Day: November 20, 2024

Surfboards and Science: Why a 17-Year-Old’s Ocean ‘Thermometer’ Won’t Save the Planet

Oh, look, The Guardian is at it again, serving up a piping hot plate of climate hysteria with a side of precocious child activism. This time, they’ve hauled out a 17-year-old surfer from Brazil to lecture us all at COP29 about how the ocean is allegedly “getting warmer.” Because, obviously, who needs thermometers, satellite data, or rigorous reconstructions of ocean temperatures when you’ve got a paddling around on a foam board?

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Oh, look, The Guardian is at it again, serving up a piping hot plate of climate hysteria with a side of precocious child activism. This time, they’ve hauled out a 17-year-old surfer from Brazil to lecture us all at COP29 about how the ocean is allegedly “getting warmer.” Because, obviously, who needs thermometers, satellite data, or rigorous reconstructions of ocean temperatures when you’ve got a paddling around on a foam board?

As a surfer, I’m constantly on the ocean, and I actually felt the oceans warming,” says Catarina Lorenzo, 17, a professional surfer from Salvador, in Bahia state in Brazil.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2024/nov/19/cop29-climate-summit-live-updates-world-leaders-in-baku-azerbaijan?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-673c55e78f0866cddf1b7a15#block-673c55e78f0866cddf1b7a15

Here’s the deal: The Guardian breathlessly reports that this kid has “noticed the ocean getting warmer.” Wow, stop the presses! Cornwall’s pint-sized Jacques Cousteau has declared it so! I’m sure every scientist laboring over ARGO floats and analyzing centuries of proxy data is ready to throw in the towel, because we’ve discovered the ultimate climate measuring device: the “17-year-old personal feeling-o-meter.”

But it gets better. The kid was apparently speaking on behalf of “Surfers Against Sewage.” Yes, you read that right. The name alone sounds like something straight out of a Monty Python sketch. Their shtick? Conflating ocean pollution, sewage overflow, and global climate trends into one big glob of environmental alarmism.

Here’s the kicker, though. Despite the breathless claims and emotional appeals, ocean temperature measurements themselves are riddled with uncertainty. You see, when it comes to understanding ocean warming, scientists have been collecting data for decades using methods like ship-based thermometers, satellites, ARGO buoys, and reconstructions from coral and sediment cores. And guess what? These methods often disagree.

ARGO floats, for example, give relatively recent snapshots, while historical reconstructions rely on proxies that are, to put it generously, open to interpretation. Measurement coverage is patchy at best—deep ocean data remains elusive, and even surface readings show considerable variability depending on location and season. When you’re trying to average this chaotic mess into a single “global ocean temperature anomaly,” the error bars are about as wide as the English Channel itself.

And those models everyone loves to parade around? They’re based on assumptions piled on assumptions. Sure, we have rough trends, but the confidence levels plummet as soon as you start asking detailed questions like “How much of the variability is natural?” or “What role does deep ocean circulation play?” And yet, despite these known limitations, we’re supposed to take a 17-year-old surfer’s anecdote as the clincher for the case.

Let’s be blunt: The ocean is vast, covering over 70% of the planet’s surface, with depths averaging over two miles. Measuring its temperature with precision is a Herculean challenge that makes building a Swiss watch look like child’s play. Yet here comes The Guardian, peddling the notion that a kid with a wetsuit can feel changes too subtle for many instruments to consistently detect.

And let’s not ignore the larger absurdity here. Will Xi Jinping read about Cornwall’s Surfer Oracle and suddenly decide to shutter his coal plants? Will India halt its drive to electrify rural villages because a 17-year-old thinks her ocean swims are a little toastier? Of course not. This is pure theater, designed to elicit emotion, not address reality.

The real kicker is that even if the oceans are warming, what are the odds we’re getting it precisely right? If the best science comes with massive uncertainties, then turning to anecdotal feelings is like throwing darts blindfolded and hoping to hit a bullseye. It’s unserious on its face.

So, to The Guardian: Next time, try citing evidence that doesn’t dissolve under the first wave of scrutiny—or logic. And to the young surfer: Keep riding those waves and having fun. But when it comes to ocean temperatures, let’s leave the analysis to professionals—preferably ones who acknowledge the massive uncertainty in the data they’re working with. Or, at the very least, someone who doesn’t think their wetsuit doubles as a thermometer.

