Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Vauxhall is planning to shut its Luton van-making factory in a move that puts 1,100 jobs at risk, as net zero rules force it to curtail sales of petrol vehicles.
Stellantis, the car giant behind Vauxhall, Peugeot, Fiat and Citroën, said it would focus investments on its Ellesmere Port factory in Cheshire.
It said it was taking the decision “in the context of the ZEV mandate”, referring to electric car sales targets that carmakers have criticised as overly tough.
Carlos Tavares, chief executive of Stellantis, launched a “strategic review” of its UK operations this year, saying the ZEV mandate was making Britain a “very difficult market”.
Maria Grazia Davino, the company’s former UK managing director, had warned that the company could close plants if the Government does not relax electric vehicle targets.
Car companies face heavy fines if they do not hit targets that require 22pc of their sales to come from EVs this year, rising to 80pc in 2030. Labour has also vowed to reinstate the 2030 ban on petrol cars, which had been pushed back to 2035 by Rishi Sunak.
Stellantis have been warning for months that this would happen, saying that they were not prepared to sell petrol/diesel vehicles at a loss, because of ZEV fines.
The Carbon Brief (TCB) recently put an interactive web page online titled: Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the world. However, the web page gives a false impression that TCB is using actual data showing how climate change is affecting severe weather. It is not. Instead, TCB relies heavily on so-called “attribution studies” which use climate model simulations and estimates. Output from climate models is not the same as actual data, which debunks TCB’s webpage.
The Carbon Brief (TCB) recently put an interactive web page online titled: Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the world. However, the web page gives a false impression that TCB is using actual data showing how climate change is affecting severe weather. It is not. Instead, TCB relies heavily on so-called “attribution studies” which use climate model simulations and estimates. Output from climate models is not the same as actual data, which debunks TCB’s webpage.
TCB’s interactive feature page on attribution studies presents a comprehensive overview of “attribution” research linking climate change to extreme weather events. While the compilation is extensive, it is essential to approach such narratives with a critical eye, especially when considering the broader context of severe weather trends and the methodologies employed in these studies.
Attribution studies aim to determine the extent to which claimed human-induced climate change influences specific weather events. These studies often utilize climate models to compare real-world scenarios with hypothetical situations devoid of the models (modelers) assumed estimates of human impact. The reliability of these models is unverifiable and to the extent their outputs have been tested against real world data and historical events and trends, they have failed. As highlighted by Climate At A Glance, climate models have historically exhibited significant discrepancies when compared to observed temperature data, raising questions about their predictive accuracy.
Contrary to the prevalent narrative, empirical data does not support the claim that severe weather events are becoming more frequent or intense. For instance, Climate Realismpoints out that despite increased media coverage, data indicates no significant upward trend in the frequency or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, or floods over the past several decades. As discussed in several Climate at a Glance papers, data shows floods, hurricanes, instances of extreme heat or cold, tornadoes, and wildfires have not increased over the past century, much less over the past 30 years. This strongly suggests that the perception of worsening weather may be more attributable to heightened awareness, reporting, and the mainstream media’s uncritical promotion of attribution studies themselves, rather than actual changes in weather patterns.
The perception of escalating severe weather is often amplified by media coverage and technological advancements. In a 2011 article on Watts Up With That, it was noted that the proliferation of instant communication tools and 24/7 news cycles has led to more immediate and widespread reporting of weather events. A follow up article in 2017, Reporting bias and the “increase” in weather events in the US, noted the same issues.
This increased visibility can create a false impression of rising frequency and severity, even when statistical data demonstrates no such trends.
Attribution studies rely on climate models to simulate scenarios with and without estimates of human influence. However, these models are inherently limited by the assumptions and parameters set by researchers. The main problem is that attribution models, and the studies generated using them, assume what they are attempting to prove. Attribution studies start with the assumption that for any extreme weather event being “modeled,” climate change has affected, impacted, or caused it, the only question being how much influence climate change has had. As discussed on Climate At A Glance, the fallibility of climate models is evident in their inability to accurately replicate observed climate patterns, casting doubt on their utility in attribution studies.
