Day: September 1, 2024

Stick to Finance, Financial Times; Weather is Not Getting Worse

A recent article in the Financial Times (paywalled) features a discussion between writer Attracta Mooney and Celeste Saulo, the current secretary-general of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization. Claims made in the post include that 2023 and 2024 were the hottest years on record, that recent global wildfires and drought in parts of the Mediterranean are caused by climate change, and that extreme weather in general is getting worse. These claims are false. Data undermine and often directly contradict such assertions.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article in the Financial Times (paywalled) features a discussion between writer Attracta Mooney and Celeste Saulo, the current secretary-general of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization. Claims made in the post include that 2023 and 2024 were the hottest years on record, that recent global wildfires and drought in parts of the Mediterranean are caused by climate change, and that extreme weather in general is getting worse. These claims are false. Data undermine and often directly contradict such assertions.

The article, titled “Meteorologist Celeste Saulo: ‘Climate change is not a movie. This is real life’,” is mostly a flowery biographical piece about Saulo, whom the author sat down with to enjoy an insultingly decadent French lunch in Geneva, Switzerland, while they discussed how the rest of us need to cut way back on our standard of living. Writer Mooney begins the piece by discussing how it was hot in Geneva, implying that “almost 30°C” (86°F) is very hot for August. A quick search online shows that while on the high end of the spectrum, it is still within Geneva’s normal range for August; highs in the 80s are not unusual for Geneva as summer nears its end.

Mooney writes “[w]ith wildfires burning in Greece and Turkey, large chunks of the Mediterranean parched as drought spreads across the region, and all just weeks after the world experienced its hottest days on record,” continuing that 2023 “was the hottest on record and 2024 is on course to be even warmer.”

Saulo concurred with Mooney’s framing. Mooney goes further to report that the U.N. secretary-general, Saulo’s boss, agrees that “we need to start adapting to a warming world where wildfires, heatwaves, floods, droughts and other extreme weather events are more intense.”

The problem is, all of this is false, and as a meteorologist Saulo should know this.

Wildfires are certainly not becoming more intense or widespread, for one. Global wildfire tracking done by NASA satellites as well as the European Space Agency show that there has been a gradual decline in global burned area, 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.

Drought is likewise not becoming more of a problem, and the region that Mooney chose to highlight, the Mediterranean, is explicitly one which is known for having hot, dry summers. The Mediterranean even has a climate type named after it, the “Mediterranean climate,” which describes a climate with “irregular rainfall with most of the rainfall in winter.”

Also, the United Nations, which employs Saulo, reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has actually increased over the mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere at least, and has “low confidence” about negative trends globally, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Drought.

When it comes to the “hottest year on record,” much of that media frenzy was just that – media hype lacking factual basis to make the claim.

There is plenty of evidence, such as results from the carbon-dating of trees from the middle ages recently exposed by retreating glaciers, which points to other periods in relatively recent history being hotter than at present.

Also, a lot of the “record breaking heat” measurements were merely tenths of a degree hotter than previous measurements, which is hardly alarming, and are likely either statistical anomalies resulting from the reanalysis of data put out by flawed climate models or the result of the biased urban heat island effect, as discussed Climate Realism, here, here, and here, for example.

Data was also misused; for example, many stories in July 2023 breathlessly claimed that the 3rd and 4th of July were the hottest days of all time based on a “dataset” that was not actually displaying measured temperatures, or data at all but but rather modelled simulations of temperatures. The University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer was where the claim originated. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization publicly distanced itself from the claim, explaining that the model output is “not suitable” as real temperature measurements for the purpose of keeping a climate record.

There is in fact any trend of increasingly extreme weather, as Saulo must know, otherwise why would the only evidence she cites for the claim be the alleged “28 disaster events” in the United States which cost “at least $1bn each in 2023.” As a writer for the Financial Times, surely Mooney knows that the costs of disasters are not necessarily evidence of worsening disasters, at all; other factors go into it, like the increasing value of property and the expanding bullseye effect. Climate Realism has pointed this out several times, including here, here, and here.

The juxtaposition throughout the article of the two discussing climate change and policy, including how people need to change the way they eat and take vacations, with frequent breaks to discuss how nice their lunch in prosperous Geneva was, was a bizarre writing choice for a journalist trying to emphasize urgency when it comes to climate action. The Financial Times should stick to what it is known for – financial news and analysis—and leave the climate puff pieces to other outlets, especially if the depths of their climate reporting efforts are to uncritically publish falsehoods.