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

The CO2 scam and “climate denial”

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

From NoTrickZone

By P Gosselin

The CO2 scam and “climate denial”

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

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

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

Figure 1: A cumulonimbus cloud with the typical “anvil” in the upper area. The white upper surface reflects a large part of the sunlight back into space so that this energy cannot penetrate into the lower parts of the earth-atmosphere system. The nearly black underbelly demonstrates the effectiveness of this reflection (Photo: Fred Mueller)

“Climate deniers”: the everyday witch-hunt against science and freedom of opinion

“Natural science does not provide absolute truths or laws chiseled in stone, but only assumptions and hypotheses. Even if a thesis has proven itself in practice and has found general acceptance, critical scrutiny is not sacrilege but an indispensable duty of every scientist. Bans on thought and muzzles are methods and typical characteristics of a dictatorship that degrades science to an unworthy servant of the powerful. How credible is an ideology that wants to be colourful but suppresses diversity of opinion?” asked chemist Dr Michael Schnell1) in his lecture “Experimental verification of the CO2 greenhouse effect – the false climate prophets” at the EIKE Climate Conference in Munich in 2020. The downright canceling campaign of the previous year’s EIKE Climate Conference2) showed just how justified his warning of dictatorial tendencies is.

“Ministry of Truth” at work

With the participation of journalists, environmental organisations, politicians and “Antifa” (a rogue self-declared antifascist organisation in Germany), attempts were made to prevent the conference through “actions” and political and media pressure on the landlord of the conference hotel. The fact that the corresponding video on the EIKE website can no longer be accessed shows just how sophisticated, intricate and far-reaching this suppression has become. Only an internet search shows that it can still be found on YouTube. However, it is labelled with a warning euphemistically referred to as an “info section” referring to reviews and “fact checks”. There are now networks of such “fact-checkers” operating worldwide4) and throughout Europe5) , which attack alleged misinformation under the guise of “correction” and present “official” opinions as the truth. They use tricks to try to discredit the statements made or people involved. If you follow the link given on the “Info section” on the subject of climate change6), the reader is showered with the full plethora of climate hysteria and money-begging messages brought forward by the United Nations (UN). And of course, this presentation of “infallible truths” is not tagged with any reference to critical scientific voices on the subject.

Even the University of Rostock felt compelled to issue a press release on Dr. Schnell’s lecture7). In it, it “emphatically distances itself from the statements made by Dr. Michael Schnell in relation to climate change. These statements are not based on research results from the University of Rostock”.

These are still the currently milder working methods of the complexly structured “Ministry of Truth”, with which our woke climate overlords want to nudge us towards the “right way of thinking” on climate issues.

Figure 2: The course of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (black line) and the temperature on the Earth’s surface (blue line) over the last 600 million years or so. It is difficult to understand why CO2 can be described as the “Earth’s thermostat” in view of these curves (graphic from: centil-europe.ch 8)

What was Dr. Schnell’s offence?

What was the actual offence that brought Dr. Schnell this form of reputational damage? He had conducted experiments on the question of how the CO2 greenhouse effect could be proven or falsified. His conclusion:

“Both research methods proved that at least the near-Earth CO2 greenhouse effect is physically possible. But it was also shown that the IR radiation of clouds considerably reduces the greenhouse effect of CO2. The experiments confirm the position of the ‘sceptics’ who see a reduction in CO2 climate sensitivity in water vapour and clouds and accuse the ‘alarmists’ of grossly exaggerating the alleged CO2 danger.”

A thorough analysis

Prof Franz-Karl Reinhart from the EPF Lausanne is one of the well-known critics of the IPCC in Switzerland. In a publication dated 12 September 20179) , he presented a comprehensive analysis of radiative transfer through CO2 . This involved scrutinising Svante Arrhenius’ theory that the strong IR interaction of CO2 molecules leads to the absorption of IR photons emitted from the ground and then to the re-emission of this radiation. The resulting counter-radiation towards the earth’s surface would counteract its cooling and thus cause a greenhouse effect. In his introduction, F. K. Reinhart points out that “water in its aggregate forms [clouds of water vapour, water droplets and snow and/or ice] has an enormous impact on the climate and it therefore makes little sense to assume [solely] radiation or energy balances”. By analysing the pure CO2 radiation mechanism, he wanted to check mathematically what climate impact a doubling of the concentration of CO2 would actually have with respect to the increase in temperature if the interfering influences of water were not present. The IPCC gives values of 3-5°C here.

This is not just about the main absorption bands of CO2 in the IR range in question, which lie at wavelengths of 4.25 and 15 µm. The calculation is way more complicated because these bands have a considerable width. If their structure is broken down more precisely, numerous secondary absorption frequencies can be seen on both sides of the main peaks.

