when in just a few thousand years sea level rose over 300ft, the reef had no problem keeping up with the rising sea level, and immediately colonised former coastland which were inundated by the rising seas. In fact, during the Holocene Optimum, around 6000 years ago, when sea level was around 6ft higher than today, the Great Barrier Reef occupied parts of coastal Australia which are now dry land.

If you want to see the limits of modern coral adaptability, there are corals growing in the Persian Gulf which tolerate sea water temperatures > 36C / 97F.

Even the dinosaur killer asteroid failed to kill off coral. Coral survived mile high tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic upheavals which blackened the skies and poisoned the waters of the Earth, and also survived the billions of tons of mud and organic detritus which must have gushed into the oceans when those mile high Tsunamis receded. Much of the organic detritus washed from the land by giant tsunamis would have been caught in coastal areas, and would have rapidly rotted and turned stagnant, releasing nitrates and toxic chemicals into the shattered remains of the world’s coral reefs.

Yet coral survived all this and recovered.

Then there was the Palaeocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum. That temperature excursion was so extreme, one recent theory which tries to explain the PETM temperature excursion is a close encounter with another star perturbed Earth’s orbit, causing radical changes to the global climate.

At least 5-8C hotter than today. Yet coral survived the PETM – the lack of abundance was because of geography, not because of survivability.

Paleobiological Traits That Determined Scleractinian Coral Survival and Proliferation During the Late Paleocene and Early Eocene Hyperthermals

Anna M. Weiss, Rowan C. Martindale
First published: 21 January 2019

This article was corrected on 18 MAR 2019. See the end of the full text for details.

Abstract

Coral reefs are particularly sensitive to environmental disturbances, such as rapid shifts in temperature or carbonate saturation. Work on modern reefs has suggested that some corals will fare better than others in times of stress and that their life history traits might correlate with species survival. These same traits can be applied to fossil taxa to assess whether life history traits correspond with coral survival through past intervals of stress similar to future climate predictions. This study aims to identify whether ecological selection (based on physiology, behavior, habitat, etc.) plays a role in the long-term survival of corals during the late Paleocene and early Eocene. The late Paleocene-early Eocene interval is associated with multiple hyperthermal events that correspond to rises in atmospheric pCO2 and sea surface temperature, ocean acidification, and increases in weathering and turbidity. Coral reefs are rare during the late Paleocene and early Eocene, but despite the lack of reef habitat, corals do not experience an extinction at the generic level and there is little extinction at the species level. In fact, generic and species richness increases throughout the late Paleocene and early Eocene. We show that corals with certain traits (coloniality, carnivorous, or suspension feeding diet, hermaphroditic brooding reproduction, living in clastic settings) are more likely to survive climate change in the early Eocene. These findings have important implications for modern coral ecology and allow us to make more nuanced predictions about which taxa will have higher extinction risk in present-day climate change.

Key Points

  • There is no extinction of coral genera in the late Paleocene; however, there are extinctions at the species level
  • Differences in habitat, reproductive strategy, diet, coloniality, and photosymbiotic ability make some corals more susceptible to extinction than others
  • The early Paleogene is an important case study in how coral communities survive extreme environmental perturbations

Read more: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018pa003398

Given the evidence of coral survival during the PETM, 5-8C hotter than today, and the modern day extremophile descendants of that warm epoch which thrive in the Persian Gulf, how can anyone seriously claim a 2C global temperature rise will kill 99% of all Coral?

Nothing we are doing to the planet is any kind of threat to the survival of Coral and Coral reefs. At worst, a few species might be outcompeted by other corals, a dance of survival which has occurred unchecked since modern corals first appeared over 200 million years ago.

Polar bears are going extinct? Actually, they’re not! A new video worth watching and sharing

Great Barrier Reef specialist Peter Ridd has just published an excellent video about my work and the way I’ve been treated by the scientific community just for pointing out that polar bear populations have failed to respond as predicted to the recent decline in Arctic sea ice.

From polarbearscience

Great Barrier Reef specialist Peter Ridd has just published an excellent video about my work and the way I’ve been treated by the scientific community just for pointing out that polar bear populations have failed to respond as predicted to the recent decline in Arctic sea ice.

Dr. Ridd has been treated equally abominably, as he explains here.

Here’s the video: Polar bears: They are going extinct!? 27 April 2024 [length 6:57]

The report Peter refers to in the video is this one, which was published in February 2024:

Crockford, S.J. 2024. State of the Polar Bear 2023. Briefing Paper 67. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Download pdf here.

Crockford-Polar-Bears-2023-Briefing-67-finalHerunterladen

In other words, the polar bear catastrophe we were promised never happened. In case you missed it, I wrote a book about that. Polar bears across the Arctic are thriving: not just because their numbers have increased overall but because the field data collected from bears in regions that have had the most dramatic declines in summer sea ice, including the Barents Sea and the Chukchi Sea, show the bears are healthy and reproducing well.

Politico: Populist Backlash Against Climate Policy is Here

“The forced ‘energy transition’ is in trouble despite huge government commitments to wind, solar, batteries, and EVs. Each of the three fossil fuels is experiencing a global boom, and as Politico reports, politicians are backing away from energy taxes in favor of the cheaper, reliable, convenient mass energies consumers demand.”

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“The forced ‘energy transition’ is in trouble despite huge government commitments to wind, solar, batteries, and EVs. Each of the three fossil fuels is experiencing a global boom, and as Politico reports, politicians are backing away from energy taxes in favor of the cheaper, reliable, convenient mass energies consumers demand.”

Uncompetitive energies need government, studies, and ceaseless PR. Competitive energies need free markets where consumers vote with their dollars and taxpayers are spared. Increasingly, the price verdicts of (not so) green energies are coming in, and the public is not happy.

This development is evident in a recent Politico article, Republicans are trying to snuff out climate embers around the country,” subtitled “Conservatives are aggressively targeting efforts to reduce carbon emissions across the continent.”

Co-authors Jordan Wolman, Marie French, and Zi-Ann Lum begin:

Conservatives are aggressively targeting efforts to reduce carbon emissions across the continent. Leaders across the continent who have embraced aggressive climate policies are facing a political backlash as the programs drive up the cost of electricity, home heating and even ordinary goods.

In New York, Washington, Pennsylvania and California — and even Canada — concerns about the costs of curbing greenhouse gas emissions are fueling voter revolts and prompting some liberals to scale back or reframe their own climate ambitions.

