Advertisements

ANTARCTICA : It’s Time We Had That Talk

IT’S time for “the talk.” You know, the one we’ve been putting off because it’s “inconvenient”. That end-of-life conversation…

YEP! Antarctica, the ‘inconvenient’ pole, the naughty child, has been gaining ice mass and cooling for decades, despite a 20 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, and model predictions to the contrary.

2015 NASA Study

Guardian Report 2015

2017 Study

Antartica 2017 Ice mass gain study.png

From the abstract:

Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet impact sea-level rise as climate changes, but recent rates have been uncertain. Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a−1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a−1.

Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses | Journal of Glaciology | Cambridge Core

*

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

TOMORROW’S Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship

Screen Shot 2018-04-15 at 2.31.31 am.png

“THE belief that Global Warming is an existential threat, requiring urgent action is the product of a dumbed-down education system. THE belief that the world can painlessly transition away from fossil fuels is the product of an affluent and spoiled society.” – @JWSpry

*

VIV Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, with the grim reality of what life looks like under the totalitarian rule of the feel-good ‘Greens’. The “zero-emissions” zealots who want to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power…


 

Tomorrow’s Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship

Viv Forbes

GREENS hate individual freedom and private property. They dream of a centralised unelected global government, financed by taxes on developed nations and controlled by all the tentacles of the UN.

No longer is real pollution of our environment the main Green concern. The key slogan of the Green religion is “sustainable development”, with them defining what is sustainable.

Read the rest of this entry »


“Runaway Global Warming” Update: 48,000 Brits Dead After Worst Winter In 42 Years

After a brief mild spell, temperatures are set to dip again in April after the chilliest March in 21 years.

It is estimated that 20,275 Brits more than average died between December 1 and March

An additional 2,000 deaths more than average were expected due to cold conditions between March 23 and 31, this winter’s average death rates show.

Campaigners have called the deaths a “national tragedy” as cold weather victims fatalities could be prevented – especially in the elderly.

48,000 Brits dead after worst winter in 42 years | Daily Star

RIP the 48,000 Brits who have succumbed to the deadly cold of 2018.

A few things come to mind that piss-me-off owing to this tragic loss of life that was and is entirely avoidable, if not for a climate of CO2-centric-global-warming-zealotry from our most trusted ‘experts’:

WHO are the real “deniers”?

H/t @Carbongate

•••

See also :

Related:


“Saving The Planet” Update : Wind Turbines Destroy Local Farming Village And Bees 🐝

bees-on-honeycomb-2

Pic source – Beeline to Fury: Korean Farmers Declare War on Wind Power – For Wrecking Communities & Killing Bees – STOP THESE THINGS

CLIMATE alarmism’s primary objective is to scare you and policy makers into belief such that your taxes are effortlessly diverted, with little to no scrutiny, into research grants and green schemes and scams to supposedly stop bad weather by changing the temperature of the planet. Yet, no one can ever tell you by how much the temperature will change for each dollar spent. But alas, “Saving The Planet” is far more important than how your hard-earned money is spent, right?

CLIMATE research is paid for by you in the form of government grants. And, thanks to the system of pal peer-review, the most scary studies, prefaced by “anthropogenic” are given the green light, published in science journals with results interpreted by the compliant mainstream media and delivered back to you, to scare you even more such that you will happily donate more money to the scam research.

A google search with key words [climate research + climate change worse than we thought] illustrates 1,960,000 times in 0.45 seconds the effect that monopolistic or one-way funding has on published results…

Read the rest of this entry »


IT’S Official : Global Warming Alarmists Have No Credibility On Anything Climate Change

IN 2000, climate expert Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) assured us that…

Read the rest of this entry »


THE Greatest Threat To The Environment Is Not Affluence, It’s Poverty

haiti-v-dominican-republic

Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy? (99% of Haiti’s forests have been decimated, not for building materials, but for cooking fuel.)

WHEN the New York Times hired climate ‘Lukewarmer’ Bret Stephens as a contributing columnist in late April 2017, a collective cry of treasonous rage was heard throughout the deep-green environmental community. How dare anyone question whether we should accept absolutely every pronouncement of imminent eco-doom at face value?!

A snippet of the enraged reporting at the time from the usual suspects…

Climate Scientists Cancelling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens

By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 27, 2017 – 16:59

A New York Times defence of its hiring of a climate science denialist as a leading columnist is pushing high-profile climate scientists to cancel their subscriptions.