Figure 3: Distribution of secondary absorption lines of the 4.25 µm band of the CO2 molecule (graphic: Anton Paar 10)

In addition, there are various other, less pronounced absorption frequencies spread across the entire IR spectrum. Even if the energy contribution of each of these “smaller” peaks is comparatively small, they should not be neglected as a whole. In total, around 200,000 frequency lines had to be taken into account in the relevant spectral range of 2.9 to 29 µm. Dr. Reinhart relied on the HITRAN program11) for this analysis. This scientific software package offers the researcher comprehensive calculation tools, including the necessary databases. It calculates radiation reactions and radiation transport processes in all possible gases and gas mixtures according to the latest scientific and technical standards. Changes in atmospheric composition and density as well as their evolution with increasing altitude can be taken into account. HITRAN is used by scientists as well as satellite operators, meteorologists and the military due to the quality of its results.

Table 1: The calculation of the forcing Fc based on the current CO2 concentration and climate situation (TEarth = 288 K), the increase in forcing ΔFmax and the resulting temperature increase ΔTmax compared to today for CO2 concentrations of 800, 2,000 and even 4,000 ppm (Table: F. K. Reinhart)

The calculation results shown in Table 1 prove that carbon dioxide is only a very weak greenhouse gas. The temperature increase that has occurred since the beginning of the industrial age as a result of increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere to 400 ppm is therefore only 0.12 K (or 0.12 °C). It would only rise by 0.24 K even if it were doubled to 800 ppm. Even a tenfold increase to 4,000 ppm (which would be utopian anyway due to the far too small reserves of raw materials) would only result in a temperature increase of < 0.8 K.

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4: The last cold period in the Alps was characterized by extreme swings in both directions. The upper part of the picture shows the considerably reduced ice cover around 25,000 years after the beginning of the cold period. Only 17,000 years later, the Alpine region was covered by a gigantic ice sheet and the temperature (black curve) was 13 °C below today’s level. The blue curve indicates the volume of ice bound in the glaciers in cm sea level equivalent (screenshots from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXzExbdHuDM 12)
Figure 5: The joint representation of the trends in atmospheric CO2 content and temperature over the course of the last ice age shows that the correlation between the two variables appears to be rather weak. In particular, the explosive rise in the red curve at the very end raises doubts. The course of the CO2 concentration with temperature can easily be attributed to outgassing or absorption due to higher or lower solubility in the sea as a result of Henry’s law. An industrial influence can be ruled out (except for the last 150 years or so). (Graphic: author + screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXzExbdHuDM)

No mincing of words: Nobel Prize winner Prof John Clauser 13)

It may well be argued that the two authors mentioned above are possibly mistaken and not leading specialists. However, this attempt to disqualify them definitely does not apply to John Clauser. The experimental physicist, who specialzes in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022. He is a vehement critic of the current CO2 climate hysteria, as evidenced by his statements at an EIKE conference in 2024. In it, he states that “the IPCC and its collaborators misjudge the prevailing climate process on Earth”. Here is a small selection of statements:

Figure 6: Some key statements from Prof Clauser’s presentation at EIKE 13)

With these theses, Prof Clauser has naturally become a hate figure for climate catastrophe prophets. Significantly, however, the well-known climate activist platform Wikipedia14) merely accuses him of not having published a single peer-reviewed study on climate change in his career. The ridiculousness of this argument can hardly be surpassed. The “climate impact” of CO2 is based on quantum physical interactions between CO2 molecules and IR photons, and this falls entirely within his area of expertise. Of course, no factual refutations of his theses are to be found on Wikipedia. Prof Clauser’s role as ambassador of the “World Climate Declaration” of the Clintel Foundation15) (Climate Intelligence) proves that he is by no means alone in his theories. In addition to Prof Clauser, its more than 1,900 supporters include the Nobel Prize winner for physics Prof Ivar Giaever16) from Norway as well as prominent climate researchers such as the atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen17) and the experimental physicist Prof Herrmann Harde18) . Prof Clauser is also a member of the board of the CO2 Coalition Foundation19) .

Fred F. Mueller

References:

Is deadly weather being ‘supercharged’?

So that’s it then: the Guardian has declared that we are all being scorched, drowned and blown over by climate change. The website Carbon Brief, it says, has found ‘stark evidence of how global heating is already supercharging deadly weather beyond anything ever experienced by humanity’. Never mind that humans were around to witness multiple ice ages – let’s have a look at Carbon Brief’s claim.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Excellent retort by Ross Clark:

So that’s it then: the Guardian has declared that we are all being scorched, drowned and blown over by climate change. The website Carbon Brief, it says, has found ‘stark evidence of how global heating is already supercharging deadly weather beyond anything ever experienced by humanity’. Never mind that humans were around to witness multiple ice ages – let’s have a look at Carbon Brief’s claim.

