Day: May 6, 2024

No, Sun Sentinel, Florida Isn’t Under Future “Climate Threats”

A recent article in the South Florida Sun Sentinel (SFSS) newspaper, titled “Florida in 50 years: Study says land conservation can buffer destructive force of climate change,” makes some catastrophic claims about what Florida’s climate will be like in 50 years. The article relies heavily on climate model projections, that are undermined by real world evidence and by the fact that the climate models in question have been shown to create “implausibly hot forecasts of future warming.”

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

A recent article in the South Florida Sun Sentinel (SFSS) newspaper, titled “Florida in 50 years: Study says land conservation can buffer destructive force of climate change,” makes some catastrophic claims about what Florida’s climate will be like in 50 years. The article relies heavily on climate model projections, that are undermined by real world evidence and by the fact that the climate models in question have been shown to create “implausibly hot forecasts of future warming.”

As outlined in Climate at A Glance: Climate Model Fallibility peer reviewed science has shown that climate forecasts like the one cited by the SFSS have no basis in reality because comparisons of actual measured atmospheric temperature data to model forecasts show up to a 200% discrepancy between model temperature outputs and observed temperatures.

Because the temperature forecasts are wildly implausible, the claimed disastrous impacts that are forecast to result from those unbelievably high temperatures also lack credibility.

The article starts off by asserting as a fact that, “Climate change is making temperatures and sea levels rise.”

The SFSS cites a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) graph showing increased average temperatures for the state of Florida, seen below:

It is important to note that average temperatures really didn’t start to significantly increase until around 1990, not coincidentally as the state’s population began to rise rapidly. Plus, average temperatures are just half of the picture. If you look at NOAA’s minimum temperatures for Florida, it is easy to see that it makes up the bulk of the increase in average temperatures since 1990:

An increase in overnight low temperatures is a clear indicator of an increased Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). Florida’s population has doubled from about 10 million in 1990 to over 20 million now. This more than doubling of the state’s population is reflected clearly in UHI data compiled by Dr. Roy Spencer as seen in the graph below. Note the huge temperature effects for Florida’s rapidly growing coastal cities.

Concerning the SFSS’s sea level rise claims, Miami is often used as an example of supposed sea level rise due to occasional street flooding there. Miami’s real problem isn’t rising seas as much as land subsidence. Much of Miami was built on reclaimed swamp land, and then built up with modern infrastructure. That extra weight causes a sinking of the land, known as subsidence, allowing seawater to seep in when the surfaces sink to near sea-level. It also means that during strong rainfall events, and hurricane storm surge, areas that have subsided don’t drain as they did years before.

This is clearly covered in the scientific paper Land subsidence contribution to coastal flooding hazard in southeast Florida, published in Proceedings of IAHS in 2020. The paper clearly states:

Preliminary results reveal that subsidence occurs in localized patches (< 0.02 km2) with magnitude of up to 3 mm yr−1, in urban areas built on reclaimed marshland. These results suggest that contribution of local land subsidence affect[s] only small areas along the southeast Florida coast, but in those areas coastal flooding hazard is significantly higher compared to non-subsiding areas.

Subsidence is also driven by freshwater withdrawals from the region’s groundwater reservoirs to satisfy the Miami metro area’s growing population.

Clearly, sea level rise in Florida has more to do with subsidence and land management than climate change induced rise. Plus, Miami’s flat terrain, just a few feet above sea level, lacks natural drainage routes for rainwater to flow away from urban areas.

As discussed in numerous Climate Realism articles, here and here, for instance, there is no evidence whatsoever seas are rising at an usually rapid rate. As shown in Climate at a Glance: Sea Level Rise, there is approximately the same pace of sea-level rise today that has occurred since at least the mid-1800s, disproving claims of recent climate change worsening it.

SFSS goes on to outline a trifecta of additional climate threats, saying:

There are three main climate change threats in Florida, said Polsky: More intense rain events, which leads to greater flooding; more coastal flooding — both from storm surge and high tides; and more heat and wildfire risk.

Let’s examine rainfall. Actual monthly rainfall data since 1895 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA shows no upward trend in rainfall for the state, nor does it show excessive monthly spikes in the present.

As for coastal flooding, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows no indication that climate change is causing increased coastal flooding, as is show in Table 12.12 | on Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs) in time periods, shows no correlation. The color corresponds to the confidence of the region with the highest confidence: white colors indicate where evidence of a climate change signal is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal. The section is highlighted in yellow. Neither sea-level nor coastal flooding has been an observed element of climate change.

Even in 2050 and 2100 the IPCC does not forecast any climate change impact on coastal flooding. Also, the possible predicted effect on sea level rise that the IPCC suggests might occur in 2050 and beyond stems from the organization’s use of the RCP8.5 scenario “high emissions” scenario that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and many climate scientists have by now explicitly disavowed, as being wildly implausible if not impossible.  Climate Realism has discussed problems with the RCP8.5 scenario repeatedly, here and here, for example.

As for SFSS’s wildfire claims, while Florida had a single bad year in 2017 due to warmer local weather conditions, lightning, and arsonists, there is no overall upwards trend in the number of wildfires for the state over the last decade:

According to a summary by Alchera, which produced the Florida wildfires graph above, climate change is not a factor:

Florida’s unique combination of flat terrain, abundant vegetation, and frequent lightning strikes makes the state prone to wildfires. The flat landscape allows fires to spread quickly, while the dense vegetation provides ample fuel for them to grow in intensity. Lightning strikes, particularly during the stormy summer months, can ignite dry vegetation and lead to rapidly spreading wildfires. Human activities, such as arson, debris burning, and equipment use, are also significant factors in causing wildfires in Florida.

The SFSS story claiming climate change is causing rapidly rising temperatures and increased flooding and wildfires in Florida has no basis in fact. Rather than presenting news, the SFSS’s story is consistent with a pattern Climate Realism has exposed time and again hyping the dogmatic narrative that climate change is causing virtually everything bad. Almost daily, climate alarmists and the media are painting a dire future due to climate change, even when the facts refute their claims. Such stories may make for good disaster fiction, but they are not fact-based news reporting, and thus are not worthy of being published by a supposedly journalistic enterprise.

SEA LEVEL! EVERYONE PANIC!

Well, I see that the climate hypemeisters are at it again. Here’s Google News on the subject.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Well, I see that the climate hypemeisters are at it again. Here’s Google News on the subject.

Figure 1. The usual, from the usual suspects.

So I thought I’d take a look at some of the claims. To start with, here’s an overview of the sea level rise around the US coasts.