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, is the latest scientist to write publicly to the New York Times detailing his reasons for cancelling their subscriptions.

The NYT has hired former Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens as a writer and deputy editorial page editor.

Stephens wrote several columns while at the WSJ disparaging climate science and climate scientists, which he has collectively described as a “religion” while claiming rising temeperatures may be natural.

The NYT has been defending its decision publicly, saying that “millions of people” agree with Stephens on climate science and just because their readers don’t like his opinions, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard.

But the NYT defence has angered scientists.

Climate Scientists Canceling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens | DeSmogBlog

*

Huffington Post also joined the fun…

13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column

The Gray Lady’s newest hire used his debut column to defend his record of climate science denial.

29/04/2017 9:09 AM AEST
Alexander C. Kaufman Business & Environment Reporter, HuffPost

The New York Times took a lot of heat for hiring Bret Stephens, a former opinion writer at The Wall Street Journal, as its newest columnist. There was a lot to criticize. In his storied tenure on some of the most radically conservative pages in print journalism, Stephens accused Arabs of suffering a “disease of the mind,” railed against the Black Lives Matter movement and dismissed the rise of campus rape as an “imaginary enemy.”

But Stephens’ views on climate change ― namely that the jury is still out on whether burning fossil fuels is the chief cause ― drew the widest condemnation. ThinkProgress admonished the Gray Lady for hiring an “extreme climate denier,” and famed climatologist Michael Mann backed them up in the critique. DeSmog Blog, a site whose tagline reads “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” reported on a letter from climate scientists who are canceling their subscriptions to the newspaper over its latest hire. In These Times’ headline pointedly asked: “Why the Hell did the New York Times just hire a climate denier?”

Even the Times’ own reporters publicly questioned the hire.

13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column |HuffPo

(via WUWT)

*

STEPEHENS has recently written another reasoned column in the Times that has no doubt sent the eco-freaks into another predictable tailspin!

IN the Feb 8 opinion piece, “Apocalypse Not“, Stephens argues that a healthy environment is dependent on a healthy economy first, namely a capitalist one.

“The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.”

A view not shared by radical environmental groups who, including the UN, believe that in order to “save the planet” we must fundamentally change the current economic development model. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres Brussels February, 2015

FIGUERES even went so far as to affirm that Communism is the best model to fight global warming.

IN other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

GLOBAL Warming theory has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is has become as ideology. A new religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.

IN 2013, UN IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3 Dr. Ottmar Endenhoefer unleashed this stunning revelation…

 


HIGHLIGHTS from Stephens’ must read column in the times…

Apocalypse Not

Norman Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.CreditMicheline Pelletier/Sygma, via Getty Images

In 1919, the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines offered a dire warning for the future. “Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline.”

Nearly a century later, in July 2010, The Guardian ran a story with an ominous headline: “Lloyd’s adds its voice to dire ‘peak oil’ warnings.” Citing a report by the storied London insurer, the newspaper warned that businesses were “underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil,” including oil at $200 a barrel by 2013, a global supply crunch, and overall “economic chaos.”

I thought of these predictions on seeing the recent news that the United States is on the eve of breaking a 47-year production record by lifting more than 10 million barrels of crude a day. That’s roughly twice what the U.S. produced just a decade ago, and may even put us on track to overtake Saudi Arabia and even Russia as the world’s leading oil producer. As for global production, it rose by some 11 percent just since the Lloyd’s report, and by almost 200 percent since 1965.

Call it yet another case of Apocalypse Not.

—–

“In best-selling books and powerful speeches, Vogt argued that affluence is not our greatest achievement but our biggest problem,” Mann writes. “Our prosperity is temporary, he said, because it is based on taking more from than earth than it can give. If we continue, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale, perhaps including our extinction.”

In our own day, people like Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein have made careers saying more or less the same thing. This is a world where the clock is permanently set at two minutes to midnight, and where only a radical transformation of modern society (usually combining dramatic changes in personal behavior along with a heavy dose of state intervention) can save us.

—–

The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.

I fall in the Borlaugian camp. That’s worth noting because one of the more tedious criticisms by the environmental left is that people like me “don’t care about the environment.” But imputing bad faith, stupidity or greed is always a lousy argument. Even conservatives want their children to breathe.