The report looks at 744 extreme weather events and trends measured by 617 different studies and makes the claim that in 74 per cent of cases, the event had been made more likely or more severe by anthropogenic climate change, while 9 per cent of events had been made less likely or less severe.

Problem number one is that these are not actually 744 different extreme weather events; many of them are multiple studies of the same event, some of which came to very different conclusions. Included, for example, is a drought in California between 2012 and 2014. Four studies claimed it had been made more likely by climate change, and one concluded otherwise.

Problem number two is that lots of the studies arrived at their conclusions via attempts to model the climate, present and past. In many cases, the models used produced such a wide spread of results that no reasonable person could come to any conclusion. A World Weather Attribution study of the 2022 floods in Pakistan (not quoted directly in the Carbon Brief report) ran 24 different climate models. Thirteen of them came back with the estimate that global warming had increased the intensity of the rainfall compared with if the same weather event occurred in pre-industrial times – with one model suggesting a 68 per cent increase. However, 11 of the models calculated that warmer global temperatures had decreased rainfall intensity, one of them suggesting an 18 per cent fall.

What does that tell you? That climate models aren’t good enough to be used for this kind of analysis. Indeed, the authors wrote: ‘As a conclusion, models are unable to provide a basis to confidently quantify the change in the monsoon season rainfall intensity: qualitative statements are however possible’ – although that didn’t stop the study being reported by the Guardian as claiming ‘Pakistan floods made up to 50 per cent worse by global heating’.

Many of the modelling-based studies quoted by Carbon Brief are in direct contrast to real-world data. Virtually every severe hurricane in recent years, for example, appears to have been attributed to climate change. Yet the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – the US government body which has studied hurricanes more than anyone else – concludes that: ‘There is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity’.

Another study quoted by Carbon Brief attempts to blame Storm Eunice, which struck southern England in February 2022, on climate change. Yet again, the real-world data, produced in the State of the Climate Report by the Met Office and Royal Meteorological Society, tells a completely different story: it shows a clear downwards trend in extreme wind speeds measured in the UK over the past 40 years.

Some of the events quoted by Carbon Brief may well have a link to rising global temperatures. I can believe, for example, that warming over the past two centuries increased the maximum temperature measured during the 2022 summer heatwave by 2 degrees celsius – because that would be in keeping with the trend in high temperatures measured in Britain. But when modelling is giving you results that are in direct contravention of the real-world data – and where different models give you wildly different answers – you really need to be asking whether it is of any value, rather than just spouting it as evidence of what you would like to be true.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-deadly-weather-being-supercharged

The “Green’ movement increases demand for oil

Shockingly, environmentalists, energy policymakers, parents, teachers, students, and those in the media have no clue or understanding about the basis of the products in our daily lives from crude oil! Energy literacy is at its worst.

From CFACT

By Ronald Stein

Shockingly, environmentalists, energy policymakers, parents, teachers, students, and those in the media have no clue or understanding about the basis of the products in our daily lives from crude oil! Energy literacy is at its worst.

Energy policymakers, armed with their lack of energy literacy, continue their pursuit to eliminate the only known sources of the products and transportation fuels that support modern lifestyles and economies around the world. Over the last 200 years, the utilization of the products and transportation fuels that could be manufactured from crude oil, the world’s population has grown from 1 to 8 billion. It was the ‘products’ from oil that supported this tremendous growth in population.

Our energy “leaders” are oblivious that everything that NEEDS electricity is made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil, coal, or natural gas, from the light bulb to the iPhone, defibrillator, computers, telecommunications, spacecraft, and medications. Without the products made from fossil fuels there would be nothing that needs electricity.

Electricity CANNOT exist without crude oil. All the parts and components for wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear, hydro, and the mining equipment used to extract the metals and minerals to build clean “electricity” are made with oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil!

Our so-called “energy leaders” do not comprehend that electricity was developed AFTER the discovery of crude oil. Without the parts and components to be able to generate electricity such as insulation, copper wiring, computers, control panels, and air conditioning, there would be no electricity from any of the six methods used to generate electricity such as coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. 

Environmentalists, political bureaucrats, and policymakers seem to be oblivious that electricity and transportation cannot exist without products made from fossil fuels, as they are ignorant of these basic facts:

(1)  Before the 1800s and before the discovery of oil, we had no crude oil, no products, no electricity, and obviously, no vehicles or Teslas.