Wait! We were repeatedly told by the experts and government that the costs of green energy were falling, and scale economies would usher in an “energy transition.” Gore, Obama, Biden …. John Holdren, Joe Romm …. Michael Mann, Andrew Dessler ….

Take Washington, where the state’s year-old program is facing a November ballot initiative that would halt the effort, which aims to reduce the state’s net carbon emissions to zero by 2050…. Washington’s cap-and-trade program “doesn’t do anything other than make gasoline and groceries and eating more expensive,” Brian Heywood, the ballot measure’s sponsor, said in an interview. “I call it the, ‘Hey, just buy a Tesla, bro,’ mentality.”

Pricing CO2 (carbon tax) is not happy politics:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already discovered what a potent issue carbon pricing has become: The liberal leader’s reelection bid is in jeopardy due, in part, to an April 1 hike to the nationwide carbon tax that’s sparked protests and widespread opposition.

Now governors are facing some of the same blowback. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro last month bowed to opposition from Republicans, labor groups and fossil fuel interests to the Northeast’s carbon pricing program and proposed his own in-state carbon cap instead, drawing immediate fire from both parties and doubts it can pass a divided Legislature.

And New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, amid growing pushback from the state’s business community, is considering neutering her nascent program in self-defense. She’s proposed a price cap so low that it wouldn’t spur enough reductions to ensure New York hits its 2030 emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels….

Trying to find “benefits” to offset the immediate costs is hard–because discernible climate change from policy is out decades, if ever. Back to Canada:

In Canada, support for carbon pricing — Trudeau’s signature policy — has eroded as high interest rates and cost of living concerns have dominated. The pushback has put Trudeau, with sinking popularity, on the defensive: His own Liberals have exempted home heating oil from the fuel charge and are selling the policy’s rebate checks as an affordability measure rather than a climate program.

And Canada’s left-leaning New Democratic Party, in a surprise move, recently walked back its support for the Trudeau government’s consumer fuel charge, suggesting there are more effective policies to fight climate change.

Meanwhile, rival Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is betting long-tail rage over the carbon tax can help his party win the next election, to be held by October of next year — and finally oust Trudeau from office.

In Washington State:

Gas prices have soared in Washington to about $1 above the national average and higher than neighboring Oregon, according to AAA, though Inslee’s office disputes that all of the spike is tied to the cap-and-trade program. A poll conducted last month of 600 registered Washington voters found 53 percent support the effort to end cap and trade, with a margin of error of 4.7 percentage points.

State lawmakers amended the program last month to give farmers and truckers a rebate to ease the costs of fuel surcharges. But it’s not nearly enough to mollify opponents…. Heywood said voters are feeling the crunch. “It doesn’t do anything really other than make some people feel good to address carbon dioxide output,” he said. “And it’s doing it enormously off the backs of the working class and the working poor.”

The forced ‘energy transition’ is in trouble despite huge government commitments to wind, solar, batteries, and EVs. Each of the three fossil fuels is experiencing a global boom, and politicians are backing away from energy taxes in favor of the cheaper, reliable, convenient mass energies consumers demand. Expect this to continue through and after the coming elections.

Zombie Apocalypse: Wind Industry Faces Total Collapse With More Projects Scrapped

The wind industry is looking a lot like a zombie apocalypse; evidently dead on its feet, but refusing to accept its mortality and die with dignity.
As Nick Cater points out below, Chalumbin is not the first nor the last wind factory joining the zombie apocalypse.

From STOP THESE THINGS

The wind industry is looking a lot like a zombie apocalypse; evidently dead on its feet, but refusing to accept its mortality and die with dignity.

The offshore wind industry in the US looks like a bloodbath, with dozens of major projects scrapped outright. Investors have pulled the plug, never to return.

In Australia dozens of onshore projects, that have been in the so-called ‘pipeline’ for years, are being quietly pulled. And others are being put to death in full public view.

One recent and very public execution involved Chalumbin, where Ark Energy had planned to wipeout thousands of acres of pristine rainforest to make way for dozens of these things across the ranges of Far North Queensland. But, after the adverse publicity that surrounded the environmental destruction involved in the construction of dozens of these things at a neighbouring atrocity at Kaban – the Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek – baulked at the notion of a repeat performance. Something about the ‘bad optics’ that comes with trashing forests and wiping out creatures large and small.

Before the Minister could swing the axe, Korean owned Ark Energy engaged in the noble art of seppuku and pulled the project.

As Nick Cater points out below, Chalumbin is not the first nor the last wind factory joining the zombie apocalypse.

Zombies cast fear across renewables dreamland
The Australian
Nick Cater
27 April 2024

Last Thursday, the Queensland parliament passed a law committing the state to reduce carbon emissions by 75 per cent by 2035. Debate resumed at 11.44am, and the Energy (Renewable Transformation and Jobs) Bill was done and dusted in time for lunch. Back-slaps all round.

At 4.32pm on Friday, Ark Energy announced it was withdrawing its application to install 42 wind turbines at Chalumbin in far north Queensland following advice that the federal Department of Climate Change and Energy was about to reject it.

The meagre odds that Queensland can meet its legislated emissions target using renewable energy are now too small to be visible under a microscope.,

For the wind industry, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s rejection of Chalumbin is its Franklin Dam moment. It was a test case of the federal government’s willingness to weigh the environmental cost of installing turbines against the assumed benefits of low-carbon electricity.

Last July, when I drew national attention to the Chalumbin proposal in The Australian, I opened my column by noting that it would destroy 1000 of the remaining 8000 hectares of wet sclerophyll forest, the buffer zone between the rainforests and the open plains to the south.

Nine months later, the minister reached the same conclusion, telling The Guardian at the weekend the forest “provides a vital habitat for many birds, plants and animals, including the spectacled flying fox and the northern greater glider”.

Her decision measures how far the wind industry’s fortunes have sunk since June 2022, when the Queensland government approved the Chalumbin proposal under the corner-cutting assessment process. It applies to anything with the word “renewable” attached.

Bulldozers were ripping swathes through hundreds of hectares of remnant native forest at nearby Kaban, blasting 330,000 tonnes of rock and dirt from the sides of hills to build access roads and turbine pads bigger than football fields.

All of this was occurring without a squeak from environmental groups, every one of which appeared to have swallowed the renewable energy Kool-Aid and, in some cases, its cash.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen set a target of installing a giant 7MW wind turbine every 18 hours until 2030. He boasted of the number of projects in the pipeline, the implication being they were just a short step away from approval.