—–

Borlaugians are environmentalists, too. They simply think the road to salvation lies not through making do with less, but rather through innovation and the conditions in which innovation tends to flourish, greater affluence and individual freedom most of all.

—–

If environmental alarmists ever wonder why more people haven’t come around to their way of thinking, it isn’t because people like me occasionally voice doubts in newspaper op-eds. It’s because too many past predictions of imminent disaster didn’t come to pass.

(Climatism bolds)

Read Stephens’ excellent piece in full here…

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click this link for brief info…TQ

Donate with PayPal

•••

Related :

Climate Science related :

 


CLAIM : World’s Coral Reefs Face New Peril From Beneath Within Decades

screen-shot-2018-02-24-at-5-30-30-am.png

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”!

FROM the onset, the term “ocean acidification” was deceptive by design. 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 singlem_cover 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.

(Climatism bolds)

Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research | ICES Journal of Marine Science | Oxford Academic 

From an article in The Times:

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.”

(Climatism bolds)

Scientists‘ are exaggerating carbon threat to marine life | The Times


ENTER climate alarmist in chief – Peter Hannam – Environment Editor at The Sydney Morning Herald / The Age, with his latest doomsday report peppered with the same old regurgitated buzz lines designed to scare you into belief; “tipping points”, “pressure on governments globally to act”, “catastrophic destruction”, “mass bleaching”…

World’s coral reefs face new peril from beneath within decades

New research, published in the journal Science on Friday, has found the sediments on which many reefs are built are 10 times more sensitive to the acidifying oceans than the living corals themselves. Some reef bases are already dissolving.

—–

“Coral reef sediments around the world will trend towards dissolving when seawater reaches a tipping point in acidity – which is likely to occur well before the end of the century,” he said.

ed14c7c8eccb6662b1b00e4f3ad42cde77b59285.jpg

Not loving it enough: coral reefs face multiple threats from climate change, including as it turns out, from below.

At risk will be coral reef ecosystems that support tourism, fisheries and the many other human activities, he said.

The ocean’s acidity has increased about 30 per cent since the start of the industrial revolution, as seas absorb about one-third of the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“It is vital that we put pressure on governments globally to act in concert to lower carbon dioxide emissions as this is the only way we can stop the oceans acidifying and dissolving our reefs,” Professor Eyre said.

Full article…

World’s coral reefs face new peril from beneath within decades | The Age

*

Notwithstanding the evidence owing to the inherent alarmism, exaggeration and journal bias of the OA scare, it might be useful for Hannam to consider this simple explanation of what goes on “beneath” the ocean surface…

Corals evolved during the Cambrian era with CO2 levels at 6,000-7,000 ppm, around 4,000% or 20 times higher than today’s “CO2-starved” environment of 400 ppm. Atmospheric and ocean temps were also far higher than today. Corals are made of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) – and could not exist without substantial amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

*

A sound explanation of the fallacy of ‘Ocean Acidification’ …

via JoanneNova.com.au

Thirdly, you raise the specter of what you bizarrely call ocean “acidification”.

The last time I looked, the oceans were pronouncedly alkaline, and even the mad IPCC says the acid-base balance has been altered by only 0.1 acid/base units in the direction of slightly reduced alkalinity. However, that estimate, like much else in the IPCC’s mad gospels, is entirely guesswork, because there is no sufficiently well-resolved global measurement program for ocean pH. However, elementary theoretical considerations would lead us to expect homoeostasis in the acid/base balance of the oceans because the buffering influence of the rock basins in which they live and move and have their being is overwhelmingly powerful. Acid/base neutrality is at a pH of 7.0. The oceans are at about 7.8-8.2 (no one knows, so that the IPCC’s alleged dealkalinization of 0.1 acid/base units is well within the measurement error, so that we cannot actually be sure that it has occurred at all; and, on the elementary ground I have described, it is unlikely to have done so). Besides, there is about 50 times as much CO2 already dissolved in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere, so that even if all of the CO2 in the atmosphere were to make its way into the oceans the pH would scarcely change even in the absence of the overwhelming buffering effect of the rocks. As for calcifying organisms, they are thriving. The calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis and came into being 550 million years ago (you are too young to remember) during the Cambrian era, when atmospheric CO2 concentration was 25 times what it is today. The more delicate aragonite corals came into being 175 million years ago, during the Jurassic, when CO2 concentration was still 15 times today’s. “Ah,” you may say, “but it is the suddenness of the abrupt increase in CO2 concentration that the fragile corals will not be able to endure.” However, consider the great floods of the Brisbane River (eight of them from 1840-1900 and three of them since). The rainwater that pours into the ocean and meets the Great Barrier Reef is pronouncedly acid, at a pH of 5.4. Yet the corals do not curl up and die. “Ah,” you may say, “but what about the effect of sudden warming on the puir wee corals?” Well, the Great el Nino of 1997/8 gives us the answer to that one. Sudden increases in ocean temperature cause the corals to bleach. There have been two previous Great el Ninos in the past 300 years, and the corals bleached on both those occasions too. It is a natural defense mechanism against natural change. The corals continue to thrive. My brother and his three sport-mad boys dive on the reef every year and, like many others from whom I have heard, find the corals thriving except where the Crown of Thorns infestation has damaged small parts of the reef. Oh, and the Great Barrier Reef Authority, which has been moaning about the effects of rising sea temperatures on the corals, publish a dataset that shows zero increase in sea temperature in the region of the reef throughout the entire period of record. Don’t hold your breath worrying about ocean “acidification”: it can’t happen, even if all the CO2 in the air goes into the ocean.