While TCB’s interactive page on attribution studies offers some insights into ongoing climate research, it’s important to discern that what they are presenting is not rooted in actual data, but in computer model output.
Actual empirical data does not support the narrative of increasing numbers of severe weather events or increasing severity of such events, and the methodologies employed in attribution studies have notable failures and bias. Moreover, the amplified media perception of worsening weather is often a byproduct of enhanced reporting capabilities rather than actual climatic changes. As such, TCB does a grave disservice to readers by not addressing these issues and limitations, and by falsely presenting model outcomes as fact.
The media really has lost its collective mind over so-called “Storm Bert”.
Even the normally level-headed Eamonn Holmes on GB News:
He made a comment about COP29, noting that people still don’t seem to have made the link between climate change and extreme weather.
Then the naive reporter in Pontypridd described the floods as “unprecedented”, (where on Earth do they get these useless reporters from?). He then went on to mention that the waters were 5cm deep when the river broke its banks – yes, you heard that right, 5cm, a whole 2 inches! And, by the time he got there, he said, the emergency shelters set up had already been closed because they were not needed.
We then had a soppy weathergirl on, explaining how these storms are getting wetter because of global warming.
Probably the silliest comment of all was that storms like Bert and the 1987 storm were becoming more frequent! Are they seriously conflating Bert, which had winds of about 40 mph at most away from exposed coasts, with the Great Storm of 1987?
Meanwhile, the BBC before and after photos showed how a riverside park in Cardiff was “engulfed in water”. A closer look at those goal posts, however, confirmed that the aforesaid floods were no more than an ankle-deep puddle.
Unsurprisingly the facts tell a completely different story – that Bert was no more than the sort of weather we get every year, something most of the commenters seem to have realised, even if the presenters did not.
According to the BBC, the worst affected area was S Wales and SW England, with rainfall totals of around 160 to 170mm of rain over the two days of the storm. This led to the usual “month’s worth of rain” nonsense.
However, these amounts were all in upland areas in S Wales and Dartmoor, where rainfall is typically much heavier. White Barrow, for instance, is at an altitude of 486m.
But taking the region of SW England & S Wales as a whole, rainfall on Saturday totalled 29.66mm, with another 17.42mm the next day.
The KNMI chart below only goes to March 2022, but it is crystal clear that a daily total of 29mm is not in any way exceptional. In all, there have been 40 days with 29mm or more since 1931. The wettest day was in 1969, when 57.9mm fell, and the graph clearly gives the lie to the Met Office’s assertion that storms are carrying more rainfall now.
Most storms, of course, don’t drop all their rain neatly in a single calendar day. The 2-day total from Bert was 47mm, an amount often exceeded in the past.
Far from the rainfall being extraordinary, the flooding was undoubtedly exacerbated by the melting of the heavy snow which fell a few days earlier. Given that snow is supposedly a thing of the past, these sort of floods should be less of a problem in future. I wonder why the Met Office forgot to mention that?
There is an interesting comparison with November 1931, when 50.5mm fell on the 3rd in the region. This is the monthly report:
Totals of 244mm in the Brecons, nearly all within 36 hours, were considerable higher than the 174mm that fell last weekend.
The flooding was serious, with Derwentwater and Bassenthwaite joining together.
As well as the South West, the North West was also severely hit, suggesting a much bigger storm footprint.
Silly Names
More than once, I came across comments in the media about Storm Dennis, which hit the same area of Wales in 2020. The message was clear – these storms must be getting more frequent.
I think this sums up exactly why the Met Office started naming storms. They wanted storms to remain in the public memory, in order to perpetuate the myth.
And what better way than to give every one a name.
Climate scientist/activist Joyce Kimutai gave a frank assessment of the just completed two-week UN climate conference of parties (COP 29) on social media. Hers is a refreshing take in comparison to the whining of the developing (statist) countries seeking handouts and the glass-one-eighth-full newspaper reporting from the mainstream media.