(2)  No one uses crude oil in its raw form. ‘Big Oil’ only exists because of humanity’s addiction to the more than 6,000 products that did not exist 200 years ago, that are now the basis for virtually all the products used for the health and well-being of humanity that support Hospitals, Medical equipment, Appliances, Electronics, Telecommunications, Heating and Ventilating, and Communications systems.

(3)  Renewables, like wind and solar only exist to generate occasional electricity, as they CANNOT manufacture any of the more than 6,000 products and various transportation fuels made from fossil fuels, that are demanded by the various infrastructures of today, the same infrastructures that did not exist 200 years ago.

(4)  So-called “earth-friendly” electricity generation from wind and solar in the few healthy and wealthy countries of Germany, Australia, USA, Great Britain, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and all of the EU, representing about 12% of the eight billion of the world’s population, only generate occasional electricity from breezes and sunshine. Again, those “renewables” CANNOT make any products or transportation fuels demanded by modern civilizations.

The elephant in the room that the energy policymakers refuse to discuss is that crude oil is the foundation of our materialistic society, as it is the basis of all products and fuels demanded by the 8 billion now on this planet.

Ridding the world of raw crude oil before we have a replacement to produce the oil derivatives currently manufactured from crude oil, we’re back to the 1800s. Without fossil fuels, the greatest threat to the world’s population could be the future to exist and prosper without those oil derivatives that are currently supporting more than 6,000 products for the 8 billion on this planet.

Looking back at the history of the petroleum industry, it illustrates that the black, cruddy-looking crude oil was virtually useless unless it could be manufactured (refining) into oil derivatives, which are now the basis of chemical products, such as plastics, solvents and medications, that are essential for supporting modern lifestyles.

Energy policymakers should know that there is no need to over-regulate the ‘suppliers of fossil fuels when there is no replacement to meet the supply chain of product ‘demands’ of our materialistic world. It’s obvious that energy policies are the real existential threat to billions across our planet.

Today, we have more than 50,000 merchant ships, more than 20,000 commercial aircraft,and more than 50,000 military aircraftthat use fuel manufactured from crude oil. The fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of jets moving people and products, the merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space programs are also dependent on what can be manufactured from crude oil.

In California, the fourth-largest economy in the world, energy policymakers are proud that California has increased imports of crude oil from 5 percent in 1992 to almost 60 percent of total consumption today. Today, California’s 9 International airports, 41 military airports, and 3 of the largest shipping ports in the world are all controlled by foreign oil.

If the United States energy policymakers follow California’s ‘so-called successes’ in continuing to reduce crude oil production, the country will have to continue increasing its reliance on foreign countries to meet America’s economic demands for products and transportation fuels!

Our so-called “energy leaders” are oblivious to the fact that China is coming to the rescue with Asia’s 88 new refineries for manufactured oil derivatives that are the basis of most every product being used by mankind,  as well as the manufactured fuels used by every transportation infrastructure, and the military.

When government mandates and financial subsidies pick winners and losers, citizens start to suffer. Since subsidies come from all of us, maybe we should be careful how we use them. It turns out that most of the subsidies go to foreign businesses, many of which support the exploitation of slave labor to mine for the “green” minerals and metals to produce windmills, solar panels, and EV batteries, as well as the infliction of environmental degradation to “their” landscapes just to reinforce mandated EV’s, wind turbines, and solar panels in “our backyards.”

In the meantime, the so-called “green movement” continues to increase the world’s demands for crude oil and all the products and fuels manufactured from crude oil that renewables are unable to manufacture.

This article originally appeared at America Out Loud

Government-enabled Nuclear: Trump Demures

Commercial nuclear power (fission) was a government-created industry in the 1950s that continues to hold false promise today. It is by far the most complicated, expensive, and fraught way to boil water.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr. 

Commercial nuclear power (fission) was a government-created industry in the 1950s that continues to hold false promise today. It is by far the most complicated, expensive, and fraught way to boil water.

President Trump seems to recognize the falsity of new nuclear capacity as the Hail Mary of the futile, false goal of “Net Zero”. As reported by E&E News:

Former President Donald Trump expressed significant reservations over American nuclear energy in his recent appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, a departure from other Republicans who have entirely backed the zero-carbon energy source.

Trump told Joe Rogan in an interview released Friday that he thought projects to build more of the large nuclear reactors currently on the grid, while “very clean,” have a tendency to be complex and to go over budget. He also expressed concern over the energy source’s safety implications.