Most ‘Climate Policies’ Do Not Bring Down Emissions, New Study Finds

Only a small percentage of climate policies instituted globally have actually resulted in any significant emissions reductions, according to a study published earlier in August in Science, a respected scientific publication.

From Watts Up With That?

The Daily Caller

Nick Pope
Contributor

Only a small percentage of climate policies instituted globally have actually resulted in any significant emissions reductions, according to a study published earlier in August in Science, a respected scientific publication.

The new study, titled “Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions: Global evidence from two decades,” used artificial intelligence to assess 1,500 different climate policies pursued across 41 nations between 1998 and 2022, aiming to determine which types of policies have prompted significant emissions cuts. The study’s analysis found that only 63 of these policies constituted “successful policy interventions,” meaning that just 4% of the measures evaluated in the study’s sample effectively reduced emissions. (RELATED: Supreme Court Delivers Massive Blow To Biden’s Climate Agenda)

Dems’ Massive Green Energy Agenda Is Walking America Right Into China’s Hands, Analysis Claimshttps://t.co/YHH5A3e0fy— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 27, 2024

“Across four sectors, 41 countries, and 2 decades, we found 63 successful policy interventions with large effects that reduced total emissions between 0.6 and 1.8 [billion metric tons] of [carbon dioxide],” the study states. Moreover, most of the emissions cuts observed in the study were the result of two or more policies having a combined effect.

“We have a lot of policies out there that have not led to large emission reductions, and more policies do not necessarily equate to better outcomes,” Nicholas Koch, the head of the policy evaluation lab at Germany’s Mercator Research Institute and one of the study’s authors, told NewScientist. “What we observe is that the most frequently used policy tools, which are subsidies and regulations, alone are insufficient. Only in combination with price-based instruments – such as carbon prices, energy taxes – can they deliver substantial emission reductions.”

In other words, subsidies and regulations generally will not compel economies to bring down emissions without complementary policies that directly tax energy use or impose outright bans on certain practices like burning coal to produce electricity, according to Koch.

Richard Tol, an economics professor at England’s University of Sussex with expertise in the economics of climate policies, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the study’s results are indicative of fundamental issues with green subsidies.

“If you estimate the impact of 1,500 policies, you would expect 75 of those to be statistically significant as a statistical fluke. They found only 63,” Tol told the DCNF. “Anyways, subsidies can be effective in the short run, less so in the long run as they make the offending activity more profitable. For example, a subsidy on energy saving (say, home insulation) makes energy cheaper so that people use more. Besides, many ‘green’ subsidies are designed to reward political allies rather than reduce emissions.”

Other critics of the West’s climate policies have pointed out that continued use of fossil fuels, and especially coal, by populous countries like China and India will blunt global emissions reductions while Western countries saddle themselves with the high costs of an energy transition.

China is by far the world’s leading emitter, more than doubling American emissions, while India is the world’s third-largest source and emits more than all 27 countries in the European Union put together, according to the World Resources Institute.

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.

Shooting Turtles, with our Cameras

The inaugural Great Barrier Reef Megafauna Expedition departs in just two days, on Monday 2nd September for 5 nights at sea – weather permitting. And the weather does look like it might be a bit blowy.

From Jennifer Marohasy

By jennifer

The inaugural Great Barrier Reef Megafauna Expedition departs in just two days, on Monday 2nd September for 5 nights at sea – weather permitting.    And the weather does look like it might be a bit blowy.

Breaking news:

There are now six categories including ‘largest reptile’.   This could be a turtle, a snake –hopefully not a crocodile.

Prize money is $500 for the winner of each category with the potential for $3,000 to be won across all six categories.

This new category of ‘largest reptile’ is at the request of Paul Crocombe from Adrenalin Snorkel and Dive who are co-hosting the event, and along with the now standalone category ‘largest whales’ is sponsored by Perth-based philanthropist Bryant Macfie.

Charter of the MV Sea Esta has been made possible by Sydney-based philanthropist Simon Fenwick.

Did you know, six of the world’s seven marine turtle species occur in Australian waters:

1. Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas,

2. Loggerhead Turtle, Caretta caretta,

3. Flatback Turtle, Natator depressus,

4. Hawksbill Turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata,

5. Olive Ridley, Lepidochelys olivacea, and

6. Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea.

The Leatherback Turtle is the largest species; adults usually grow 1.8 to 2.2 metres and weigh between 250 and 700 kilograms.   This information is from the Queensland Museum Website.

I know from the stories my mother told me, she worked on Heron Island during the 1950s, that turtle meat was once very popular in Queensland –  for eating.