Climate scientist/activist Joyce Kimutai gave a frank assessment of the just completed two-week UN climate conference of parties (COP 29) on social media. Hers is a refreshing take in comparison to the whining of the developing (statist) countries seeking handouts and the glass-one-eighth-full newspaper reporting from the mainstream media. She began:
Now, as I recover from the exhaustion of the past weeks, I find myself sitting on my couch, sipping sweet Kenyan tea, while reflecting on the outcomes of COP29.
As the climate crisis deepens, multilateralism is weakening, leaving vulnerable communities at the center of geopolitical tensions. The $300 billion commitment is both insignificant and shameful in the grand scheme of addressing the climate emergency.
I participated in numerous negotiation and coordination sessions, as well as side events. One side event focused on the need to improve scenarios to better represent an equitable world. Another explored synergies between the planned IPCC report on adaptation guidelines, indicators, and metrics and the ongoing work under the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) . In all these discussions, I gave my absolute best.
As for the outcomes, they left much to be desired. The principles of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement call for developed countries to take the lead in reducing emissions and providing financial, technological, and capacity-building support to developing nations. This is essential to foster international cooperation and partnerships in addressing the climate crisis. However, Annex I (developed) countries appear unwilling to fully honor these obligations.
Instead, they argue that wealthier developing countries, such as China and the Gulf states, should contribute to climate finance and support other developing nations, due to their current emissions. These countries, in turn, reject this notion, emphasizing that Annex I nations have failed to lead while disregarding their historical responsibility for the climate crisis. This deep disagreement fuels division. Meanwhile, at the heart of this stalemate are vulnerable communities bearing the brunt of escalating climate impacts and nations, particularly in Africa, drowning in debt as they attempt to address the worsening crisis.
And then came the dramatic end. In a last-minute standoff, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) staged a premature walkout, demanding clarity on their share. Sadly, they lost. We, the Non-Annex I countries, lost. The Annex I countries got their way. To make matters worse, the COP Presidency controversially wielded the gavel to push the decision through, ignoring requests for the floor. It was, quite frankly, an “Animal Farm” moment.
What did you expect? And now, is it back to the science to qualify the alarm?
Elsewhere, Kimutai stated: “I often question myself whether it’s worth attending COP, and my answer is always the same: giving up and letting them win is not an option.” Let who win? What about consumers and taxpayers and the land/seascape spared of energy sprawl from wind, solar, and batteries? Is human betterment the standard, or your preconceived ideas about CO2 as the enemy, not the friend?
Fundamental components of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm fail molecular chemistry.
According to a new study, the notion that we can and must reduce atmospheric CO2 so as to avoid climate catastrophe (e.g., runaway global warming or ocean acidification) does not withstand probing academic scrutiny.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a mitigation strategy proposing to sequester CO2 underground to reduce emissions to “net zero” by 2050. The practice is poised to cost tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decades. New analysis suggests high or ambitious CCS scenarios are presumed to mitigate about half of today’s emissions by 2050. But these economically draconian CCS scenarios are projected to cost US$30 trillion more than those that only mitigate about one-tenth of today’s emissions. Either way, the costs of CCS are astronomical.
But can CCS actually do what is intended and reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Chemistry says no, CCS “will not reduce the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at all.”
“The crux of the issue is that, unlike photosynthesis by plants, perfect sequestration of CO2 will no magically release the O2 that has effectively been ‘sequestered’ in the CO2 and H2O molecules produced by combustion.”
“If the fuel was made of pure carbon, then the net result in the composition of the atmosphere would be a slight reduction in the O2 concentration…and a slight concomitant increase in the CO2 concentration due to the slight shrinking of the denominator.”
Regarding the alarmist “ocean acidification” narrative, the modern trend of rising atmospheric CO2 is assumed to be driving changes in pH levels. However, the chemical basis for this narrative is dubious.
Using the stoichiometric combustion equation, we learn that for every 1 ppm of CO2 increase due to burning fossil fuels, the O2 concentrations decrease by about 2.15 ppm. (For example, over a 20-year period, CO2 increases by 50 ppm as the O2 declines by ~130 ppm.) But this conceptualization engenders fundamental questions for the paradigm that says humans drive changes in the oceans’ pH levels.