Today, the renewable energy industry has a name for projects that slip off the back of the pipeline: zombie projects. Last year was the worst year for the financial approval of renewable energy projects since 2016 and the worst for wind since 2015. The latest Green Energy and Investment Markets Review reports the window is closing fast on the government’s 2030 target.

Assuming an average of two years for construction, 8GW of new projects must receive financial approval every year from 2024 until 2027. That is almost five times higher than the amount approved in 2023.

Bowen could ill-afford the 400MW Chalumbin project to fall into the zombie zone, particularly since it was backed by Korean Zinc, a cashed-up corporation keen to get a slice of Australia’s renewable energy action.

Chalumbin signals to renewable energy speculators that the Dirty Harry days are over. The environmental costs of wind, solar, hydro and transmission will no longer be overlooked because of their assumed noble goal.

Now Plibersek has knocked back Chalumbin, it is impossible to see how she can approve the Upper Burdekin project in an equally sensitive area 4.8km from the boundary of the Wet Tropics World Heritage area. Global tech giant Apple read the writing on the wall a year ago when it walked away from an agreement to buy power from the proposed plant. Andrew Forrest, whose WindLab company is behind the project, might as well throw the towel in today.

The odds must be rapidly closing against Mt Fox, a 350MW wind turbine project in mountainous remnant forest on the edge of the wet tropical Girringun National Park, 50km southwest of Ingham. From there, the ruler must be run through cascading proposals hugging the Great Dividing Range to the Darling Downs. Few, if any, will be situated in already degraded environments since developers seek ridge lines that are unprofitable and, in many cases, impossible to farm. The remnant bush line has provided sanctuary for enough vulnerable and endangered creatures to fill Noah’s ark.

The Chalumbin precedent subjects every proposal to potential trade-offs. How many hectares of bulldozed koala habitat are too many? Which species are so unlovely, small or insignificant that we are prepared to sacrifice them in order to save the planet? If the same rules that apply to mining were applied to wind, solar and pumped hydro, the jig would be up.

Plibersek will be aware of her decision’s taming effect on the animal spirits of renewable energy speculators. On Saturday, she issued a keep-calm-and-carry-on press release announcing she had approved 63 wind turbines at the aptly named Mt Hopeful in central Queensland. “I’ve now ticked off 46 renewable energy projects … and we have a record 130 renewables projects in the approval pipeline.”

Yet the minister’s tick does not make Mt Hopeful immune from zombification. The developer, Neoen, still struggles to make the numbers stack up. Costs are ballooning as it discovers that making a project work on a spreadsheet is very different from making it work on planet Earth.

Even the environmental movement is waking up to the realisation that wind turbines might not be the answer to their prayers. Bob Brown, the father of the green movement, led the campaign to stop turbines chewing up birds in his home state of Tasmania. In Victoria, wetland conservation groups opposed the proposed terminal for offshore wind construction at the Port of Hastings, which Plibersek blocked in January.

The Chalumbin decision brought Queensland conservationists scurrying out of the woodwork to make out as if they had opposed the proposal all along. A year ago, all the Queensland Conservation Council was prepared to say publicly was that the issue was “complicated”. On Friday, the Council declared the Chalumbin decision as “welcome”.

“Today, our community breathes a sigh of relief as those important bits of nature remain intact,” said Lucy Graham, director of the Cairns and Far North Environment Centre.

It is too early to declare that the renewable craze has peaked, but that moment is a step nearer in Queensland, where expectations rise of an LNP victory at the state election in October. LNP leader David Crisafulli’s decision not to oppose Labor’s legislated target invites an intriguing question.

Since the LNP has pledged to pull back Labor’s renewable excesses, might Crisafulli be the first Coalition leader to seek an electoral mandate for lifting the ban on nuclear?
The Australian

Ozone hole: Why Antarctic wildlife is being ‘sunburnt’

In BBC world, everything bad is due to climate change!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby/Paul Kolk

In BBC world, everything bad is due to climate change!

For Antarctic wildlife, exposure to the Sun’s damaging rays has increased in recent years, scientists say.

A hole in the ozone layer – the protective barrier of gas in the upper atmosphere – now lingers over the frozen continent for more of the year.

A major cause of ozone loss is believed to be the amount of smoke from unprecedented Australian wildfires, which were fuelled by climate change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68906013

As we know, the 2019 drought was far from being unprecedented in SE Australia, the region worse affected, so climate change had no effect. Instead there is plenty of evidence that poor forestry management was the biggest factor.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=seaus&season=0112&ave_yr=5&ave_period=6190

In fact the paper itself makes no claims about “unprecedented Australian wildfires”, and the factors behind ozone loss are much more complex and nuanced than the BBC reports. In particular, La Nina, the polar vortex and the Hunga-Tongo volcano all play a role alongside Australian bushfires. The BBC report makes no mention of any of these other factors.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcb.17283

As with all these sort of studies, the scientists are only looking at a few years worth of data, so they have absolutely no idea whether similar cycles of ozone loss occurred naturally and regularly in the past.

But that is of no concern to the BBC, who would rather persuade you that Antarctic animals are being sunburnt because of your consumption of fossil fuels.

COP29 Host Nation President: “Having oil and gas … It’s a gift from God.”

Greens are once again pinning their hopes on a November climate conference hosted by a nation whose President plans to boost gas production.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t strativarius, Breitbart; Greens are once again pinning their hopes on a November climate conference hosted by a nation whose President plans to boost gas production.

COP29 Host Azerbaijan Says Its Fossil Fuel Is ‘Gift From God’

  • President Aliyev commits to boosting investments in gas
  • Country also touts its rollout of green energies this decade

By John Ainger
26 April 2024 at 8:24 PM AEST

Azerbaijan, host of this year’s COP29 climate summit, will continue to invest in increasing gas production in order to feed demand from Europe as its president said that its abundant fossil fuels were a “gift from God.”

President Ilham Aliyev said at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin that oil and gas would be needed for “many more years” as the country prepares to host the 29th United Nations’ Conference of the Parties, or COP29, in Baku later this year. He highlighted an agreement reached with the European Union to scale up supplies of natural gas to help make up for Russian shortfalls after its invasion of Ukraine.

…Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-26/cop29-host-azerbaijan-says-its-fossil-fuel-is-gift-of-the-gods

Are COP hosts chosen on the basis of how much the choice will upset greens?