Figure 2. US relative sea level trends. Red is fastest rising, then orange, yellow, green, and finally blue for areas where relative sea level is falling. SOURCE: NOAA

A few notes of interest. First, look at the east coast / west coast differences in relative sea level rise. This is generally not because sea levels are rising at different rates on the east and west coasts. It’s because the land is generally sinking on the east coast and rising on the west coast. Nothing to do with the ocean.

Next, check out the local differences. At Grand Isle, Louisiana, the big red arrow in the Gulf of Mexico, the relative sea level is rising at 9.2 mm per year … while only a short distance away, the green arrow to the right of Grand Isle shows that Pensacola, Florida has a relative sea level rise less than a third of that, 2.7 mm per year.

Why different sea level rise rates? Again, it has nothing to do with the ocean. It’s because Grand Isle is a silty barrier island in the Mississippi Delta, and like all such islands, it’s slowly sinking into the briny blue.

So … guess which areas of the US the serial sea level doomcasters are focused on?

Well, here’s the Washington Post’s poster child for the “catastrophe” … Dauphin Island, Louisiana.

Figure 3. Dauphin Island, Alabama

And guess what? It’s another slowly sinking barrier island. Here’s what they claim is happening there.

Figure 4. The WaPo’s graph of the horrible, terrible sea level rise at Dauphin Island. Note that it is cut off at about 2022 … SOURCE: Washington Post

However, here’s what NOAA says about the sea level rise there.

Figure 5. NOAA relative sea level trend, Dauphin Island, Alabama. SOURCE: NOAA

Note that the Washington Post has cut off the last part of the data, which shows that Dauphin Island sea level rates are back to historical norms … bad journalists, no cookies …

And in the other Washington Post article, they go on about how terrible things are because of the recent rate of sea level rise in Charleston, South Carolina. Here’s the NOAA data for that tidal station.

Figure 6. NOAA relative sea level trend, Charleston, South Carolina. SOURCE: NOAA

Yes, there has been a recent increase in sea level rates in Charleston. But is it historically unusual? Well … in a word, no. I downloaded the data to take an accurate look at the rates of rise.

Figure 7. Comparison of recent and historical sea level rise rates, using the NOAA Charleston data linked above.

[CODA] And after writing the above, as Michael Corleone said, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!” …

I closed the page on this post and resumed wandering the web, and then I have the misfortune to see the Boston Globe is up in arms about sea levels. They say (emphasis mine):

Last year, sea levels along the Boston coastline were, on average, higher than at any other point in recorded history: about 14 inches above levels in 1921, when records began.

“This hasn’t stopped or slowed down yet,” said Rob DeConto, a climate scientist who studies ice sheets in a warming climate and a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

The record-breaking sea level is yet another data point showcasing a decades-long trend that is accelerating at a startling pace. As climate change worsens, the shoreline along much of the city will need new flood protections, such as berms, sea walls, and restored marshlands, as early as 2030, the latest available data provided by Boston plainly show.

As 2030 approaches, climate resilience experts told the Globe, the rapidly accelerating pace of sea level rise necessitates action.

Hmmm, sez I … so I got the Boston data from NOAA.

Figure 8. Boston sea level trend

Hmmm, sez I … not seeing the dreaded “rapidly accelerating pace of sea level rise” there. So I downloaded the data and analyzed it for acceleration. Here’s the result. Each point shows the acceleration over the thirty years previous to that date.

Figure 9. Trailing 30-year sea level rise acceleration rates, Boston Massachusetts.

As you can see, the acceleration of Boston sea level rise over the last 30 years has been … well … not to put too fine a point on it … basically zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.

You can also see the alternating acceleration and deceleration of sea level rise over time, which is visible in all the sea level records around the world. And so we can be sure that at some time in the future, sea levels in Boston will actually begin to accelerate again.

And when that happens, be prepared for the climatastrophist hype to hit new highs.

Forewarned is forearmed …

TL;DR Version: The sea level rates are doing what they’ve always done. There’s been no unusual “acceleration” in the tide gauge measurements. The east coast land is still sinking, the west coast land is still rising, acceleration is still alternating with deceleration, and just like always, silty barrier islands in river deltas are slowly returning to the ocean …

… and when Bill Gates, Obama, and the rest of the pluted bloatocrats stop buying million-dollar beachfront estates, you might start thinking about sea levels.

Until then?

Chill.

And here in Northern California, where we were supposed to be in a permanent drought … it’s raining again. The view from here …

While that’s great for the forest, and the grass loves it, that also means I’m gonna have to mow our two-acre clearing again … my gorgeous ex-fiancee sez I should hire someone to do it, but I figure, why should illegal immigrants have all the fun?

Best to all, stay well,

w.

PS: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing, to avoid misunderstandings. And if you want to show that Willis is wrong, here’s how to do it.

BONNER COHEN: Biden White House Starts End Run Around Supreme Court WOTUS Ruling

At an April 23 “Water Summit” at the White House, the Biden administration announced a multi-agency plan reasserting the federal role in determining the future of wetlands in the wake of last year’s landmark Supreme Court Decision limiting Washington’s authority to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

From The Daily Caller

By BONNER COHEN

At an April 23 “Water Summit” at the White House, the Biden administration announced a multi-agency plan reasserting the federal role in determining the future of wetlands in the wake of last year’s landmark Supreme Court Decision limiting Washington’s authority to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The administration’s move on wetlands appears to be part of a concerted effort to get as many rules and regulations as possible in place by the end of the year, in the event there is no second Biden term.

In April, alone, the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new rules setting stricter emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks, buses, and other vehicles by 2027, mandated steeper emissions cuts from new natural gas power plants and existing coal plants, and approved a California plan to mandate zero-emissions locomotives on all rail lines in the state by 2030, a move that could be adopted by like-minded states thereby crippling the nation’s vast freight rail network. Zero-emissions locomotives simply do not exist and are not likely to by the arbitrarily set deadline.

To these emissions-related climate policies can now be added to the White House’s effort to tighten federal control over lands and bodies of water. (RELATED: Biden’s EPA Says Sweeping Power Plant Regs Won’t Harm America’s Grid — Experts Are Saying The Exact Opposite)

“The America the Beautiful Freshwater Challenge: A Partnership to Conserve and Restore America’s Rivers, Lakes, Streams, and Wetlands sets a bold, new national goal to protect, restore, and reconnect 8 million acres of wetlands and 100,000 miles of our nation’s rivers and streams,” the White House said in a Fact Sheet.

“To achieve the new national freshwater protection goal and to ensure that our freshwater resources are protected for current and future generations as part of the America the Beautiful Freshwater Challenge, the Biden-Harris administration is also launching a new initiative that calls on states and other governments and entities, including Tribes, interstate organizations, cities, and local communities to advance their own policies and strategies for conserving and restoring America’s freshwater systems,” the White House said. “Over 100 inaugural members from across the country have signed on to support freshwater restoration in their communities, including ten states, eight Tribes, and 24 local governments.”