“If the reduction in the atmospheric O2 concentration is directly related to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, then how can there be enough absorption of CO2 by the oceans to cause ocean acidification, especially since the oceans are highly buffered chemically?”
“If the observed reduction in the atmospheric O2 is accounted for by the observed increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, as expected as a result of combustion, then where does the extra CO2 come from that can cause ocean acidification?”
These are just a few of the many other chemistry-based challenges to the AGW narrative described in the paper. It is well worth a read.
It’s not even summer and the Australian grid is having heart palpitations.
The Blob are in concert — blackouts might be at hand, and they want us to blame the heat (it’s code for climate change). Let’s get a grip, we’re only talking about a Sydney forecast of 33°C (all of 91F).
It’s not even summer and the Australian grid is having heart palpitations.
The Blob are in concert — blackouts might be at hand, and they want us to blame the heat (it’s code for climate change). Let’s get a grip, we’re only talking about a Sydney forecast of 33°C (all of 91F).
For most of the last week, the AEMO (Australia Energy Market Operator) has been flashing red lights and ringing the LOR3 bell. That means they’ve been forecasting a full Level 3 Lack of Reserve, which means they can see blackouts coming. A level 3 is the most serious warning alarm. Not only is there no reserve power available if something goes wrong, there’s not even enough power for normal operations.
A week ago the AEMO saw blackouts coming for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday — but by hook or by crook with finagling, they’ve got enough promised power now to turn off the sirens, though the lights are still flashing. Think of this an emergency room visit where the heart attack didn’t quite happen today, and probably won’t happen tomorrow, but the patient needs to pay attention.
Quite often in the last few years the AEMO would issue a level 1 warning and forecast a few hundred megawatts of shortage for a couple of hours. But by yesterday morning, in forecasts for Wednesday’s mildly warm day they were looking down the barrel of a 1,700 MW shortage. The full emergency period was not just an hour or two long but started at 11:30am and ran right through to 7:30pm at night.
And of course, it’s old coal’s fault:
Discussion at WattClaritysuggest that Australia is running short of spare coal and gas plants to operate. It’s a combination of forced outages, unforced outages, and some maintenance taking longer than expected. Nearly one third of all thermal units bigger than 150MW in generation are out of action.
So geniuses, if a lack of coal causes blackouts, what’s going to happen when we shut down more coal?
Andrew Forrest’s Squadron Energy said the warning underscored the dangers of an energy system still largely reliant on coal.
“AEMO has confirmed that the combination of high temperatures across NSW and Queensland, along with coal plant outages will cause tight electricity supply forecasts in the coming days,” said Squadron boss Rob Wheals. “We know that Australia’s coal fleet is nearing the end of its economic and technical lifespan, with coal plant outages driving high price periods.”
There’s plenty more of that at Squadron Energy’s site, where they say ““Coal is killing affordability and reliability. Renewables are the answer.” The mystery is why even The Australian thought any of it was worth printing, except as a giggle.
Twenty years of Soviet style management is what is killing our grid
We got exactly what we paid for: Government subsidies to boost unreliable energy have, shock, created an unreliable grid. We used to have enough coal power so they could take a few units out for maintenance and it didn’t matter. But when we pay more for random generators, we drive reliable ones out of business. We then expect the owners to run vast finely tuned 500-ton machines faster and slower all the time to “fit in” with the wind and solar machines we don’t need. This reduces efficiency, which increases their costs, and no doubt the maintenance time. Then we kill off the long term prospects for the industry, call them stranded assets, and wonder why companies don’t value them, build new ones or fix up the old ones properly.
Crazy subsidies, make for crazy thinking, and then we get Squadron Energy telling us coal is killing affordability…
The Australian Grid is running close to the edge
The latest update suggests the level 3 alarm for Wednesday and Thursday has dropped to a level 2. The AEMO tell us the reserve requirement on Wednesday for our most populated state is 1,202 MW but, not so reassuringly, “the minimum capacity reserve is 0 MW”. That means, they think, that if everything works as expected, and the weather is not hotter than forecast, or more cloudy, or less windy, and nothing breaks, then the system will be just barely OK.