Can you imagine what it must be like to be a green climate true believer? To believe that concerted global action is the only hope to save the world, to build up hope every year, only to see those hopes dashed, as each COP conference attempts to outdo the last in farcical mockery of climate tropes?

How can COP30 possibly top this comedy moment? Ask General Aladeen of Wadiya to host a COP conference? Obviously there is a minor problem that General Aladeen is a fictional character, but what better person to host a fictional climate conference?

L A Times Editorial Claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is Unsupported by NOAA’s Climate Data

The L A Times published an Editorial claiming that the “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record breaking heat” and mandates that a “climate emergency” must be declared but then fails to present any data graph or tables in its editorial.

From ClimateRealism

Guest Essay by Larry Hamlin

The L A Times published an Editorial claiming that the “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record breaking heat” and mandates that  a “climate emergency” must be declared but then fails to present any data graph or tables in its editorial.

The opening L A Times editorial paragraph claims that for California “the last few months have been more than 2 degrees hotter than average”. This claim is erroneous as demonstrated in the discussion below.

NOAA’s data for the maximum temperatures experienced in California for the month of February 2024 as well as all February months for years from 1895 to 2023 are shown below.

NOAA’s data shows the mean February maximum temperature over its base period interval of 1901 – 2000 is 55.6 degrees F compared to California’s February 2024 maximum value of 56.0 degrees F (0.4 degrees F above the mean) as indicated in NOAA’s data table below versus the Times distorted and false claim of “2 degrees hotter than average”.

More importantly, the February 2024 maximum temperature of 56 degrees F in California is only the 62nd highest out of 130 total February recorded highest values with the 2024 temperature clearly not representing “a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” as falsely hyped by the L A Times editorial.

NOAA’s data for the maximum temperatures experienced in California for the month of March 2024 are shown below along with all other March temperatures for the years 1895 through 2023.

NOAA’s data shows a mean March maximum temperature over its base period interval of 1901 – 2000 is 60.0 degrees F compared to the states March 2024 maximum value of 59.7 degrees F (-0.3 degrees F below the mean) as indicated in NOAA’s data table below versus the Times distorted and false claim of “2 degrees hotter than average”.

More importantly, the March 2024 maximum temperature of 59.7 degrees F in California is only the 57th highest out of 130 total March recorded highest values with this temperature clearly not representing “a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” as falsely hyped by the L A Times editorial.

NOAA’s maximum temperature data for California shows that the temperatures experienced in February and March in 2024 are very close to “average” for these months (0.4 degrees above and -0.3 degrees below NOAAs base period interval 1901-2000 mean values respectively) representing only the 62nd and 57th maximum temperatures respectively experienced in California for these months out of 130 maximum measured temperatures for each of these two months.

The Times flawed claim that February and March 2024 (“the last few months” as noted in their article) are about “2 degrees above average” is based on their misrepresentation of the February and March 2024 monthly temperature outcomes by averaging these months with 9 additional previous months and then erroneously claiming these cherry-picked 10-month long intervals (May through February and June through March) mean values represent the February and March 2024 mean value outcomes which is of course incorrect.   

The Times comparison is meaningless in addressing changes occurring in February and March temperatures over time because year 2024 outcomes for these months are being determined for temperatures associated with 10-month-long cherry-picked interval averages instead of averages of NOAAs February and March measured temperature outcomes over its 1895 to 2024 historical tracking period.

Additionally, it is clearly obvious on inspection of NOAA’s February and March California maximum temperature graphs shown above that nothing remotely resembling “a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is occurring as so ridiculously hyped in the Times article.

NOAA’s monthly maximum temperature graph and data for the state of California for all months during the years 1895 through March 2024 establishes a mean maximum temperature of  70.0 degrees F during this period as shown below with by far the highest maximum temperature experienced in the state being in July 1931 during the “dust bowl” era of the 1930s along with many other year hot July and August months.

NOAA’s California maximum temperature data table (with the highest values shown below) establishes that the February and March 2024 temperatures are far below the mean 70-degree F value while representing only the 312 (56.0 degrees F) and 480 (59.7 degrees F) respectively out of the highest 1551 total data values respectively.

NOAA’s California maximum temperature data, including February and March 2024, clearly does not support the Times absurd alarmist claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat”.

NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. Maximum Temperatures graph and data table for all months during the years 1895 through March 2024 are shown below with the mean maximum temperature of 64.0 degrees F during this period with the highest ever occurring in July 1936 and 1934 with four of the top ten occurring in the “dust bowl” 1930s era and many other year hot July and August months.

NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature data table (with the highest values shown below) establishes that the February and March 2024 temperatures are far below the mean 64-degree F value while representing only the 482nd (52.18 degrees F) and 618th (56.61 degrees F) respectively out of the highest 1551 total data values respectively.

NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature data clearly establishes that the Times alarmist claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is completely false.

Additionally, NOAA’s USCRN Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature anomaly data shown below for all months from January 2005 through March 2024 show no established upward trending signature for these monthly temperature anomalies during this period with the March 2024 maximum anomaly of 1.28 degrees F far below the March 2012 maximum temperature anomaly peak value of 7.72 degrees F.

The Times alarmist claims that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” are false and unsupported by valid and relevant analysis of NOAA’s California and Contiguous U.S. measured maximum absolute temperature and maximum temperature anomaly data as provided above.

NOAA’s Global Time Series provides monthly average temperature anomaly data for 16 global regions which demonstrate the trend of these anomaly outcomes for these regions over varying time periods.

Shown below are results for 9 of these regions which demonstrate the significantly varied outcomes from these regions establishing the wide divergence of global climate behavior across the world that clearly illustrate global climate cannot be validly characterized by a single global average temperature anomaly value as frequently and erroneously attempted by climate alarmists.

The Times discusses NOAA global average temperature anomaly data updated through March 2024 but conceals that the global average temperature anomaly data values vary significantly throughout the world’s many differing climate regions.

Even though global CO2 levels are ubiquitous in the atmosphere the average temperature anomaly values associated with world are not homogeneous but a highly heterogeneous patchwork across the globe completely contrary to the flawed claim by climate alarmists that the global average temperature anomaly value can be used to characterize all global climate.

This patchwork discrepancy clearly demonstrates that multiple nonuniform natural weather and climate causalities dominate the global climate behavior versus the data unsupported hype that man made climate change is dominant – a highly significant outcome unaddressed by the Times.

The Times editorial concealed significant global average temperature anomaly data differences that are presented and summarized below.