“They get too big, and too complex and too expensive,” Trump said of U.S. nuclear reactors. “I think there’s a little danger in nuclear.”

Yes! Trump is on to something and not just kowtowing to the Republican Party and nuclear lobby. All nuclear subsidies should cease, and the Price Anderson Act should be repealed to allow each nuclear reactor to be evaluated for continued safe operation.

If a particular unit is not insurable on the private market, then the owner must determine whether to risk its own capital on ongoing operation. Perhaps a few of America’s 94 reactors (avg. age: 43 years) will be decommissioned in the process. That is for the market, the free market, to decide.

West Midlands town in uproar over ‘noisy’ £2.5m heat pump

A West Midlands town has been torn apart by a “humming noise” from a £2.5m heat pump installed by a local college without planning permission.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Kolk

A West Midlands town has been torn apart by a “humming noise” from a £2.5m heat pump installed by a local college without planning permission.

Dudley College of Technology rushed through construction work on its net zero project amid fears it would lose government funding.

Neighbours said they could be forced out of their homes due to the “undesirable” drone emitted from the system. Residents also expressed concern over the impact on local wildlife.

But despite the illegal installation, the college has gained retrospective permission from Dudley Council’s planning committee for the scheme. It means the college – which was forced to apologise for breaking planning rules – does not have to tear down the system.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/net-zero/dudley-west-midlands-in-uproar-noisy-heat-pump

It’s not surprising that the Planning Committee has given retrospective permission – where Net Zero is concerned, the interests of ordinary people are of no concern.

But the interesting comment came in this paragraph:

How many more millions of taxpayer money are being wasted on other projects like this up and down the country?

BRICS’ Kazan Declaration Trumps COP29 Climate Blather

Gathering in the Russian city of Kazan and hosted by that country’s “alienated and sanctioned” leader Vladimir Putin, the heads of some of the world’s most powerful nations made clear that the so-called climate emergency was a secondary priority for them.

From Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj

Gathering in the Russian city of Kazan and hosted by that country’s “alienated and sanctioned” leader Vladimir Putin, the heads of some of the world’s most powerful nations made clear that the so-called climate emergency was a secondary priority for them.

Attendees of the 16th annual BRICS summit represented more than 45% of the global population and 35% of global gross domestic product and included representatives of Saudi Arabia, China, India, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates.

The Kazan declaration they signed builds upon their already strong economic and diplomatic ties under the BRICS framework established in 2009 and expanded since then. However, most mainstream media didn’t notice—or intentionally underreported—that the core BRICS countries – including India, China and Russia – have openly declared that their domestic energy needs and economic wellbeing will take precedence over international climate agreements like the Paris Accords and “net zero” initiatives.

Interestingly, powerful leaders from these BRICS countries—such as China’s Xi Jinping and India’s Narendra Modi—are absent this week from the ongoing COP29 – the U.N.’s annual climate gathering. Only a third of the way through the 11-day COP29, the 80-person Argentinian delegation was called home, adding to the notion that the U.N. summit is little more than an overblown gabfest that produces nothing of substance.

“The departure of Argentina from the global climate talks COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, adds to concerns about the global climate fight, following the reelection of climate crisis sceptic Donald Trump, reported Sky News.

In hindsight, the meeting at Kazan could be seen as a foretelling of such doubts about the standing of the popular climate narrative. However, CNBC’s summary of the event—which supposedly lists key takeaways—completely ignored this critical aspect, despite representing a considerable portion of the declaration’s wording.

The mainstream media was silent as their “green” fantasy was disintegrating right in front of their eyes at Kazan.

A superficial glance at the Kazan agreement would lead one to believe that the BRICS consortium stands with the global climate movement and committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the energy and transportation sectors.

For instance, there are laudatory words about the Paris agreement, noting a “critical need for active climate adaptation projects.”

However, a closer look reveals that these nations—many of them still early in their development as modern societies—are in no mood to compromise on their national energy security and the use of fossil fuels.

At the heart of the declaration lies a fundamental truth that the Western climate industrial complex often refuses to recognize: Access to affordable and reliable energy and economic development cannot be sacrificed at the altar of “decarbonization” if people are to thrive.

The Kazan declaration’s emphasis on “technological neutrality” is particularly telling. By explicitly endorsing the use of “all available fuels, energy sources and technologies,” including fossil fuels with abatement technologies, BRICS nations have effectively rejected the notion of a rapid phase-out of conventional energy sources.

The declaration says that “energy security, access and energy transitions are important and need to be balanced …” In other words—in a style similar to that of the original Nationally Determined Contribution documents of India in 2017—domestic energy needs will be prioritized ahead of emission reductions.