Usually the people in the control room like to have enough spare capacity on call, so if the biggest single generator trips out, the back up is there to keep the lights on. The minimum capacity reserve is not just a nice thing to have, its considered an essential part of normal operation. It’s the difference between the first world and the third world.
h/t David of Cooyal in Oz.
REFERENCES
AEMO notice 120894 contained the LOR3 1,731MW notice at 4:37am Monday. Later notice number 120946 updated the situation in NSW and number 120949 has cancelled the LOR3 in NSW for Thursday too. The AEMO have put out something like 1,000 notices in the last three weeks. It didn’t use to be this way.
“… Arguably, self-destruction was baked into “The Process” from the start. …”
Climate conferences are dying. How to save the world now?
This year’s U.N. climate change summit wore its contradictions and failings on its sleeve, prompting existential anxiety.
By Karl Mathiesen in BAKU, Azerbaijan
…
The mood on the plane was grim, and more than one of those on board must have been wondering: Are these United Nations climate summits doomed?
…
In the beginning
Arguably, self-destruction was baked into “The Process” from the start.
When countries were erecting modern climate diplomacy in 1991, Saudi Arabian negotiators insisted that, unlike most U.N. discussions, climate decisions must require consensus, rather than, say, a two-thirds majority.
Advising the Saudis and other Gulf states was Don Pearlman, a Reagan-era energy official and lobbyist for major American fossil fuel companies, whom the German magazine Der Spiegel dubbed the “High Priest of the Carbon Club” at the time.
He was advising the push to give every country a veto. And ever since, the Saudis and others have used it to obfuscate on issues large and small. Just days ago, they teamed with other conservative autocracies to block talks about gender inequality and climate change. That played out at COP29 as large emerging economies derailed attempts to seriously discuss cutting greenhouse emissions, insisting that rich countries first pony up the money to do so. Impotence and frustration with the Saudi delegation boiled over into shouting in the final 24 hours.
In fairness, consensus does add weight to every COP decision. But it has also undeniably slowed things down. There are many who want to ditch it. But doing so would, of course, require consensus.
Most of the online material about Don Pearlman is greens venting their frustration.
Vagueness is credo of High Priest of the Carbon Club
Every United Nations conference on global warming since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro – and there have been eight such…
Wed Dec 03 1997 – 00:00
Every United Nations conference on global warming since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro – and there have been eight such meetings so far – is populated by the same cast of characters. They haunt the corridors and the lobbies, buttonholing delegates to find out what’s happening and to put forward their points of view.
…
Not many people have heard of Mr Pearlman, though his influence has been enormous. He has never missed a meeting and is believed to have read every single line of well over 1,000 UN documents on climate change.
…
A profile in Der Spiegel during the 1995 First Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Change Convention in Berlin memorably described this publicity-shy lawyer as the “High Priest of the Carbon Club” and said his aim was to “ensure that climate protection negotiations end in the nevernever land of vague declarations.”
PEARLMAN, DONALD H. Donald H. Pearlman, age 69, formerly of Portland, Oregon died August 13 ,2005, at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC from complications arising out of lung cancer. Mr. Pearlman had a distinguished career in public service as the Executive Assistant to the Secretary of Energy and then of the Department of the Interior for over six years during the Reagan Administration. In this position he was responsible for the close oversight of significant and wide-ranging policy initiatives of those departments. When President Reagan left office in 1989, Mr. Pearlman became a partner in the Washington, DC, law firm of Patton, Boggs, where he established himself as a top expert in global climate change matters. He participated in numerous international conferences on that and related subjects. Prior to joining the Reagan Administration, Mr. Pearlman, a member of the Oregon State Bar, had served as a senior partner in the firm of Keane, Harper, Pearlman and Copeland in Portland. He joined the firm after clerking for a federal judge in Nevada, following his graduation from Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut. Mr. Pearlman graduated from Grant High School, in Portland, and then attended Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, graduating cum laude in economics. He is survived by his wife of 45 years, the former Shirley Block, his son, Bradley, of Seattle, his daughter, Stephanie Mennitt of Bristow, VA, 6 grandchildren and his brother, Gary, of Portland. The service will be held in Portland at 1 PM on Wednesday, August 17, at Ahavai Shalom Cemetery. Remembrances may be made to the American Cancer Society.