NOAA’s Global Land area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome (shown by both graph and table presentations) is shown below for March 2024 revealing a decline from March 2023 (2.09 degrees C versus 2.19 degrees C respectively) with the year 2016 (with El Niño event year values of 2.52 and 2.46 degrees C in February and March respectively) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcomes.

The starting year value for these average temperature anomaly graphs is selected as year 2005 so the detail of the monthly changes in the period 2005 through 2024 are clearly visible on the graphs so that the validity or lack of validity of the L A Times editorial claim that the “planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” can be readily observed and displayed.

The Global Land area region is where Earth’s 8 billion people live. Based on NOAA’s global land area average temperature anomaly data the March 2024 anomaly value is exceeded by the prior February and March year 2016 El Niño driven outcomes which remain the highest global land average temperature anomaly values as clearly shown on the graph and table above.

The Times editorial flawed claim that the “planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Global Land region temperature data results with the year 2016 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.

NOAA’s Northern Hemisphere Land area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (2.39 degrees C versus 2.62 degrees C respectively) with year 2016 (an El Niño event year values of 3.17 and 3.12 degrees C in February and March respectively) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcomes.

The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Northern Hemisphere Land region results with year 2016 highest average temperature anomaly outcomes exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.

NOAA’s Asia Land area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (2.52 degrees C versus 4.01 degrees C respectively) with year 2020 (4.26 degrees C in February) remaining the highest average temperature anomaly measured outcome.

The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Asia Land region results with year 2020 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.

NOAA’s Oceania Land area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.93 degrees C versus 1.10 degrees C respectively) with year 2019 (2.61 degrees C for December 2019) remaining the highest average temperature anomaly measured outcome.

The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Oceania Land area region outcomes with year 2019 highest average temperature anomaly results exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.

NOAA’s East N Pacific Land and Ocean area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.87 degrees C versus 0.35 degrees C respectively) with year 2015 (1.76 degrees C in October) remaining the highest average temperature anomaly measured outcome.

The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s East N Pacific Land and Ocean area region results with year 2015 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.

NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Land and Ocean area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.95 degrees C versus 1.51 degrees C respectively) with year 2020 (1.73 degrees C in April) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcome.

The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s East N Pacific Land and Ocean area region results with year 2015 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.

NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Land and Ocean area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.95 degrees C versus 1.51 degrees C respectively) with year 2020 (1.73 degrees C in April) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcome.

The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Land and Ocean area region results with year 2020 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding year all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.

NOAA’s Hawaiian Region Land and Ocean area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.31 degrees C versus 0.61 degrees C respectively) with year 2015 (1.85 degrees C in September) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcome.

The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Hawaiian Land and Ocean area region results with year 2015 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.

NOAA’s Arctic Land and Ocean area region average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (2.42 degrees C versus 2.85 degrees C respectively) with year 2016 (an El Niño year 4.99 degrees C) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcome.

The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Arctic Land and Ocean area region results with the El Niño year 2016 highest average temperature anomaly outcome exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.

NOAA’s Antarctic Land and Ocean region area average temperature anomaly measured outcome is shown below for March 2024 revealing the decline from March 2023 (0.24 degrees C versus 0.50 degrees C respectively) with the year 1996 (2.23 degrees C – not shown the graph time line below) remaining the highest measured average temperature anomaly outcome.

The Times editorial flawed claim that “The planet is experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s Antarctic Land and Ocean area region results with the year 1996 highest average temperature anomaly outcome (some 28 years ago) exceeding all years from 1895 through March 2024 as provided in both NOAA graph and table values.

NOAA’s graphs and tables presenting its average temperature anomaly data outcomes over the 129+ year long period from 1895 through March 2024 demonstrate that the “planets” Global Land region, Northern Hemisphere Land region, Asia Land region, Oceania Land region, East N Pacific Land and Ocean region, Gulf of Mexico Land and Ocean region, Hawaiian Land and Ocean region, Arctic Land and Ocean region and Antarctic Land and Ocean region are not experiencing “a horrifying streak of record breaking heat” outcomes.

These NOAA global regions highest ever measured average temperature anomaly results are in years 2016, 2020, 2019, 2019, 2015, 2020, 2015, 2016 and 1996 respectively.

Therefore, NOAA’s Global absolute temperature and average temperature anomaly measured data establishes that the planet is NOT “experiencing a horrifying streak of record-breaking heat”.

This L A Times hyped claim of global “horrifying streak of record-breaking heat” is falsified by NOAA’s 129+ yearlong measured climate data outcomes as measured over 9 of 16 NOAA’s global climate regions, the Contiguous U.S. and California as presented in detail in the analysis provided above.

The Herd Shuns Climate Lunatics

The burden of subsidized wind and solar farms didn’t appear on peoples’ energy bills, though eventually they were placed on the back of the taxpayer. Now, however, net zero policies are directly eating into the earnings and savings of the public and in most of Europe, the taxpayer rebellion is exploding, and the advantages of democracy are being reaffirmed as elected governments scamper to the rear, explaining that there has been a misunderstanding.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Charles MacKay: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

Conrad Black writes at National Post Washing away the climate lunatics.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

I have written here and elsewhere countless times before of the dangers of responding prematurely to alarmist concerns about climate change. Dr. Benny Peiser of the British Global Warming Policy Foundation spoke to the Friends of Science Society in Calgary earlier this month, warning that Europe’s extremist net zero carbon emission policies may get to Canada even though they are now running into extreme problems in Europe. The North American media has not much reported on the widespread and often violent farmer protests in Europe, which has caused every government that has been put to the test to scale back their aggressive climate change policies.

Tractors stand on a street during a protest by Belgian farmers over price pressures, taxes and green regulation, on the day of an EU agriculture ministers’ meeting in Brussels, Belgium March 26, 2024. REUTERS/Yves Herman/File Photo

For a long time, it was a political free lunch: everybody loves the environment, and the climate change issue was very skillfully transformed by the left into an assault on the capitalist system from a new angle in the name of saving the planet. As long as the heavy costs of displacing fossil fuels by so-called renewable energy were carefully disguised and diffused, everybody could wallow in collective self-praise for doing the healthy and environmentally responsible thing.