The initiative can be seen as part of the administration’s larger “30X30” plan, a scheme unveiled in January 2021 to “protect” at least 30% of the nation’s land and water by 2030. That plan was later dubbed “America the Beautiful,” a phrase that has now been incorporated in the new “America the Beautiful Freshwater Challenge.”

The 30X30 plan has run into stiff resistance at the state and local level, where many rural community leaders fear it will bring federal control over land and water use decisions, as well as pose a threat to property rights.

For its part, the White House makes no secret that its latest wetlands initiative is in response to the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Sackett v. EPA, “which dramatically reduced federal protections for wetlands in one of the largest judicial rollbacks of environmental protections in U.S. history.”

In truth, the High Court clarified — at long last — the vague language of the 1972 Clean Water Act that had hitherto allowed EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to claim regulatory jurisdiction over millions of acres of wetlands and other isolated bodies of water with no direct connection to ”navigable waters of the United States.” The Supreme Court’s decision pulled the legal rug out from under the Biden administration’s plans to impose federal zoning on millions of acres of private and public land across the U.S under the guise of protecting wetlands.

Other than announcing it will spend over $1 billion to improve drinking water quality on Tribal lands, $11 million to combat Western megadroughts, $70 million to upgrade dams, culverts, levees, and other water infrastructure and $123 million for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to expand its coastal management programs, the White House was vague about how it plans to reassert jurisdiction over wetlands. Administration officials must know that any move they make that violates the Supreme Court’s Sackett ruling will invite a flood of lawsuits.

Having proclaimed it is taking an “all of government” approach to what it says is a “climate crisis,” the Biden team is simply practicing what it preaches. All these moves will face stiff legal challenges in any event, so why not push the envelope on putting wetlands back under EPA’s control?

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph. D. is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Italy’s Strategic Embrace of Nuclear Power: A Calculated Move Towards Energy Security

In a decisive shift from its past policies, Italy, under the leadership of Premier Giorgia Meloni and Environment and Energy Security Minister Gilberto Pichetto, is paving the way for the reintroduction of nuclear energy, with a focus on the latest in reactor technology: small, modular, and IV generation reactors. This move is not merely a policy change but a strategic recalibration aimed at bolstering national energy security and aligning Italy with modern, low-carbon energy technologies

From Watts Up With That?

In a decisive shift from its past policies, Italy, under the leadership of Premier Giorgia Meloni and Environment and Energy Security Minister Gilberto Pichetto, is paving the way for the reintroduction of nuclear energy, with a focus on the latest in reactor technology: small, modular, and IV generation reactors. This move is not merely a policy change but a strategic recalibration aimed at bolstering national energy security and aligning Italy with modern, low-carbon energy technologies

https://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2024/05/02/law-for-return-to-nuclear-by-end-of-this-parliament-pichetto_13c0ae18-efaa-4876-876a-bcbce0022a78.html

Environment and Energy Security Minister Gilberto Pichetto said Thursday that the government aims to pass the necessary legislation to make Italy’s return to nuclear power possible by the end of the current parliamentary term.    Italy closed its nuclear plants in 1990 after the 1987 referendum on atomic energy following the Chernobyl disaster.

https://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2024/05/02/law-for-return-to-nuclear-by-end-of-this-parliament-pichetto_13c0ae18-efaa-4876-876a-bcbce0022a78.html

Addressing Energy Security

The backdrop to Italy’s renewed interest in nuclear energy is the stark reality of today’s geopolitical landscape, notably heightened by the energy uncertainties following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This scenario has laid bare the vulnerabilities in Europe’s energy supply, making the case for an energy diversification strategy that includes nuclear power compelling. Nuclear energy offers a stable, reliable source of power that can reduce dependence on external entities, the weather, and unpredictable global market shifts. The introduction of nuclear power thus represents a prudent step towards securing a stable energy future for Italy.

Leveraging Modern Technology: The Role of SMRs

Central to Italy’s nuclear strategy is the adoption of small modular reactors (SMRs). Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, SMRs offer a range of benefits that align well with Italy’s strategic and environmental goals. These reactors are designed to be built faster due to their modular nature, which allows for construction in controlled factory settings and assembly onsite, leading to reduced construction times and potentially lower costs. Additionally, SMRs are considered safer due to their smaller size and innovative safety features, reducing the risk of large-scale nuclear accidents.

The flexibility of SMRs also means they can be deployed to complement renewable energy sources, providing baseload power that can fluctuate with the variable output from solar and wind power. This adaptability makes SMRs an integral part of a balanced and resilient energy portfolio, ensuring continuous energy supply without the intermittency issues associated with renewables.

Low-Carbon Commitment

Nuclear power finally beginning to become a cornerstone in the global shift towards low-carbon energy sources. Despite the debates surrounding nuclear energy, its capacity to provide large-scale, continuous, and carbon-free electricity is unmatched by any other current technology. By investing in advanced nuclear reactors, Italy is positioning itself as a leader in sustainable energy production, aligning with European and international targets for CO2 emission reductions. Whether one believes Climate Change is even an issue worth considering, these moves would fit into a positive no regrets strategy regardless of whether or not CO2 emissions are an issue at all.

Rational Policy for a Sustainable Future

Minister Pichetto’s commitment to establish a judicial framework compatible with the development and operation of SMRs reflects a forward-thinking approach to energy policy. By preparing the necessary legislative environment to support nuclear technology, Italy is not only addressing its immediate energy needs but also setting the stage for sustainable growth, energy security, and technological innovation.

This policy shift is a reasoned decision grounded in the realities of today’s energy landscape and the potential of tomorrow’s technologies. It demonstrates a clear understanding that true energy security comes from stable baseload reliable sources. Nuclear energy, particularly through the lens of SMR technology, offers a path to achieve this reliability, enhancing Italy’s energy independence while supporting environmental and economic goals.

In conclusion, Italy’s re-engagement with nuclear power, driven by current geopolitical, economic, and energy considerations, marks a smart and strategic decision. It underscores a commitment to energy security and reliability, showcasing a balanced approach to addressing both immediate needs and long-term challenges. This initiative is a significant step forward, illustrating how nations can responsibly leverage advanced technologies for a secure energy future.

Originally reported here.

https://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2024/05/02/law-for-return-to-nuclear-by-end-of-this-parliament-pichetto_13c0ae18-efaa-4876-876a-bcbce0022a78.html

Radicals say oil companies are committing climate murder

The claims are based primarily on computer models that exaggerate the impact of carbon dioxide and a few other “greenhouse gases” (0.05% of Earth’s atmosphere, in total) control the climate, while the sun plays virtually no role, urban heat islands are inconsequential, and incompetent forest management is irrelevant.

