Snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)
THE planet’s “climate control knob” – CO2 – dumps a load of fresh global warming on the South African Savannah.
THE Guardian reports with no mention of “CLIMATE CHANGE”!?
ALAS, every organisation has rules and a code of conduct. The Guardian’s is easy…
HOT = CLIMATE
COLD = WEATHER
Spotted: giraffes in the snow
Antelope, rhinoceroses and elephants also photographed in icy conditions after late snowfall in South Africa
Animals more used to desert heat have been photographed enjoying the snow after a cold front brought snowfall to parts of South Africa over the weekend.
Giraffes, antelope, rhinoceroses and elephants were photographed in icy conditions around South Africa, in pictures shared widely on social media.
Kitty Viljoen captured elephants enjoying the snow in the Sneeuberg – which translates to Snow Mountain – on the Western Cape of South Africa, where snow set in late last week. She also photographed giraffes in snow in the Karoo semi-desert region.
Antelope on the Glen Harry Game reserve in Graaff-Reinet, Eastern Cape, were also pictured surrounded by icy vegetation.
Snowfall across parts of South Africa late last week prompted the department of transport to close roads across the Eastern Cape due to slippery conditions.
The snow also hit the Western Cape, where temperatures dropped below zero across parts of Cederberg, the Hex River Mountains and the Matroosberg Reserve.
A weather forecast for the weekend, produced by Snow Report South Africa, shows snowfalls in the Northern, Western and Eastern Cape, as well as in the state of Kwazulu-Natal, with some areas receiving more than 25cm of snow across three days.
Lesotho, which is an independent country surrounded by South Africa, was due to receive the heaviest covering of snow, with roughly two-thirds of the country predicted to receive snowfall.
Snowfalls are not infrequent across parts of South Africa during the winter, though this cold snap comes late in the season. In July, parts of the country were blanketed after several days of heavy snowfall.
The world has more natural carbon dioxide absorbers in the shape of trees than was thought, to the tune of an extra 2.2 million kilometers² relative to 1982.
A team of researchers from the University of Maryland, the State University of New York and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center has found that new global tree growth over the past 35 years has more than offset global tree cover losses, reports Phys.org.
In their paper published in the journal Nature, the group describes using satellite data to track forest growth and loss over the past 35 years and what they found by doing so.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenbergof the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Tony Abbott is right – Australia should quit the Paris Climate Treaty.China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia will ignore Paris. USA has already quit and Japan even withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty. Germany will fail to meet its obligations and Poland will not try very hard. France relies heavily on nuclear power and naturally supports imposing Paris handicaps on competitors.
And most of the rest of the world are just hanging in there hoping for a flood of cash from the climate compensation fund or from selling phony carbon credits.
Australia has huge coal, gas, oil and uranium resources. To export these, while we hobble our industries with windmill power, is insane.
PARIS Accord Based on Fraud
By Brendan Godwin
Weather Observer and General Meteorology Bureau of Meteorology Mawson Antarctic 1974
The Paris Accord is based on fraud. Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is essential for all life on earth. Without it we are all extinct.
There is nothing unusual happing with the globe’s temperatures. No unusual warming.
Our interglacial warm period peaked 8,000 years ago and we are cooling. We’ve come to the end of this interglacial and are about to enter the next ice age. Humans can do nothing to stop that.
The globe has no temperature control knob, it is impossible for humans to control the globe’s temperature.
CO2 does not produce warming. There’s not enough of it to do anything.
It is warming that produces CO2. It is impossible for the cause to be the effect.
CO2 has lagged temperature by 1,000 years for the past 1 mil years and it has never stopped the earth from entering an ice age, even when it was 4,000 ppm.
CO2 is the gas of life. We need more not less of it and we should be regulating for more not less emissions. It is needed to grow our food crops.
Paris is based on IPCC reports. The IPCC rely on their GCM models. None of the models rely on past climate history but rather a mathematical theory based on refuted, negated, fake and fraudulent science. They all incorporate:
A “human fingerprint” or THS (Tropical Hot Spot) on the earth’s climate that doesn’t exist. IPCC’s AR2 report was fraudulently altered to remove scientific reports that were negative of their GHE definition;
Lewis Fry Richardson’s flawed atmospheric model equation;
Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick graph in AR3;
Arrhenius’ flawed hypothesis of the greenhouse effect; Arrhenius invented heat from nothing.
The multiplier effect of water vapor feedback. The flawed CO2 increases water vapor hypothesis based on Arrhenius and the Charney report; From observations, water vapor is decreasing.
A corrupted peer review process.
Then back all this up by fraudulently altering the data to support the failed models that can’t even predict the last 30 years of hindsight. Read the rest of this entry »
AND, before the new-NASA-activists rewrote climate ‘science’, the National Aeronautics Space Agency boldly (and correctly) noted that “Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system” such as “clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness [have] the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.”
WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY FORCINGS OF THE EARTH SYSTEM?
The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.
Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.
However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.
Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or “aerosols”) would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.
Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth’s climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.
EXCESSIVE or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat is fundamental in driving the human CO2-induced global warming climate change narrative.