The burden of subsidized wind and solar farms didn’t appear on peoples’ energy bills, though eventually they were placed on the back of the taxpayer. Now, however, net zero policies are directly eating into the earnings and savings of the public and in most of Europe, the taxpayer rebellion is exploding, and the advantages of democracy are being reaffirmed as elected governments scamper to the rear, explaining that there has been a misunderstanding. When the German government tried to compel the people of that country to change their gas boilers for heat pumps at a cost of thousands of dollars per home, what critics called “boilergeddon,” it produced a so-called green-lash.

Another political disaster has befallen the western European governments that had rolled over like poodles in front of the climate change alarmists: once they had fully committed themselves to the boondoggle of electric vehicles (EV’s), and forced the powerful automobile industries of Germany, France, and Italy into conversion of gas powered vehicles to EV’s, sales of EV’s plummeted after the customary faddish start, just as much cheaper Chinese EV’s flooded into Europe. Germany and Italy forced the European Union into delaying its ill-considered ban on internal combustion engine vehicles past 2035. Those who jubilantly imagined that Europe would commit industrial suicide by destroying its own automobile industry, will have to revise their plans. There are now thousands of cheap Chinese EV’s parked at the main ports of Europe with no buyers in sight. As Dr. Peiser pointed out in Calgary, “If this was really about climate change, wouldn’t you want the cheapest EV’s, the cheapest wind, and solar, all from China?”

China’s Abandoned EV Graveyard: Thousands Of Cars Rot In Huge Fields

It is now clear in Europe, as it long has been in the private sector of the United States, that with whole industries and millions of jobs at stake, implementation of net zero policies in the West would make China the dominant economic and industrial power of the world. Even our most naïve and insipid global warming crusaders are unenthused by that bone-chilling prospect. Although Germany has finally acted to protect its auto industry, it is not yet doing the same for the public. It is still officially planning to ban weekend driving to meet climate targets. If the federal German government proceeds with such an insane plan, it will sink without a ripple at the next election.

There have even been some murmurings of emulation of this course in Canada; on Sept. 14, 2021, Journal Metro of Quebec proposed pre-emptively moving against a climate crisis by lockdown measures, an emulation of the Covid lockdown then ending, but including rations and limitations on personal travel. This proposal comes from the same sort of thinking that seeks to eliminate meat by a war on bovine flatulence.

Placid and docile toward virtue-posturing though Canadians are,
insane measures like these to mitigate climate change would surely
prove to be the funeral pyre of the coercive climate change terrorists.

For notorious historic reasons, Europe is always vulnerable to the madnesses and outrages of the left. The senior human rights court in Europe ruled three weeks ago in a lawsuit brought by 2000 elderly Swiss women against the Swiss government that it had violated the human rights of the plaintiffs by insufficiently mitigating climate change. Switzerland is a very small country but is responsible for between two and three per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, while Canada, a huge country with a much larger population, emits only 1.5 per cent of global emissions, compared to 27 percent for China. The European Court of Human Rights crossed the jurisdictional Rubicon by overruling the voters of a democratic country.

The rationale for hurling millions of auto workers into unemployment and
shutting down Europe’s greatest industry in order to profit the Chinese
is a case that even the most ardent climate-zealots will find challenging.

At the same time that the climate fanatics are encountering irresistible political headwinds, the intellectual arguments of the climate skeptics are becoming steadily more unanswerable. A brief filed with the court of appeals in The Hague in November by three eminent, American climate-related academics, Richard Lindzen of MIT, William Happer of Princeton, and Steven Koonin of New York University, the Hoover Institute, and former climate adviser to President Obama, challenged the finding of a lower court and held that scientific analysis, as opposed to an aggregation of “government opinion, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data,” shows that “Fossil fuels and CO2 will not cause dangerous climate change, there will be disastrous consequences for people worldwide if fossil fuels in CO2 emissions are reduced to net zero, including mass starvation.” They assert that the poor, future generations, and the entire West will suffer profoundly from any such policy. which “will undermine human rights and cripple the realization of the first three UN sustainable development goals-no poverty, zero hunger, and good health and well-being.”

The three experts warn against equating “the state of climate science with the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” which “have no value as science, because the IPCC is government-controlled and represents only government opinions, not science.” It also denounced the lower court verdict that “dangerous climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels… We demonstrate that these conclusions are contradicted by the scientific method, and only supported by the unscientific methods mentioned. Hundreds of research papers confirm the highly beneficial effects of the increased concentration of atmospheric CO2, especially in dry farming areas.”

They go on to represent the CO2 as essential to food, and thus to life on earth, and that the more there is of CO2, the more food there will be, especially in drought-stricken areas. They also make the case that greenhouse gases prevent us from freezing to death, that there are “enormous social benefits to fossil fuels and that net zero will expand human starvation by eliminating nitrogen fertilizer.”

This highly recondite and meticulously documented paper states that “600 million years of carbon dioxide in temperature data contradict the theory of catastrophic global warming being caused by high levels of CO2, and that the atmospheric CO2 is now heavily saturated, which means that more will have little warming effect.” Up until recently, the zealots pretended that such opinions are held only by the uninformed, or the paid lobbyists of the oil industry, but they are not going to be able to get away with this much longer The ranks of the critics are swelling every week with aggrieved members of the voting public distressed by completely unnecessary skyrocketing costs generated by the fear-mongering climate zealots.

With any luck, the tide of logical evidence will wash away the
climate lunatics of this country before the damage becomes irreparable.

Addendum:  Contents of Brief Filed at the Hague

Shell v. Milieudefensie et al. – Expert Opinion

I. THERE WILL BE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE POOR, PEOPLE
WORLDWIDE, FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THE WEST IF FOSSIL FUELS AND
CO2 EMISSIONS ARE REDUCED TO “NET ZERO”

A. CO2 is Essential to Our Food, and Thus to Life on Earth
B. More CO2, Including CO2 from Fossil Fuels, Produces More Food.
C. More CO2 Increases Food in Drought-Stricken Areas.
D. Greenhouse Gases Prevent Us from Freezing to Death
E. Enormous Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels
F. “Net Zeroing” Fossil Fuels Will Cause Massive Human Starvation by
Eliminating Nitrogen Fertilizer

II. THE IPCC IS GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED AND THUS ONLY ISSUES
GOVERNMENT OPINIONS, NOT SCIENCE, THUS PROVIDES NO SCIENTIFIC
BASIS FOR THE COURT’S OPINION

III. SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2 WILL NOT CAUSE
DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE AND EXTREME WEATHER

A. Reliable Science is Based on Validating Theoretical Predictions With Observations,
Not Consensus, Peer Review, Government Opinion or Cherry-Picked or Falsified
Data
B. The Models Predicting Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather Fail the Key
Scientific Test: They Do Not Work, and Would Never Be Used in Science.
C. 600 Million Years of CO2 and Temperature Data Contradict the Theory That High
Levels of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.
D. Atmospheric CO2 Is Now “Heavily Saturated,” Which in Physics Means More CO2
Will Have Little Warming Effect.
E. The Theory Extreme Weather is Caused by Fossil Fuels and CO2 is Contradicted by
the Scientific Method and Thus is Scientifically Invalid

The Biden-Harris Zero-Emissions Freight Strategy: Tilting at Windmills

The Biden-Harris Administration’s announcement of a national goal to establish a zero-emissions freight sector, alongside a hefty allocation of nearly $1.5 billion for the transition to zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles, presents a textbook case of policy driven more by ideological ambition than by practical realities.