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

We’re constantly told fossil fuel use is causing an existential climate crisis, extreme weather, worsening wildfires, and more frequent and intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts.

Actual temperature, storm and other records provide no support for these claims. They certainly don’t back up ludicrous assertions that burning coal, oil and natural gas – and even human breathing and baking pizzas in wood-fired ovens – are causing countless alleged calamities: such as slowing Earth’s rotation, thereby affecting scientific time clocks (by one second).

The claims are based primarily on computer models that exaggerate the impact of carbon dioxide and a few other “greenhouse gases” (0.05% of Earth’s atmosphere, in total) control the climate, while the sun plays virtually no role, urban heat islands are inconsequential, and incompetent forest management is irrelevant.

It’s gaslighting: perversions of truth designed to make us guilt-ridden, willing to slash our living standards, and happy to keep poor countries energy-deprived and impoverished.

In the USA and worldwide, fossil fuels still provide 80% of total energy. They’re also the foundation for our economy, living standards, health and longevity – and over 6,000 vital products, including plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, cell phones, eyeglasses, fertilizers and wind turbine blades.

“Earth-friendly” wind and solar installations would blanket millions of acres of farmland, scenic areas and wildlife habitats; require billions of tons of ores; generate billions of tons of toxic water and air pollution from mining and manufacturing; and send electricity prices skyrocketing to pay for expensive battery or gas backup systems, and extensive new transmission lines and grid upgrades.

Climate Defiance, Extinction Rebellion and other radical groups nevertheless block pipelines, rant and rampage through our streets, deface priceless artwork, and glue themselves to roads and statues, to intimidate legislators and regulators.

Others file endless lawsuits to bankrupt fossil fuel projects and promote their twisted views about “climate justice.” Their latest scheme could be viewed as the culmination of their self-indoctrination.

A recent Harvard Environmental Law Review article proposes prosecuting major oil companies for “climate homicide” and “mass murder” – for supposedly killing people, by raising global temperatures and sea levels, and causing deadlier hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, heatwaves, blizzards and wildfires.

Media outlets eagerly promoted the claims – and Soros-funded prosecutors will undoubtedly be thrilled to indict ExxonMobil and other companies, once they’ve put more flash-mob thieves back on our streets.

But not even these prosecutors – or any judge, jury or “expert witness” – can separate natural from human causes of modern climate change. Nor can they calculate fractions of manmade-climate-change-induced disasters attributable to coal, oil, gas, dung, or “renewable” energy mining and manufacturing; to China and India versus Europe and the United States; or certainly to specific energy companies.

What they really don’t want addressed in this “climate homicide” discussion, however, is who is actually committing mass murder, especially of women and children, people with disabilities, people of color and other “particularly threatened” groups so supposedly beloved by climate justice warriors.

My book, Eco-Imperialism: Green power · Black death, forcefully demonstrates that it is these self-righteous climate and environmental activists, and those who fund them, that are callously causing the eco-murder deaths of millions every year – and setting the stage for dramatically more in the future.

These environmentalist death tolls have worsened, as greens became wealthier, more powerful, more fanatical, and more influential with and within US, EU and UN government agencies.

More than 750 million people still have no access to electricity; nearly 2 billion have only sporadic access to barely enough electricity to charge cell phones and power a lightbulb or 1-cubic-foot refrigerator – and no juice for modern homes, schools and hospitals, water purification, or factories and other job-creating businesses.

These people are forced to heat and cook with wood, charcoal or animal dung, inhaling noxious fumes that cause millions of deaths annually from respiratory diseases. Millions more die annually from intestinal diseases due to contaminated water and spoiled food, due to energy deprivation.

Green fanatics perpetuate the death tolls, by battling anything except grossly insufficient, weather-dependent wind and solar power. (In European and other modern countries, people die of heatstroke when they cannot get or afford air conditioning; nine times more die from cold – from hypothermia and illnesses they’d normally survive if they could afford to heat their homes properly.)

The fanatics also wage campaigns to deny Third World people access to insecticides and spatial insect repellants that would control disease-carrying flies and mosquitoes and even modern farming practices and technologies. Millions more thus die every year from diseases that are readily preventable or could be cured in modern hospitals (that don’t exist).

No wonder developing nations increasingly reject Western carbon colonialism.

Radical food groups despise genetically engineered crops that multiply crop yields, survive droughts and slash pesticide spraying by 75% or more. They vilify Golden Rice, which enables malnourished children to avoid Vitamin A Deficiency, blindness and death.

They demand “AgroEcology,” which rejects virtually everything that helps modern farmers feed billions more people (read this article!) with less acreage and water, and could largely eliminate hunger and malnutrition worldwide. The perverse movement rabidly opposes biotechnology, chemical insecticides, nitrogen fertilizers, and even hybrid seeds, monoculture farming and mechanized equipment like tractors.

It demands “food sovereignty” for impoverished, malnourished Africans, Asians and Latin Americans – the right to “define their own food and agriculture systems” and have “healthy and culturally appropriate” food produced through “ecologically sound and sustainable methods.”

Even more bizarre and frightening, major philanthropies like the Rockefeller Foundation and Walton Family Foundation support this craziness! So do the World Bank and many UN agencies.

They say the world’s food production systems should be “aligned” with the purely arbitrary goal of preventing more than 1.5ºC of global warming since 1850, by “phasing out fossil fuel use, especially fossil-fuel-based chemicals in industrial agriculture.”

Farmers who want to “define their own food and agriculture systems” by choosing modern technologies and practices get ostracized instead of supported.

It’s increasingly obvious that climate fear-mongering and GIGO computer models have replaced evidence-based science, history, human nutrition needs and traditional ethical principles. More and more, it is regulating and academic elites versus the rest of us, in rich and poor countries alike.

But on a more positive note, climate cultists chomping at the bit to see oil companies prosecuted for climate murder should be careful what they wish for. Such a precedent could put eco-imperialists and their financiers on trial for manslaughter on a truly horrific scale.

Occasional Wind & Solar Generation Guarantee Staggering Backup Costs

Sunset kills solar output the same way calm weather renders wind turbines utterly useless. Around the world $trillions have been squandered on occasional power generation which is always and everywhere dependent on sunshine and/or the weather.

From STOP THESE THINGS

Sunset kills solar output the same way calm weather renders wind turbines utterly useless. Around the world $trillions have been squandered on occasional power generation which is always and everywhere dependent on sunshine and/or the weather.