It also calls for an uninterrupted energy supply chain, underscoring the importance of affordable energy – something that only fossil fuels can provide to countries with high poverty rates.

The declaration notes the “necessity for resilient global supply chains and stable, predictable energy demand in order to provide universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy sources as well as to ensure national, global and regional energy security.”

Directly challenging the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, the Kazan statement labels such levies as “unilateral, punitive and discriminatory protectionist measures.” This is a rejection of the EU’s attempt to export its climate policies through trade.

Most of the components for solar energy systems come from China, which produces 80% of the globe’s solar panels. Because coal still dominates the Chinese energy mix, Western nations buying Chinese solar panels are effectively outsourcing their carbon dioxide emissions while claiming progress toward net-zero goals. It is all illogical.

The BRICS leaders emphasize that their immediate goals — poverty eradication, infrastructure development, and economic expansion — require a secure and stable energy supply.

The Kazan declaration isn’t just a political statement; it signals a new era in global climate-energy politics. Emerging economies will no longer be distracted from their pursuit of prosperity and are departing from the currently dominant U.N. climate frameworks.

At some point, the legacy media will wake up – or not.

This commentary was first published at BizPac Review on November 15, 2024.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

New Study: Greenland Cooled by -0.11°C From 2000-2019 – Including All Ice Free and Ice-Covered Areas

Any 21st century ice melt across Greenland cannot be due to an accelerated warming trend, as the island as a whole has been cooling since the 1990s.

From NoTrickZone

By Kenneth Richard

Any 21st century ice melt across Greenland cannot be due to an accelerated warming trend, as the island as a whole has been cooling since the 1990s.

New research analyzes two decades of Greenland land surface temperature (LST) data. Contrary to the popular narrative of a significant warming trend, Greenland has instead cooled from 2000-2019 at a rate of -0.055°C per decade.

Southern Greenland also cooled from 1958-2001, suggesting the region has been cooling for over 60 years.

Any recent ice melt in Greenland thus cannot be due to surface warming, as LSTs have undergone a cooling trend in both ice free and ice-covered areas.

Image Source: Pongsiri et al., 2024

Reflections on Claims about Coral Cover (Part 1)

The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) put out a media release earlier today claiming to have scientifically documented changes in coral cover for the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef, particularly in the vicinity of Lizard Island.

From Jennifer Marohasy

By jennifer

The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) put out a media release earlier today claiming to have scientifically documented changes in coral cover for the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef, particularly in the vicinity of Lizard Island.   Claims include that:

The losses of coral we’ve recorded so far are significant. Despite these losses, coral cover on most reefs is at moderate levels of between 10 and 30%.

In fact, the method used to survey the corals makes it impossible to determine whether the loss is statistically significance or not, and the surveys were only of the reef perimeters, specifically avoiding habitats with higher levels of coral cover including the reef crest.  So, claims that coral cover is between 10 and 30% really needs to be qualified.

It is apparent from this photograph that the survey will be of the perimeter where the coral is at a depth of about 7 metres, avoiding the adjacent shallower reef crest that at John Brewer Reef had more than 100% coral cover at the time of this tweet.

Many textbooks have been written about the type of survey needed to know if there is a statistically significant change in some aspect of the distribution and abundance of an organism.  This could be the population of a city, or even the extent of coral at the Great Barrier Reef.   Knowing the distribution and abundance of organisms and how this might change over time is fundamental to understanding the world around us.  It is fundamental to the biological sciences.

Rarely is it possible to count every person or every coral.  Instead, scientists rely on samples that must be representative of the entire population of interest, and samples must be large enough to generate meaningful data that gives unbiased results.

A population will always include some natural variability and knowing how this is distributed in space and time is important before any conclusions are drawn about the significance of a perceived increase or deterioration, for example, in the corals.

Importantly, in order to be able to quantify statistical significance the data needs to be gathered as an actual count.  By which I mean the number of corals needs to be counted per unit area, and given the extent to which coral cover changes naturally with habitat it is important that the survey method distinguishes between the different habitats at a reef.

Of concern, the long-term monitoring being undertaken by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) of coral cover is by way of perimeter surveys that do not include, for example, the reef crest that is often the habitat with the highest coral cover.  This is the equivalent of claiming to know how the population of a city has changed but never actually going into the central business district (CBD) or even the inner-city suburbs or industrial area.  The AIMS surveys that have been reported upon in the media today are surveys of only the reef perimeter, which is the equivalent of skirting around the outer suburbs of a city and from this limited information having an opinion about how the population of a city might have changed.