From Watts Up With That?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-sets-first-ever-national-goal-of-zero-emissions-freight-sector-announces-nearly-1-5-billion-to-support-transition-to-zero-emission-heavy-duty-vehicles/#:~:text=This%20new%20commitment%20to%20zero,the%20transportation%20sector%20by%202050

The Biden-Harris Administration’s announcement of a national goal to establish a zero-emissions freight sector, alongside a hefty allocation of nearly $1.5 billion for the transition to zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles, presents a textbook case of policy driven more by ideological ambition than by practical realities. This plan not only assumes a smooth technological transition but also purports to address environmental justice concerns, all under the guise of achievable, near-future targets. A deeper analysis, however, reveals a series of fundamentally flawed assumptions and misdirected priorities that merit a critical examination.

The strategy to overhaul the entire freight sector to zero emissions rests on a precarious assumption that the requisite technology is just around the corner. However, the reality of zero-emissions technology in heavy-duty freight—spanning trucks, trains, and ships—is far from ready for widespread deployment. Electric trucks, for example, are still grappling with severe limitations in range and load capacity, not to mention the monumental infrastructure challenges associated with nationwide charging stations, which must somehow proliferate across the vast American landscape within a couple of decades.

Building on this momentum, the Biden-Harris Administration is today announcing a first-ever national goal to transition to a zero-emissions freight sector for truck, rail, aviation and marine, along with a commitment to develop a national zero-emissions freight strategy. This whole-of-government strategy includes new federal investments announced today, continued engagement with stakeholders on zero-emissions freight infrastructure, and forthcoming action plans on each of the freight segments. The strategy will prioritize actions to address air pollution hot spots and tackle the climate crisis, mobilizing a broad range of government resources, and reflect public participation and meaningful community engagement, furthering the President’s commitment to environmental justice for all. This new commitment to zero-emissions freight aligns with and supports President Biden’s existing goals for a carbon pollution-free energy sector by 2035 and for achieving net-zero emissions from the transportation sector by 2050. It also aligns with the Administration’s commitment to work with other countries to identify pathways and implementation actions that enable zero-emissions medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to reach 30 percent of new sales in 2030 and 100 percent of new sales by 2040.https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-sets-first-ever-national-goal-of-zero-emissions-freight-sector-announces-nearly-1-5-billion-to-support-transition-to-zero-emission-heavy-duty-vehicles/#:~:text=This%20new%20commitment%20to%20zero,the%20transportation%20sector%20by%202050
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-sets-first-ever-national-goal-of-zero-emissions-freight-sector-announces-nearly-1-5-billion-to-support-transition-to-zero-emission-heavy-duty-vehicles/#:~:text=This%20new%20commitment%20to%20zero,the%20transportation%20sector%20by%202050

The idea of converting maritime shipping to zero-emissions in 26 years is so absurd that it cannot be parodied. Nuclear powered ships might do the trick, but I doubt that’s what their thinking.

Economically, the costs of such a transformation are staggeringly under-discussed. Transitioning to zero-emission vehicles isn’t merely a matter of swapping out old trucks for new ones; it involves a complete restructuring of the supply chain, logistics, and energy consumption models. The financial burden placed on the freight industry will undoubtedly trickle down to consumers through increased costs of goods, contradicting any purported economic benefits of such a policy.

Today’s announcements build on the Administration’s ongoing work across federal agencies to tackle emissions from America’s freight system. 

  • Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: In January 2023, DOE, EPA, DOT, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) jointly released the U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization. Building on this work, the Biden-Haris Administration is coordinating with each of these agencies to draft a series of decarbonization strategies for each segment of the freight system.
  • Zero-Emissions Freight Corridor Strategy: Last month, the Joint Office, in collaboration with DOE, DOT, and EPA, released the National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy, a vision for the development of charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure along high-volume freight highways and hubs by 2040. To complement this multi-phase strategy, DOT designated National Electric Vehicle Freight Corridors along the National Highway Freight Network and other key roadways.
  • Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: In December 2022, EPA finalized standards to reduce emissions that form smog and soot from Model Year 2027 and later heavy-duty engines and in March 2024, the agency finalized new greenhouse gas emission standards from heavy-duty vehicles for Model Years 2027-2032. The standards will avoid 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions and provide $13 billion in annualized net benefits to society related to public health, the climate, and savings for truck owners and operators. The final standards will also reduce dangerous air pollution, especially for the 72 million people in the United States who live near truck freight routes, bear the burden of higher levels of pollution, and are more likely to be people of color or come from low-income households.

Wrapped in the noble fantasy cloak of “environmental justice”, this strategy claims to target the reduction of pollution in overburdened communities, promising cleaner air and healthier lives. Yet, one must question the authenticity of these claims against the backdrop of economic repercussions that might follow. The high costs of transitioning to and maintaining zero-emission fleets could exacerbate the economic disparities they aim to mitigate, placing a disproportionate burden on the very communities the policy intends to help. This aspect of the policy seems more like an afterthought designed to appease progressive constituents rather than a genuinely achievable goal.

Throughout the process of building a strategy to implement this new goal to transition to a zero-emissions freight ecosystem, the Biden-Harris Administration will provide opportunities for meaningful engagement from relevant stakeholders, including communities with environmental justice concerns, Tribal Nations, state and local governments, manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and equipment, fleets and freight operators, and climate and environmental justice organizations. Such engagement will ensure the federal government’s actions to reduce emissions are better targeted, more effective, and reflect the priorities of community groups that have frontline experience with air pollution from the freight sector.