Must See Also : Ocean Acidification is a Misnomer | Hawaii Reporter

OA SCIENCE

The Multiple Impacts of “Ocean Acidification” on a Tropical Coral


Reference
Takahashi, A. and Kurihara, H. 2013. Ocean acidification does not affect the physiology of the tropical coralAcropora digitifera during a 5-week experiment. Coral Reefs 32: 305-314.

Background
The authors write that “according to the IPCC (2007) models, atmospheric CO2 is predicted to rise to 540-970 ppm by the end of this century and reach a maximum of approximately 1,900 ppm when the world’s fossil fuel reserves are fully exploited,” while noting that “a substantial number of laboratory studies have suggested a decline in coral calcification with a rise in seawater pCO2.” However, they say that recentstudies “have postulated that the sensitivity of corals to elevated levels of CO2 is potentially more diverse than previously considered,” citing the works of Fabricius et al. (2011), Pandolfi et al. (2011) and Rodolfo-Metalpa et al. (2011).

What was done
Intrigued by these new and diverse findings, Takahashi and Kurihara measured the rates of calcification, respiration and photosynthesis of the tropical coral Acropora digitifera – along with the coral’s zooxanthellae density – under near-natural summertime temperature and sunlight conditions for a period of five weeks.

What was learned
The two Japanese researchers found that these “key physiological parameters” were not affected by either predicted mid-range CO2 concentrations (pCO2 = 744 ppm, pH = 7.97, Ωarag = 2.6) or by high CO2concentrations (pCO2 = 2,142 ppm, pH = 7.56, Ωarag = 1.1) over the 35-day period of their experiment. In addition, they state that there was “no significant correlation between calcification rate and seawater aragonite saturation (Ωarag)” and “no evidence of CO2 impact on bleaching.”

What it means
Contrary to what many climate alarmists have long contended, there is mounting evidence that suggests that the negative consequences they predict for the world’s marine life in a future high-CO2 world are by no means assured, nor are they likely to be widespread. Keep Reading »

Source: CO2 Science

*

TOP footnote by Dellers

In the last decade or so, the climate change industry has become so vast and all encompassing, employing so many people, it simply cannot be allowed to fail.

According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, it’s now worth an astonishing $1.5 trillion — about the same as the online shopping industry. If the scare goes away, then all bets are off, because the entire global decarbonisation business relies on it. The wind parks, the carbon sequestration projects, the solar farms, the biomass plantations — none of these green schemes make any kind of commercial sense unless you buy into the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet and that radical green measures, enforced by governmental regulation, must be adopted to avert it.

It’s no coincidence that the ocean acidification narrative began in the early 2000s — just as it was beginning to dawn on the climate alarmists that global temperatures weren’t going to plan. While CO2 levels were continuing to rise, temperatures weren’t. Hence the need for a fallback position — an environmental theory which would justify the massively expensive and disruptive ongoing decarbonisation programme so assiduously championed by politicians, scientists, green campaigners and anyone making money out of the renewables business. Ocean acidification fitted the bill perfectly.

Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism | The Spectator

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive! TQ…

Donate with PayPal

•••

Related :