In the beginning, there was a perfectly functional power supply with reliable generators connected by a systematically designed grid to every home and business – delivering power that was affordable and available, whatever the weather.

Then came the wind and sun cult peddling the delusion that wind and solar power can totally replace coal, gas and nuclear (with rent seeking crony capitalists in hot pursuit).

That delusion rests on the hidden fact that for every single MW of wind and solar capacity has to be another MW of dispatchable generation connected to the grid, meaning the only hope of keeping the lights on is premised on having coal, gas or nuclear power capacity equal to, or greater than, the total demand for power on any given grid, on any given day.

The wind and solar industries’ propaganda wing started out calling it ‘backup’, these days they talk about ‘firming’.

Shine a light on the total output of wind and solar over time – and whether you call it ‘backup’ or ‘firming’ – there’s an awful lot of it.

In Australia, the average annual power output of all of the wind turbines connected to the Eastern Grid sits at 28% (their total capacity is 11,400MW).

At 28%, those turbines are working less than 2 days a week. With 168 hours in a week (24 x 7), 28% of a week is 47 hours (168 x 0.28) – 60 minutes less than 2 full days. But it’s even worse than that, because wind power outfits can never tell you, with any meaningful advance notice, which two days of the week they might be generating a little power; the power that they keep telling us is powering X million homes every day.

Given that power consumers are pretty keen on having electricity delivered 7 days a week, those ‘backup’ or ‘firming’ generators are doing an awful lot of heavy lifting, and will continue to do so forevermore – at a staggering and entirely unnecessary cost.

In the pieces below, Alan Moran outlines the cost of so-called ‘firming’ the occasional output from wind and solar, a cost born by power consumers and taxpayers.

Australia’s government-induced transition to a high-cost, unreliable electricity supply
Canberra Daily
Alan Moran
2 April 2024

Australian governments are forcing a “transition” in electricity supply from coal (and gas) to wind and solar. Though the ACT has virtually no electricity generation other than that from rooftops, it leads the way in terms of its purchasing contracts for grid-sourced renewables.

Wind and solar have different operating characteristics than coal and gas electricity generators. Coal and gas (and nuclear) can operate pretty much continuously but weather and nightfall limits solar to generating only 20 per cent of the time and wind to about 30 per cent. And electricity supply from wind and solar generators is highly variable.

With wind/solar at their present market share of about 30 per cent, both coal and gas can fill their troughs in supply. But it is the policy of all Australian government jurisdictions to force coal and most gas out of the market. Moreover coal (or, for that matter, nuclear) is ill-suited and costly as a backstop to variable wind and solar supplies.

Recognising the need to compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar energy, 15 months ago, Commonwealth Energy Minister, Chris Bowen, proposed a Capacity Investment Scheme to iron out the peaks and troughs of wind and solar generated electricity.

The idea was to induce a build-up of storage systems to enable uninterrupted supply of electricity. This becomes increasingly necessary to provide support as coal, which still supplies over 60 per cent of the nation’s electricity, is phased out.

Approved storage systems under the Capacity Investment Scheme are pumped hydro like Snowy 2 and batteries. Pumped hydro generates by releasing water when alternative supplies are short and uses electricity at other times, when it is in excess supply (and therefore cheap), to pump the water back uphill. Batteries supply and replenish on a similar basis.

Snowy 2 (providing the boring machine named “Florence” can be made to work) with other pumped hydro is projected to provide enough storage for about 9 hours supply as the market grows. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) reckons we need to increase this to 12 hours by using batteries.

Mr Bowen’s Capacity Investment Scheme was earmarked to help do that job. But, in the event, 23 of its planned 32 gigawatts of installed capacity is earmarked for additional wind and solar. Rather than capacity support for wind and solar, it has become just another subsidy scheme to induce additional supplies of this renewable energy. In passing, it is worth recalling that 20 years ago we were assured that all such schemes would be unnecessary, as wind and solar would by now have become lower cost technologies than the archaic coal plant they would replace!

With the Capacity Investment Scheme and other measures, the Albanese Government has turbocharged the renewable energy subsidy programs from an annual cost of $9 billion under Scott Morrison to over $15 billion. The various measures are summarised below.

So, we have seen a vast increase in subsidies (that is, costs to energy users and taxpayers) which has brought about a considerable increase in government outlays and in the price of energy to households and commercial users alike. For energy-intensive industries, like smelters, the increased prices are crippling and governments have introduced offsetting support – ironically, they are providing subsidies to offset the effect of the subsidies that they have already imposed!

All this aside, AEMO’s planned half a day of storage is hopelessly inadequate in view of the high variability of wind and solar. Overseas estimates are that a wind/solar system requires at least 20 days storage, while the highly regarded Australian consultancy, Global Roam, has estimated that Australia would need at least 10 days storage. And this is with a perfectly designed system involving a 20 per cent over-supply of generation capacity without any losses during storage or transmission.

These are early days of the energy “transition”. But our politicians are plunging us into an electricity supply system with perilously higher costs and lower reliability than we are already experiencing.
Canberra Daily

The grim cost of firming up solar and wind
Substack
Alan Moran
22 April 2024

The ‘transition’ of the electricity supply industry has been forced by government subsidies to renewable energy generators with increased impositions on coal and gas with higher royalty charges and bans playing a secondary role. The first subsidies were introduced by John Howard in 2001 as the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. He later described this as his worst political decision. It required electricity retailers gradually to include wind or solar to comprise 2 per cent of their additional energy. This was quantified as 9,500 megawatt hours.

These measures pandered to concerns about the global warming. They also responded to lobbyists, who wheeled out experts claiming that renewable energy technology would follow a variation of Moore’s Law, where computer chip performance doubles every two years. The application of this to electricity supply, it was argued, just needed a short-term leg-up.

Time has demonstrated this to have been spurious. The need wind and solar facilities have for subsidies, far from withering away, have escalated.

The initial measure provided a subsidy to renewables (and cost to consumers) growing to about $380 million per year. To his credit, John Howard resisted pressures to increase this but the Rudd/Gillard governments and state governments vastly expanded the support with new schemes for rooftop facilities and budgetary expenditures. The Turnbull and Morrison governments further expanded the subsidies, which at the outset of the present government’s tenure amounted to $9 billion per annum.

The Albanese government has introduced a number of additional measures. These include the Safeguard Mechanism, which requires the major carbon-emitting firms to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 or buy the equivalents in carbon credits. The cost is conservatively estimated at $906 million per annum.

The government is also set to introduce the Capacity Investment Scheme involving power purchasing agreements designed to attract $68 billion of spending on additional wind, solar, and batteries. The best estimate of the cost to the taxpayer is $5,775 million per annum. In addition, the government is expediting the transmission roll-out.