THE most popular climatic and weather-related events, as marketed by the Climate Crisis Industry, fall well within the bounds of natural variability. So, in order for such events to make the headlines, attract taxpayer funding for ‘research’, and advance the misanthropic, man-made climate change agenda, they must be accompanied by inflated language, an urgent tone, imagery of doom, and in many cases, fraudulent data.
IN this series we take an objective/sceptical look at ten of the more popular metrics used by warming alarmists to push the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) narrative, testing the veracity of the all-too-often wild and alarmist claims associated with each…
#3. OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
“Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era six hundred million years ago, with CO2 levels 4000% of what they are now. They are made of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) – and could not exist without substantial amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Unless the chemical properties of CaCO3 have changed, the corals [and crustaceans] will be just fine.” – Tony Heller
WITH a stubborn atmosphere failing to warm as predicted, another climate threat was needed to sustain the Climate Crisis industry and keep lazy reporters supplied with junk science to feed their catastrophic climate narrative.
ENTER “Ocean Acidification”!
SOUNDS scary right? From the onset, the term “ocean acidification” was deceptive by design. And the only valid ‘science’ in the pseudoscientific study of “Ocean Acidification” is the ‘science’ of scare-mongering.
OCEANS are alkaline. The correct scientific term for any pH change toward zero is “less alkaline”. Obviously not the scariest of descriptors to shock the public into belief.
“OCEAN ACIDIFICATION” was first referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, resulting in an explosion of journal articles, media reports and alarmist publications from environmental orgs. It has since gone viral, endorsed by scientists from numerous alarmist institutions including the Royal Society, the IPCC and NOAA who coined it “climate change’s evil twin” in a 2016 report.
A 2016 paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science put the issue of “ocean acidification” under the microscope, and found Scientists exaggerating the carbon dioxide threat to marine life…
Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research
“Ocean acidification” (OA), a change in seawater chemistry driven by increased uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans, has probably been the most-studied single topic in marine science in recent times. The majority of the literature on OA report negative effects of CO2 on organisms and conclude that OA will be detrimental to marine ecosystems. As is true across all of science, studies that report no effect of OA are typically more difficult to publish.
Excerpts from the paper:
Scientific or academic scepticism calls for critical scrutiny of research outputs before they are accepted as new knowledge (Merton, 1973). Duarte et al. (2014) stated that “…there is a perception that scientific skepticism has been abandoned or relaxed in many areas…” of marine science. They argue that OA is one such area, and conclude that there is, at best, weak evidence to support an OA-driven decline of calcifiers. Below, I raise some of the aspects of OA research to which I contend an insufficient level of organized scepticism has been applied (in some cases, also to the articles in this theme issue). I arrived at that conclusion after reading hundreds of articles on OA (including, to be fair, some that also raise these issues) and overseeing the peer-review process for the very large number of submissions to this themed issue. Importantly, and as Duarte et al. (2014) make clear, a retrospective application of scientific scepticism such as the one that follows could—and should—be applied to any piece of/body of research.
An “inherent bias” in scientific journals in favour of more calamitous predictions has excluded research showing that marine creatures are not damaged by ocean acidification, which is caused by the sea absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It has been dubbed the “evil twin of climate change” and hundreds of studies have claimed to show that it destroys coral reefs and other marine life by making it harder for them to develop shells or skeletons.
The review found that many studies had used flawed methods, subjecting marine creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never be experienced in real life.
Dr Browman, who is also principal research scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, found there had been huge increase in articles on ocean acidification in recent years, rising from five in 2005 to 600 last year.
He said that a handful of influential scientific journals and lobbying by international organisations had turned ocean acidification into a major issue.
“Such journals tend to publish doom and gloom stories . . . stated without equivocation,” he said. The bias in favour of doom-laden articles was partly the result of pressure on scientists to produce eye-catching work, he added.
“You won’t get a job unless you publish an article that is viewed as of significant importance to society. People often forget that scientists are people and have the same pressures on them and the same kind of human foibles. Some are driven by different things. They want to be prominent.”
ESSENTIAL reading and research for the ‘failing’ Guardian and New York Times respectively, who both launched new attack pieces on essential trace gas CO2, claiming this time that “Climate change [CO2] will make rice less nutritious”… 🤔
Before it was expropriated by the global warming/climate change movement, the term “Greenhouse Effect” referred to the effect of elevated carbon dioxide in greenhouses on crop chemistry. We know from greenhouse studies going back to the late 19th century that crop chemistry reflects the balance between soil chemistry, air chemistry, and light intensity. The important features of air chemistry are the availability of carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and of oxygen for plant respiration. The important features of soil chemistry are the availability of water, nitrates, phosphates, and minerals.
Greenhouse operations irrigation, air circulation to maintain air quality, heating for temperature control, the introduction of carbon dioxide to maintain elevated carbon dioxide levels of 1000 to 2000 parts per million for photosynthesis enrichment, and the availability of sufficient light for photosynthesis to occur. Photosynthesis enrichment improves crop yield and corresponding changes to soil chemistry must also be maintained to preserve the…