Moreover, the strategy’s environmental claims do not fully account for the upstream and downstream impacts associated with the production and disposal of high-capacity batteries and the still predominantly fossil-fuel-based energy needed to power these new fleets. Thus, while in a few isolated exceptions, local air quality may improve, the global environmental impact could remain unchanged—or worsen.

The Administration’s plan supposedly includes engaging stakeholders from across the spectrum to ensure the smooth implementation of its zero-emissions strategy. However, this appears to be merely mouthing of platitudes rather than a practical approach. The freight industry’s complex web of operators, manufacturers, and end-users has not shown any support for such drastic shifts, especially when driven by top-down government mandates rather than market-driven solutions.

Conclusion

The Biden-Harris zero-emissions freight initiative, with its lofty ambitions and sweeping promises, is emblematic of a broader trend in contemporary environmental policymaking: prioritizing grandiose goals over grounded feasibility studies and economic realism. This plan, rather than being a practical roadmap for any type of environmental improvement, is a political statement intended to signal virtue rather than effectuate its stated goals.

In summary, this “strategy” is nothing more than a modern-day environmental quixote, tilting at windmills of pollution with a lance of impracticality and a shield of buzzwords like “environmental justice.”

Reuters Joins BBC in Failed ‘Fact Check’ of Daily Sceptic Arctic Sea Ice Story

Another day, another fatuous ‘fact’ check from Reuters. This time the news agency accuses the Daily Sceptic of “cherry-picking” Arctic sea ice extent data to provide a “misleading” story. Being accused of “cherry picking” by an outfit that funds a course for journalists that encourages them to pick a fruit such as a mango and discuss why it isn’t as tasty as the year before due to climate change is beyond ridicule.

From The Daily Sceptic

BY CHRIS MORRISON

Another day, another fatuous ‘fact’ check from Reuters. This time the news agency accuses the Daily Sceptic of “cherry-picking” Arctic sea ice extent data to provide a “misleading” story. Being accused of “cherry picking” by an outfit that funds a course for journalists that encourages them to pick a fruit such as a mango and discuss why it isn’t as tasty as the year before due to climate change is beyond ridicule. Taking lectures on responsible journalism from a Net Zero-obsessed operation that has promoted a course speaker who has suggested “fines and imprisonments” for expressing scepticism about “well supported” science is laughable, if also a tad sinister.

One of the activists called to admonish the Daily Sceptic with a ‘straw man’ argument was Walt Meier, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, who said: “Comparing two specific years is not an indicator for or against long-term changes”. The Daily Sceptic did not do that. Interestingly, this would appear to be the same Walt Meier whose comments on ”mind blowing” low winter levels of Antarctica sea ice last year made headlines around the world. Meier claimed at the time that it was “outside anything we have seen”. Happily, the Daily Sceptic was able to remind Meier that he had been part of a team a decade ago that cracked open the secrets of early Nimbus weather satellites and found a similar sea ice low in 1966. At the time, Meier commented that the Nimbus data show there is variability in Antarctica sea ice “that’s larger than any we have seen” since 1979.

This latest fact check was similar to the failed attempt made recently by the BBC statistical programme More or Less. In both cases, exception was taken to our reporting that on January 8th this year, Arctic sea ice extent had soared to its highest level for 21 years. This was factually correct as both the BBC and Reuters confirm. Since the article went viral on social media, the attack focused on a claim of “cherry picking”, despite the article clearly placing the statistic in the context of long-term changes in Arctic sea ice. In the third paragraph it was noted: “We must be careful not to follow alarmists down their chosen political path of cherry picking and warning of climate collapse on the basis of individual events.”

The article featured the work of Danish scientist Allan Astrup Jensen who observed that the summer Arctic ice plateaued from 1979-97, fell for 10 years and then resumed a minimal downward trend from 2007. We also noted the work of climate journalist Tony Heller who used a four-year moving average, shown below, that revealed that the Arctic sea ice  extent at its minimum level in September has been stable for over a decade.

None of this material appeared in the Reuters hit-job, although the criticism of the earlier BBC fact check was made available to the authors ahead of publication. What it did of course was cherry-pick the year 1979, when Arctic sea ice was at a probable 100-year high, and draw a line straight down to the present day. It is not in dispute that Arctic sea ice is currently at a lower level than the 1979 high point, which happened to coincide with the arrival of consistent satellite data. But Reuters used the testimony of an “expert in the modelling of the sea ice”, Miguel Maqueda of Newcastle University, to state: “There is no evidence nor reason to believe that the downward trend in winter sea ice extent in the Arctic is coming to an end.”

Despite the article fairly explaining the cyclical long-term trends in Arctic sea ice, a subject ignorned in most current mainstream media for political purposes, Reuters saw fit to headline its article: ‘Climate change sceptics use misleading Arctic ice data to make case.’

That, more or less to coin a phrase, sums up the blinkered approach that keeps climate catastrophists and their mainstream messengers focused on  the fear-mongering prize. There is plenty of evidence in the historical record to show that Arctic sea ice is cyclical and the recent trend points to recovery and a possible upturn. After all, you don’t need a climate model to work that one out, just look at the data. Not to point this out is, how shall we put this, ‘misleading’. Those less charitable might prefer a considerable harsher verdict.

As we have seen in past editions, Reuters is up to its neck in Green Blob attacks on independent climate journalism. So-called ‘fact checks’ from operations like Reuters are frequently used by malevolent players attempting to destroy the possibility of competitors receiving online advertising revenue. In effect they are a form of trade protection warfare. 

The mango nonsense, meanwhile, is promoted in the six-month study sabbatical offered to journalists around the world by the Oxford Climate Journalism Network. Immersion in the correct political narrative surrounding climate collapse, the ludicrous idea of ‘settled’ science and the need for extreme Net Zero measures, whatever the cost, is the order of the day. The obvious aim is to insert fear mongering stories into all sections of the media. Current attendees include BBC ‘disinformation’ reporter Marco Silva. The course is run by the Reuters Institute and funded by the Thompson Reuters Foundation. Direct funding has been provided by the Laudes Foundation and the European Climate Foundation. The latter operation is heavily supported by past Extinction Rebellion paymaster Sir Christopher Hohn.

Reuters is also one of the partners of Covering Climate Now (CC Now), a billionaire-backed offshoot of the Columbia Journalism Review. This operation claims to feed over 500 media operations with free, pre-written climate catastrophising stories.

Guaranteed, no doubt, to be spared a ‘fact check’.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.