Present subsidy levels are estimated at $15.6 billion per annum.

The effects of subsidies have come in three phases.

The first was in the decade after 2003 when renewables progressively increased their market share as required by regulations. By 2014/15, wind and solar had grown to about 7 per cent of the electricity market. The subsidised supplies placed downward pressure on the market price as well as taking market share from coal. That outcome was intensified by new Queensland gas supplies coming on stream. Without access to export ports, that gas was redirected to domestic electricity generation and the share of gas supplies in the National Electricity Market increased from 8 per cent to 12 per cent. Gas now has more lucrative markets overseas and governments are exerting pressure on the producers to allocate more than is commercially sensible to the domestic market.

This first phase came to an abrupt end when low prices and higher supplies forced major coal generators, Northern Power in South Australia and Hazelwood in Victoria, out of the market.

Those market exits led to a second phase, whereby reduced coal capacity brought a trebling of wholesale market prices from their 2015 level of $40 per megawatt hour (MWh). Covid caused a temporary downward blip but the wholesale price is averaging $119 per megawatt hour in the March quarter, 2024.

These higher prices reflect the higher cost of wind and solar and will continue to prevail and, in fact, increase. Price increases may be concealed by governments entering into power purchasing agreements but this means subsidies financed by taxpayers rather than electricity users.

The subsidies to wind and solar have now resulted in their market share growing from zero 20 years ago to over 30 per cent. This is ushering in the third phase of the ‘transition’, which involves desperately seeking ways to firm up the intermittent and largely unpredictable electricity supply from wind and solar.

Gas, coal, and nuclear can operate pretty much continuously and without special storage facilities, but weather and nightfall limit solar to generating only 20 per cent of the time and wind to about 30 per cent. And electricity supply from wind and solar generators is highly variable.

With wind and solar at their current market share, coal and gas can fill their troughs in supply, albeit unprofitably. But the policy in all Australian government jurisdictions is to force coal and most gas out of the market. Moreover, coal (and, for that matter, nuclear) is technically ill-suited and costly to be used as a back-stop to variable wind and solar supplies. ‘Social licences’ aside, new coal or nuclear plants could not be commercially built except as near continuous baseload.

Other means of ‘firming’ wind and solar supplies are therefore increasingly required. One such is the conversion of Snowy Hydro into a pumped storage facility. Pumped hydro generates by releasing water when alternative supplies are short and uses electricity when it is in excess supply (and therefore cheap), to pump the water back uphill. Batteries supply and replenish on a similar basis.

Snowy 2 is planned to provide 376 megawatt hours of storage. The Capacity Investment Scheme is an attempt to augment this, though, notwithstanding its name, it earmarks 70 per cent of its intended power purchasing agreements simply for more wind and solar. These add nothing to replacing the dispatchable (controllable) power being lost from the forced retirement of coal plants. The Capacity Investment Scheme will add just 36 gigawatt hours of storage from the 9 GW of facilities planned to be contracted.

The Australian Market Operator’s (AEMO) Integrated Systems Plan for 2050 envisages a total storage capacity of 642 gigawatt hours for a system double the size of the present one and overwhelmingly powered by wind and solar. This is utterly inadequate for backing up intermittent power.

Francis Menton has assembled a wealth of evidence of how much storage a renewables system would require. He authored a major report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation as well as many other papers like this. Basically, his work shows that a wind and solar system, if it is to provide a secure and reliable electricity supply, requires some 26 days of storage. For Australia, this means 13,000 gigawatt hours of storage, which is 25 times what the AEMO Integrated Systems Plan envisages.

The highly regarded GlobalRoam consultancy estimated that the National Electricity Market (which excludes Western Australia), with perfect planning and no losses in storage or transmission, would require at least 9,000 gigawatt hours of storage. The costs of this, at $US 350 per kWh, would be three times Australia’s GDP for batteries that would need to be replaced every 12 years.

It might be argued that Germany, with little storage back-up, already has wind and solar providing 45 per cent of its electricity and, although it has some of the world’s highest prices, its supply is reliable. But Germany also has access to supplies

Our politicians are plunging us into a perilous future. Policies have already given us an electricity supply system with costs that cannot support energy-intensive industries. Those policies are now poised to bring about lower reliability than is compatible with a first-world economy.
Substack

The BBC Promotes Bad Science About Heat, Floods, Drought, and Wildfires

A recent BBC article, titled “How climate change worsens heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and floods,” claims that climate change is linked to four types of extreme weather, specifically claiming it causes: extreme rainfall, worse heatwaves, longer droughts, and more wildfires. Widely available data proves these claims are false. The “evidence” given by the BBC is not evidence at all, as it eschews real world measurements for model outputs and predictions from a single climate activist organization.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent BBC article, titled “How climate change worsens heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and floods,” claims that climate change is linked to four types of extreme weather, specifically claiming it causes: extreme rainfall, worse heatwaves, longer droughts, and more wildfires. Widely available data proves these claims are false. The “evidence” given by the BBC is not evidence at all, as it eschews real world measurements for model outputs and predictions from a single climate activist organization.

The first section of the BBC’s report is dedicated to the idea that climate change causes more extreme rainfall. The BBC presents a very simplistic vision of how the precipitation is related to average temperature, claiming that warmer air can hold more moisture, and therefore heavier rainfall. While the basic physics here is accurate, the atmosphere is more complex than that in reality.

For this section, they relied not on available data, even from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which show no evidence of increasing intensity of rainfall, but rather the BBC solely referenced counterfactual modelling produced by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) group. Climate Realism very recently explained why, contrary to the BBC’s insistence, attribution modelling is not evidence for climate change’s impact on flooding like that which was recently seen in Dubai.

In that same post, I pointed out that the IPCC does not admit to finding any evidence at all of climate change’s impact on heavy precipitation. (See figure below)

Figure 2 – Table 12.12 | on Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs)

The next section in BBC’s report is no better. This time, the BBC writes “the distribution of daily temperatures shifts to warmer levels, making hotter days more likely and more intense.” As evidence, they point to a recent heatwave in Mali and the Sahel region of Africa… and WWA’s analysis which concluded it could not have happened without “human-caused climate change.”

Again, WWA’s claims aren’t evidence. Many parts of the Sahel region frequently meet temperature maximums on average above 40°C – usually in April– which is what the recent heatwave brought. There is no way to claim that such heat never happened prior to industrialization. This is pure speculation on the part of WWA and the BBC, lacking any facts or peer reviewed research to back up their claim. Once again, this exact claim was refuted in an earlier Climate Realism post, “Wrong, BBC and Reuters, No Evidence Proves West African Heatwave Is Unprecedented.”