It is also very important to note that the data is not collected as an actual count.   Rather AIMS coral cover data is categorical data, with the survey collected by towing a person behind a boat and noting whether the extent of the coral cover falls into one of the following categories:  0-10%, 10-30%, 30-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%.

These categories have a very large range, up to 25%.   It doesn’t matter how many surveys are undertaken, given the way the data is collected it is impossible to calculate average coral cover.   It follows that it will be impossible to know how average coral cover changes.

Because the AIMS coral cover data is categorical data it is not possible to calculate a standard error or any other such statistic. Calculating an uncertainty value, for example a standard error, depends on knowing the sample mean.   The method used by AIMS precludes this, it is therefore not possible to draw any conclusions about the statistical significance of the recent survey results.

There has been very significant bleaching and morality particularly of branching Acropora at many coral reefs this last year, with this photograph taken of recently dead coral (all brown and algal infested) across the bay from where I live. 

The Guardian is Flat Wrong About Blaming Climate for Extreme Weather

On Monday November 18, The Guardian published an “explainer” piece titled “How do we know that the climate crisis is to blame for extreme weather?” This is false. Actual data on extreme weather does not support their claim, and the claim is mostly based on flawed “attribution studies.”

BESTPIX – CHICAGO, IL – JUNE 12: Lightning strikes the Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) in downtown on June 12, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois. A massive storm system with heavy rain, high winds, hail and possible tornadoes is expected to move into Illinois and much of the central part of the Midwest today. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Fron ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

On Monday November 18, The Guardian published an “explainer” piece titled “How do we know that the climate crisis is to blame for extreme weather?” This is false. Actual data on extreme weather does not support their claim, and the claim is mostly based on flawed “attribution studies.”

The narrative that severe weather events are worsening due to climate change has become a mainstay in today’s media. However, a closer look at the data and the science behind these claims often reveals inconsistencies that should give us pause. Attribution studies, which are widely used to link specific extreme weather events to climate change, frequently lack rigorous peer review and are published hastily to garner headlines, raising significant concerns about their reliability.

Attribution studies work by using climate models to simulate two different worlds: one influenced by human-caused climate change and another without it. These models then assess the likelihood of extreme weather events in each world. Yet the validity of such studies is only as good as the models and assumptions underpinning them. This methodology is prone to overestimating risks because climate models are often reflecting overheated worst-case scenarios rather than actual observations.

Moreover, these studies are often published without proper peer review. Climate Realism has documented how media outlets run stories based on these model-driven studies, ignoring real-world data that often contradicts the alarming conclusions. For example, articles frequently cite reports that heatwaves, floods, or hurricanes are “worsening” without disclosing that these claims rely on theoretical simulations rather than measured evidence.

Empirical data does not support claims of worsening severe weather. In fact, the long-term trends for many extreme weather events have remained stable or even declined. According to Climate at a Glance, heatwaves in the United States were most severe in the 1930s, with temperatures and frequency outstripping recent records. The number of strong hurricanes making landfall in the United States has not increased either. The country even experienced a record 12-year lull in major hurricanes between 2005 and 2017.

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

Mass media plays a big role in how the public perceives climate and weather. Unfortunately, they have a well-documented tendency to sensationalize weather events and uncritically promote alarming narratives. An example from Climate Realism shows how news outlets linked severe flooding in Dubai to climate change, based entirely on speculative attribution claims. This type of reporting not only skews public understanding but also undermines scientific credibility.

Journalists often rush to blame every unusual weather pattern on climate change, frequently citing studies that rely more on models than actual historical weather data. In doing so, they skip the due diligence required to present a balanced view. They rarely report when data contradicts the narrative of intensifying extreme weather, which fosters an atmosphere of unnecessary panic and misinformation.

The media’s role in perpetuating climate alarmism cannot be overstated. By favoring sensational headlines over fact-checked reporting, they fail to uphold their responsibility to inform the public accurately. Instead of scrutinizing the limitations and assumptions of attribution studies, the media often present speculative findings as settled science. This lack of due diligence not only misguides policy discussions but also erodes trust in legitimate climate research. In the case of The Guardian, Climate Realism has documented dozens of instances of such fact-free sensationalism.

In an era where facts should guide action, it is crucial for journalists and media outlets to prioritize accuracy and depth over sensationalism. Only then can we have a rational, data-driven conversation about climate and extreme weather—one that recognizes uncertainties and avoids the pitfalls of media fear-mongering over unsupportable climate claims.