According to an article by Suzy Freeman-Greene published in the Griffith Review some years ago:

In Queensland, by 1886 a substantial turtle meat and soup industry had been established in the Moreton Bay area …  Most turtles were caught there with nets. One traveller to the Fitzroy River estuary reported that it was customary ‘for drinking salons in the coastal towns to have turtle soup “on tap”’.

In the Capricorn group of islands, which includes Heron, harvesting of nesting turtles began in 1904. Hunters would patrol beaches in the evening, flip turtles on their backs and leave them overnight. They would return at high tide to decapitate them with an axe, taking the meat away by boat. Occasionally, turtles were hoisted live onto boats in slings.

During 1924–25, 1,220 turtles were harvested at North West Island, producing 36,000 tins of soup. Once the Heron Island cannery opened, the combined harvest of the two factories was 2,500 green turtles in 1925–26. End quote.

Last time I was at Heron Island, in November 2020, there were so many turtles, and the females were laying eggs on the beach through the night and still at 10am in the morning.

Population numbers seem to have recovered – at least of Green turtles.

Times have changed.  When it comes to turtles at least, we are kinder.

So please don’t tell me that the Great Barrier Reef was pristine, back 100 years ago – as Valerie Taylor and others are inclined to suggest in their memories.

*****

And we now have a megafauna expedition logo; more about the logo and that clam with a measure, soon.

How it ends: 96% of Big Corporations are quietly abandoning their climate commitments

he Tech-Giants are backing away. Microsoft and Google have given up — they’re not bragging about their carbon neutrality anymore. Not now that their emissions have increased 29% and 50% respectively in the last four or five years.  Over 500 companies pledged to get to net zero by 2040, but 96% of them are failing to stay on track. To distract us from talking about how the Climate Bubble has popped, some are blaming “AI”.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

And then the climate pledges evaporated

The Tech-Giants are backing away. Microsoft and Google have given up — they’re not bragging about their carbon neutrality anymore. Not now that their emissions have increased 29% and 50% respectively in the last four or five years.  Over 500 companies pledged to get to net zero by 2040, but 96% of them are failing to stay on track. To distract us from talking about how the Climate Bubble has popped, some are blaming “AI”.

The world is facing mass death and boiling oceans, and wind and solar are still as cheap as they never were, but Big Tech are sneaking away from saving the world, wait, because Artificial Intelligence uses a lot of electricity? It’s like, these CEOs were saviors of Mother Earth not long ago, but the ice-caps be damned, there’s a race on to capture the AI market?  Apparently, the planetary heroes just turned back into robber barons doing business.

Dr Jemma Green, who sells software for renewables markets, is trying to sell us a bad-luck story, as if it makes any sense. The truth is that if net zero technologies were cheap and useful, and the CEO’s ever cared about the planet, they wouldn’t be abandoning them. But they are…

Why Big Corporations Are Quietly Abandoning Their Climate Commitments?

Jemma Green, Forbes

AI’s energy hunger and corporate climate hypocrisy

…corporations like Google, Microsoft, and Shell once positioned themselves as leaders in sustainability, setting ambitious net-zero goals to align with global environmental efforts. However, the rapid rise of energy-hungry artificial intelligence is forcing these companies to reconsider—or even abandon—these commitments…

Corporate climate pledges surged recently, with over 500 companies globally committing to net-zero emissions by 2040. This momentum continued between June 2022 and October 2023, with a 40% increase in new net-zero targets​. Yet, as the AI revolution gains traction, cracks in these promises are beginning to show. Recent analysis reveals that only 4% of these companies are on track to meet their goals, highlighting a disconnect between corporate rhetoric and reality​.

Despite the headline, Jemma Green isn’t even trying to explain “Why” the end is here. After a few paragraphs blaming AI she laments how other giants like Shell, or Gucci, or EasyJet are stepping away too from their goals too,  poking a hole in her thesis that it was only due to AI. It’s not like Gucci want to sell you AI programs to wear.

What she’s documenting is the corporate world quietly erasing their mistakes:

Shell, for instance, has abandoned its 2035 target of a 45% reduction in net carbon intensity, citing “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition.” This target was a key milestone towards Shell’s broader goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

The same goes for luxury fashion house Gucci, which once committed to carbon neutrality through verified carbon offsets and in May 2023, quietly removed its claim of being “entirely carbon neutral” from its website.

The truth is that if the Earth was in danger, smart CEO’s and billionaires, who have to live on the planet too, would be pushing nuclear power like their children’s lives depended on it.

Instead it was all an intellectual fashion contest and a quick subsidy buck, and maybe a few even believed wind and solar power did something useful, but they don’t anymore.