To plant trees in memory, please visit the Sympathy Store.
Published by The Oregonian on Aug. 17, 2005.
Who could have imagined? President Reagan and his team are still protecting us all from green communism, even from beyond the grave.
I believe we owe these gentlemen a big vote of thanks. Who knows what kind of horror show world we would be living in today, if Saudis hadn’t followed Pearlman’s advice and insisted on inserting those critical clauses into the COP charter, and if Pearlman hadn’t spent much of the last decade of his life providing his own brand of enrichment to the climate conference process.
Further evidence that surface temperatures across Greenland have been cooling for around 20 years has emerged with the recent publication of findings from a group of Thai scientists and mathematicians. Processing 31,464 satellite recording from 2000-2019 over the entire area, they found that the average temperature fell by 0.11°C. This is said to indicate a “non-significant change in LST [land surface temperature]”.
Further evidence that surface temperatures across Greenland have been cooling for around 20 years has emerged with the recent publication of findings from a group of Thai scientists and mathematicians. Processing 31,464 satellite recording from 2000-2019 over the entire area, they found that the average temperature fell by 0.11°C. This is said to indicate a “non-significant change in LST [land surface temperature]”. The latest evidence of actual cooling over a significant area of the Arctic will not be news in scientific circles since it backs up previous findings of recent temperature falls. But the information is of course kept out of the mainstream since it casts doubt on the key Net Zero scare about soaring sea levels caused by the catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
There are some crumbs of comfort for alarmists since the Thai authors found that the ice-free sub-regions of Greenland are warmer than the ice-covered sub regions. But perhaps not – the authors attributed it to “population density”. Urban heat yet again corrupting the temperature data, even in Greenland. The illustration below charts the temperature record for all areas of Greenland.
The World Economic Forum recently reported on a study that predicted a “total collapse” of the Greenland ice sheet within a few months. This suggestion is only slightly more ludicrous than the scares routinely published to induce mass psychosis in populations with the aim of promoting a collectivist command-and-control Net Zero solution. The recent farce around the COP in Baku showed the conspiracy operating in plain sight. Stop the developing word developing with hydrocarbons, then invent a number of fake scares such as island states disappearing beneath the waves. Everyone knows this and most of the other scares are false as scientists have shown on numerous occasions, but no matter. Invent some ridiculous composite figure – say $250 billion a year, or $1.3 billion by 2035 – then pretend your taxpayers can be rinsed even though the only country that could conceivably afford it is leaving the party in January.
All of this means that genuine attempts to explain the science around the climate changing are stuck in a ‘settled’ narrative hellhole. The corals can grow like topsy in record amounts on the Great Barrier Reef and the Arctic sea ice can show a small decade-long recovery. Meanwhile, mainstream media and politics prefer to take their cue from characters like ‘Jim’ Dale, who points out of the window and attributes every puff of wind to a human cause.
Nowhere is this lack of scientific inquiry more evident than at the two Poles of the Earth. Antarctica has barely warmed during 70 years of detailed observations, while the situation in the Arctic, as we can see, is complex and open to many interpretations. The Thai mathematicians stick mainly to their statistics and find “no evidence of warming over ice-free and ice-covered areas”. But they do note earlier work by a group of Japanese scientists (Matsumura et al. 2021) that suggested the Central Pacific El Niño Southern Oscillation teleconnection played a “key role” in recent summer Arctic climate change.
The Matsumura team found a recent slowdown in Greenland ice loss and warming. The El Niño role is also thought to have helped the recent overall Arctic sea ice recovery. Changes around Greenland can be attributed to “natural variability, rather than anthropogenic forcing”, note the scientists. “Most climate models were unable to reasonably simulate the unforced natural variability over Greenland,” they added.