Longer droughts, the BBC admits, are harder to link to climate change, but they attempt to do it anyway, asserting that recent short-term droughts in East Africa and the Amazon rainforests were caused by human-induced climate change. The BBC once again relies only on the WWA’s say-so to support its claims, which, once again, are false.

Focusing on the Amazon rainforest, real-world data do not show that the Amazon is becoming more prone to drought because of climate change. There are myriad factors that contribute to recent droughts, such as human causes like deforestation, and increased agriculture putting strain on water supplies. No research or data ties climate change to Amazonian droughts.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts points out that recent studies, including a paper from 2023, show that even worse droughts occurred in 1865, when the planet was cooler, and “several other years in the historical record were as bad or worse than the drought being experienced today.” (See figure below)

Figure 2. Tree-ring-reconstructed wet-season precipitation totals for the eastern Amazon, plotted for 1790–2016, along with the multidecadal waveform [from Granato-Souza et al. (2020)]. The upper and lower 10th-percentile thresholds calculated for 1790–1900 are highlighted. The driest and wettest years during this interval are indicated (with exceptional years in larger font). Source: Journal of Climate 36, 20; 10.1175/JCLI-D-23-0146.1

The final section again relies on WWA studies, this time promoting the idea that climate change is making the weather conditions needed for wildfire more likely, and claims that extreme wildfires are projected to become worse and more frequent in the future. This is easy to refute, as data show that wildfire damage is becoming far less expansive.

NASA tracks the total acreage burned by wildfires since 2003. Their data show a steep downward trend in acreage burned—so, a decline in wildfires, not an increase. (See figure below)

Total acreage burned by fires each year between 2003 and 2015. Trend line in red indicates a steady decline. Source: “NASA detects drop in global fires,” NASA website, June 29, 2017.

Data from the European Space Agency display the same downward wildfire trend.

This is despite an increase in industry, deforestation, warming, and human encroachment on fire-prone areas, around the globe.

The BBC’s confidence in their assertions is utterly unfounded, and it is telling that they refuse to cite any historical data, instead relying exclusively projections from WWA’s attribution models, which Climate Realism has refuted using historical data and present trends repeatedly, here and here, for example, in addition to the articles cited above. Reality paints a far friendlier picture of the climate and recent climate trends than does the BBC. Instead of attempting to frighten readers, the BBC ought to consider telling the truth.

Pennsylvania’s Gov. Shapiro’s Misguided Attempt to Cure a Very Healthy Climate

Somebody should tell Gov. Shapiro that his state of Pennsylvania is doing very well environmentally. Overall, the weather has been getting better and agricultural production is up.

From Watts Up With That?

By Gregory Wrightstone

Somebody should tell Gov. Shapiro that his state of Pennsylvania is doing very well environmentally. Overall, the weather has been getting better and agricultural production is up.

Nevertheless, he repeatedly attacks the producers and users of energy to address a supposed climate crisis. His administration is trying to keep Pennsylvania trapped in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which the Commonwealth Court ruled an illegal tax. Recently, he proposed a new energy tax and the expansion of a program to force consumers to buy larger amounts of expensive and unreliable wind and solar power.

Shapiro’s angst may stem from predictions by the state Department of Environmental Protection that climate change induced by emissions of carbon dioxide would lead to extreme weather and environmental harm — including both floods and droughts — and would damage Pennsylvania’s $80 billion agricultural sector.

Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.

It is a fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased since 1750 to 420 parts per million from 280. Most of that 50% increase is probably from CO2 emissions that began a steady rise with the Industrial Revolution and accelerated after World II because of vigorous economic growth.

However, almost nothing supports the popular claim that recent modest warming has been caused by carbon dioxide. In fact, geological evidence overwhelmingly indicates that this warming trend is simply another in a series of warming and cooling cycles operating since the end of the last glacial advance more than 10,000 years ago. Moreover, our current warming trend started more than 300 years ago, long before we began emitting CO2 in earnest in the mid-20th century.

To put the governor at ease, we turn to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s U.S. Historic Climate Network. Even though the network’s temperature record is biased toward the global warming narrative by both corrupted and manipulated data, it still offers reassurance that Pennsylvania’s climate has been becoming more benign since at least 1895.

Over the past 130 years, Pennsylvania’s average temperature has increased about one-half a degree Fahrenheit. Considering that cold is up to 20 times as lethal as heat, warmth is a good thing for anybody familiar with the Keystone State’s winters. Average maximum temperature has remained unchanged and the percentage of days above 100 degrees has declined significantly — by more than half.

As for the claim of increasing drought, since 1895, the state’s average annual precipitation has increased to 45 inches from 40 and the severity of droughts has decreased slightly but steadily.

Neither has flooding become more of a problem since the beginning of the 20th century. In fact, numerous data points around the state show fewer floods over time.

For example, the flood crests for the decades of the 2000s and 2010s are about 60% that of the 1900s and 1910s for the Allegheny River at Franklin, Venango County. Similar declines in flooding were recorded for the Ohio River at Pittsburgh, the Susquehanna River at Williamsport and for Bucks County, where George Washington crossed the Delaware and famously experienced a particularly harsh Pennsylvania winter.

As for agricultural health, food production in Pennsylvania and around the world is up, partly because of a warmer climate, which has increased the U.S. growing season by more than two weeks and lessened the threat of killing frosts in the late spring and early autumn. Also contributing to better crop yields are the fertilization effect of more CO2 and the use of fertilizers derived from foolishly maligned fossil fuels. This boost in productivity has enabled farmers to support 8 billion people, 10 times the population of 300 years ago.

An overall greening of Earth that has been widely attributed to modern warming and high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is unsurprisingly reflected in Penn’s woods. Since 1955, the state’s standing timber has increased fivefold. Worldwide, tree cover has grown by more than 2 million square kilometers, a 7% increase.

So, with all the good news, why the pressure to increase energy prices and subsidize favored industries at a cost of billions of dollars? The purported answer is to quench the fever of an allegedly overheating planet.

Well, consider that the calculated theoretical heating that would be averted by 2100 if Pennsylvania eliminated all emissions of carbon dioxide would be 0.008 degrees Fahrenheit, an amount too small to measure.

Gov. Shapiro should heed the caution to first do no harm because his climate prescriptions are sure to damage the interests of people who need abundant, affordable energy.

This commentary was first published at Broad + Liberty on April 30, 2024.

Gregory Wrightstone, a Pennsylvania native, is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va.; and author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know” and “A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity.”

CMIP6 Runs Running Wild

Well, for my usual unfathomable reasons and motives, I decided to take a look at individual model runs from the Computer Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6).

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach [See update at end]

Well, for my usual unfathomable reasons and motives, I decided to take a look at individual model runs from the Computer Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6).