As we can see, Antarctica is another difficult place to get a good scare going due to a decades-long lack of any warming. Fears of a ‘tipping point’ are often heard after natural melting and ice breaks in western Antarctica. But late last year, the Daily Sceptic highlighted a paper by a group of international scientists that found significant recent cooling across the entire area. The paper was published by the American Meteorological Society and it observed a 2°C fall in the 20 years to 2018. During the spring season, the fall was a massive 1.84°C every decade, while the winter reduction came in at 1.19°C over the same time period. As is usual when temperatures drop, the carbon dioxide blame game is laid aside and answers are sought in natural climate variations. In this case it was noted that temperatures in the eastern Pacific equatorial region had dropped over the last 20 years under review.
Again don’t expect the climate models to have much idea about what is happening in the real atmosphere. There is said to be “no robust agreement” among the models on the important sea temperatures driving the western Antarctica air temperature.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
From the University of Oxford and the Wellll….duhhhh! department comes this exercise in peer-reviewed futility.
In a new study, led by the University of Oxford’s Department of Physics and published November 18 in Nature, an international group of authors who developed the science behind net zero demonstrate that relying on ‘natural carbon sinks’ like forests and oceans to offset ongoing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use will not actually stop global warming.
Natural sinks play a vital role to moderate the impact of current emissions and draw down atmospheric CO2 concentrations after the date of net zero, stabilizing global temperatures. Yet governments and corporations are increasingly turning to them to offset emissions, rather than reducing fossil fuel use or developing more permanent CO2 disposal options. Emissions accounting rules encourage this by creating an apparent equivalence between fossil fuel emissions and drawdown of CO2 by some natural carbon sinks, meaning a country could appear to have ‘achieved net zero’ whilst still contributing to ongoing warming.
The authors call on governments and corporations to clarify how much they are counting on natural carbon sinks to meet their climate goals, as well as recognising the need for Geological Net Zero.
Geological Net Zero means balancing flows of carbon into and out of the solid Earth, with one tonne of CO2 committed to geological storage for every tonne still generated by any continued fossil fuel use. Given the cost and challenges of permanent geological CO2 storage, achieving Geological Net Zero will require a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use.
The authors stress the importance of protecting and maintaining natural carbon sinks while accepting that doing so cannot compensate for ongoing fossil fuel use. Total historical CO2 emissions determine how much a country or company has contributed to the global need for ongoing natural carbon sinks. A country like the UK, with large historical emissions and limited natural sinks, has implicitly committed other countries to maintain natural sinks for decades after UK emissions reach net zero. This is not currently addressed in climate talks.
Professor Myles Allen, of the University of Oxford’s Department of Physics, who led the study, summarises: “We are already counting on forests and oceans to mop up our past emissions, most of which came from burning stuff we dug out of the ground. We can’t expect them to compensate for future emissions as well. By mid-century, any carbon that still comes out of the ground will have to go back down, to permanent storage. That’s Geological Net Zero.”
Dr Glen Peters, of the CICERO Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway, a study co-author, says “Countries report both emissions and removals, but using all removals in climate targets is a recipe for continued warming. Natural carbon sinks currently clean up around half our annual emissions for free, but this ecosystem service must be kept separate from the fossil emissions driving climate change. Relabelling things will not stop global warming.”
Professor Kirsten Zickfeld of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, co-author and leader of one of the other 2009 net zero papers, says “It is a common assumption that removing carbon from the atmosphere to offset burning of fossil fuels is as effective as not burning fossil fuels in the first place. It is not. Offsetting continued fossil fuel use with carbon removal will not be effective if the removal is already being counted on as part of the natural carbon cycle and if the carbon is not permanently stored. Unless we can increase transparency in national Greenhouse gas reporting and target setting, offsets will become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.”
Study co-author Professor Jo House of the University of Bristol UK says: “Land is limited, we rely on it for food, nature, biodiversity, leisure, water storage, and so on. It cannot offset more than a portion of fossil emissions even now, probably less in future with worsening pressures on the biosphere such as population increase, fires, and drought. Giving carbon credits for natural processes that are happening anyway undermines trust in the whole idea of offsetting. We have to urgently protect natural carbon sinks, but there are more scientifically credible and equitable ways of doing this than relying on carbon offset markets.”
It was all an election-year head fake by New York Governor Kathy Hochul – and an all too obvious one.
Earlier this month the governor decided the nation’s first congestion tolls for motor vehicles will become a reality on January 5th for entering the lower half of Manhattan Island in New York City after being paused last summer by the governor during the heat of election season.
With the election passed, NY climate masochism continues apace
It was all an election-year head fake by New York Governor Kathy Hochul – and an all too obvious one.
Earlier this month the governor decided the nation’s first congestion tolls for motor vehicles will become a reality on January 5th for entering the lower half of Manhattan Island in New York City after being paused last summer by the governor during the heat of election season.
So much for this mendacious governor’s claim last June that she “cannot add another burden to working middle-class New Yorkers.”
In sum, congestion tolling is all about the money, combined with the pretension of reducing emissions to “fight climate change!” It was so from the very beginning of this more than five-year quest, as CFACT contended at the time.
Call it another nail in the Empire State’s climate coffin.
Congestion tolls were sold to the public to reduce vehicle traffic entering midtown and lower Manhattan to help cool the planet by some fraction of a quadrillionth degree – except they won’t. Rather, many of those vehicles will not disappear, but remain in motion to park in upper Manhattan and New Jersey, emitting carbon just the same. Reduced traffic in midtown and downtown neighborhoods, including Wall Street, will mostly shift to further jam the streets in Harlem, Washington Heights, the South Bronx and New Jersey.
Yet, impact studies on the congestion toll scheme downplay or ignore this traffic shift scenario, though it is a major concern of those in opposition.
New York State’s and New York City’s combined budgets exceed $350 billion annually, but it’s not enough for cash-greedy politicians who always want more. In this case, the new tolls on drivers of cars and trucks entering Manhattan will amount to nearly $1 billion in user taxes annually to finance billions more in debt for mass transit capital projects for subways, commuter railroads and buses.
The New York State Legislature in 2019 passed legislation that was signed by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo to authorize this first-in-the-nation congestion toll system, which then took five years to implement, more than twice the time it took to erect the Empire State Building. The scheduled commencement of the tolls was last June, until politics intervened.
The Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries, who represents part of Brooklyn, successfully lobbied Gov. Hochul to stop the new tolls from taking effect to boost the chances of his fellow Democrats to win more seats, flip the House majority, and make him Speaker.
Turns out, Democrats defeated two Republicans in suburban districts in the city’s metropolitan area and retained Democratic members in two other contested seats. Congressman Jeffries, however, will remain minority leader since the GOP gained seats elsewhere in the country and will remain the majority in the U.S. House. Oh, well.
Will the elections over—surprise!—the pause in congestion tolls is over, and will take effect after all. And, with the early January start, Gov. Hochul will avoid a possible effort by the incoming Trump administration to undo the toll project.
No one should be surprised at this transparent dishonestly to New York City metropolitan voters, who will pay congestion tolls six months after Gov. Hochul’s “pause”.
Toll rates formerly approved last week by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority include $9.00 for passenger cars entering Manhattan, which is lower than the $15.00 that was to go into effect last summer (but, of course, higher than the current zero dollars). Truck tolls will be more than double this amount. The nine-dollar fee will increase to $12.00 by 2028 and $15.00 by 2031. Considering Gov. Hochul’s flim-flam on this issue, expect those increases to hit much sooner, say, immediately following her expected re-election campaign in 2026.
Another punitive aspect of the city’s congestion tolls is they will be effective around the clock, albeit at lower rates during overnights and weekends when heavy commuter traffic dissipates. The congestion tolls in London and Stockholm, Sweden, for example, do not charge during these after-hours. There also is no exemption for non-emission electric vehicles, which further discredits the talking point that congestion tolls are about mitigating traffic or curtailing climate change. Rather, it’s another voracious cash grab.
Climate-change policies in New York, including congestion tolls, will continue to drive up the cost of living and employment. Absent repeal of such climate lunacy, thousands of New Yorkers will continue to pack-up and head for the exits to saner, more energy-efficient and affordable states.
You must be logged in to post a comment.