And again, for no particular reason, I took a look at the three NOAA GFDL GFDL-ESM4 climate model runs prepared for the CMIP6 all-forcing simulation of the recent past. These are all available at the marvelous KNMI website. And here’s what those three runs look like.

Figure 1. Three model runs of the NOAA GFDL GFDL-ESM4 climate model. These are of the SSP245 scenario. The vertical black line shows the 2014 end of the hindcast period and the start of the following forecast period.

Umm … err … seriously? Three runs of the same climate model using the same forcings and starting conditions and inputs are that far apart when trying to hindcast the past? I mean, not even trying to forecast the future, just trying to hindcast the past?

And the climate establishment wants us to believe that these are anything more than a pathetic joke?

But wait, as they say on TV … there’s more!

Here is the actual Berkeley Earth historical record, compared to the three model runs.

Figure 2. Three model runs of the NOAA GFDL GFDL-ESM4 climate model, plus the Berkeley Earth historical temperature Jan 1850 to Dec 2023.

Not much else to say about that … except that anyone depending on these climate models to tell us what’s going to happen in the future should know that they can’t even tell us what happened in the past …

[Update]: As Rud Istvan pointed out in the comments, Berkeley Earth is not either the only or necessarily the best historical record. I’ve added HadCRUT5, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and the UAH MSU lower tropical temperature records.

This highlights another problem with the field of climate science. Not only do the models differ as to the historical temperature record … there’s also no agreement between observational reconstructions.

Figure 3. The same 3 model runs as above, plus three observationally-based historical surface temperature reconstructions and the UAH MSU lower troposphere temperature.

If I ran the zoo, the first thing I’d do is get the scientists together and at least get an agreed-upon historical record … [Update End]

My best to all, take a walk, enjoy your lives,

w.

Yeah, you’ve heard it before: When you comment please quote the exact words you are referring to. And if you want to prove me wrong, you might want to read this first.

Climatism Substitutes for Solving Problems

Young people are terrified that climate change will destroy Earth by the time they grow up, but the world is not actually ending, argues Cambridge professor Mike Hulme.

From Science Matters

Cambridge professor Mike Hulme explains in an interview with Daily Mail Why climate change ISN’T going to end the world and why we need to stop obsessing about net-zero.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.  H\T John Ray

Young people are terrified that climate change will destroy Earth by the time they grow up, but the world is not actually ending, argues Cambridge professor Mike Hulme.

Humanity is not teetering on a cliff’s edge, he says,
at risk of imminent catastrophe if we don’t reach
net-zero carbon emissions by a certain date.

And he has made it his mission to call out the people who claim we are. In his most recent book, Climate Change Isn’t Everything, Hulme argued that belief in the urgent fight against climate change has shot far past the territory of science and become an ideology.

Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge, dubs this ideology ‘climatism,’ and he argues that it can distort the way society approaches the world’s ills, placing too much focus on slowing Earth from warming.

The problem, he said, is this narrow focus takes attention away from
other important moral, ethical, and political objectives –
like helping people in the developing world rise out of poverty.

DailyMail.com spoke with Hulme about why he thinks climatism is a problem, how it should be balanced out, and what keeps him hopeful about the future of humanity.

As with other ‘isms’ – like cubism or romanticism – ideologies provide a way of thinking about things, explained Hulme.  ‘They’re like spectacles that help us to make sense of the world, according to a predefined framework or structure,’ he said

To be clear, Hulme does not claim that all ideologies are wrong.  ‘We all need ideologies, and we all have them – whether you’re a Marxist or a nationalist, you’re likely to hold an ideology of some form or other,’ he added.

As Hulme sees it, many journalists, advocates, and casual observers of climate change have become devotees of climatism, inaccurately attributing many events that happen in the world as being caused by climate change.

He gives the examples of a fire, flood, or damaging hurricane.  ‘No matter how complex a particular causal chain might be, it’s a very convenient shorthand to say, ‘Oh, well, this was caused by climate change,” Hulme said.

‘It’s a very shallow and simplistic way, I would argue,
to try to describe events that are happening in the world.’

Researchers have shown that warming oceans do lead to more frequent and more severe storms: Twice as many cyclones now become category 4 or 5 as they did in the 1970s, scientists have found, and Atlantic storms are three times as likely to become hurricanes.

Hulme doesn’t argue that the effects of climate change are not happening, though, just that stopping climate change won’t stop disasters from happening altogether.

‘Fundamentally, we’re going to have to deal with hurricanes, and
we’re not going to deal with them just by cutting our carbon emissions.’ 

The solutions, he argues, will include better forecasting, better early warning systems, better emergency plans, and better infrastructure.  ‘There are all sorts of things that we can do to minimize the risks and dangers of hurricanes, that are way more effective in the short term than trying to cut our carbon emissions,’ said Hulme.

The danger of climatism, he pointed out, is that it leads people down a false chain of events: If all of these things happening in the world are caused by climate change, then all we have to do is stop climate change, and all the other things will stop themselves.

‘And that clearly is a very inadequate way of thinking about the complexities of most of the problems we we face in the world today.’  This distorted thinking can make people forget about other important concerns, he argues.

As an example, Hulme points to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): 17 areas that the world’s governments have identified as top priorities for humanity.  The SDGs include building peace and justice, eradicating poverty, reducing child mortality, and ensuring clean sanitation and water for billions of people on the planet.

If society were to put climate change priorities into their proper proportions then, Hulme said it would still be on the list.  It just wouldn’t be the only item on the list, and it wouldn’t be at the top.  ‘There’s 17 SDGs, and two of them are related to climate. So that begins to rebalance, or re-proportion, the amount of effort and attention we might wish to pay,’ said Hulme.

Beyond these mixed up priorities, Hulme also takes issue with what he sees as an obsession with deadlines: ‘There’s this idea of the ticking clock counting down to Ground Zero – we’ve only got five years, 10 years, two years – however long different commentators put the deadline.’

Doomsday was predicted but failed to happen at midnight.

Hulme disputed the idea that he is over-egging the pudding on climatism – after all, the whole basis of his argument is that climatists are the ones making a bigger deal out of it than they should be.  ‘I’ve been observing concerns about how climate change is talked about, framed, and reacted to in public for many, many years.’  And this public framing has led to a phenomenon called ‘eco-anxiety,’ which Hulme said he sees among his students at Cambridge University

‘They have absorbed these claims of tipping points, and they take these things literally, and feel that there is no future for them because the climate is going to go out of control,’ he said. ‘They feel that it will be too late, and everything will collapse.’

See Also Climate Delusional Disorder

Climate Delusional Disorder (CDD) 2021 Update