Advertisements

RECORD MARCH HEAT WAVE : Six Consecutive Days Above 100°F

Global Warming Meltdown - CLIMATISM

Global Warming Meltdown | CLIMATISM


“Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities.”
– Voltaire

“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
Albert Einstein

***

WHEN CO₂ was at ‘safe levels’, Adelaide’s temperature climbed above 100°F, six days in a row.

ADELAIDE – March, 1940 :

  1. Friday  –  24°C (74.4F)
  2. Saturday  –  24°C (75.7F)
  3. Sunday  –  28°C (81.7F)
  4. Monday  –  34°C (93.5F)
  5. Tuesday  –  31°C (88.4F)
  6. Wednesday  –  35°C (94.9F)
  7. Thursday  –  40°C (103.9F)
  8. Friday  –  42°C (107.7F)
  9. Saturday  –  43°C (110.1F)
  10. Sunday  –  42°C (108.3F)
  11. Monday  –  42°C (107.9F)
  12. Tuesday  –  40°C (103.6F)

13 Mar 1940 – RECORD MARCH HEAT WAVE. SIX CONSECUTIVE CENTURIES. – Trove

 

13 Mar 1940 – RECORD MARCH HEAT WAVE. SIX CONSECUTIVE CENTURIES. – Trove

*

IF this happened today, the usual global warming climate change hysterics would be demanding that “the children” skip school and march in the streets.

Oh, wait … what?

•••

RELATED :

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

NOW That We Know Renewables Can’t ‘Save The Planet’, Are We Really Going To Stand By And Let Them Destroy It?


“REMEMBER when we paved the world with electronic waste
that chopped eagles and condors and made bats extinct
because we thought wind was natural and uranium evil?

– man that was a dark age!”
– Michael Shellenberger

***

ONE of the great falsehoods and dangerous myths pushed by reckless global warming climate change zealots and the mainstream media is that ‘renewable energy’ – wind and solar – is “clean, green and renewable”.

‘RENEWABLES’ are neither “clean, green, or renewable”. In fact, they are pure embodiments of fossil fuel technology, with oil and coal derivatives required for :

SEE : WHAT I See When I See a Wind Turbine | Climatism

*

LAND INTENSITY

WIND and solar power are incredibly land intensive owing to the inherent low-energy density of their electrons. And, the small fact that the sun only shines and the wind only blows 10-40% of the time.

HOW much land and how many wind turbines would be needed just to supply the planets ‘new’ demand for energy?

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

WIND TURBINES Are Neither Clean Nor Green And They Provide Zero Global Energy | Climatism

*

NATURE LOVERS?

IF Greens love nature, why aren’t they more concerned about carpeting pristine landscapes with industrial wind turbines?

*

“SAVING THE PLANET”

IF ‘Greens’ were serious about “Saving The Planet”, they would be embracing (CO2-free) nuclear energy.

THE fact that they are not, says a lot about today’s New Green Climate Warrior – concerned more about totalitarian power and control than tangible care of the physical environment.

IMHO, ‘Climate Change’ has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. If it did, every global warming climate change bedwetter would be castigating China for unlimited emissions until 2030.

CLIMATE CHANGE activism has everything to do with economic, political and cultural power and control.

*

NUCLEAR POWER

THIS brilliant piece from (old-school) environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has been touring social and mainstream media in a big way, and rightly so, but wanted to pin it here for Climatism followers to enjoy and hopefully share with friends, family and their local energy/environment representative!

From Quillette :

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.

After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.

In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.

I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.

Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.

The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, threatened local communities, and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.

Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.

Happily, there were a lot of people working on solutions. One solution was to convert California’s dams into big batteries. The idea was that, when the sun was shining and the wind was blowing, you could pump water uphill, store it for later, and then run it over the turbines to make electricity when you needed it.

Other problems didn’t seem like such a big deal, on closer examination. For example, after I learned that house cats kill billions of birds every year it put into perspective the nearly one million birds killed by wind turbines.

It seemed to me that most, if not all, of the problems from scaling up solar and wind energies could be solved through more technological innovation.

But, as the years went by, the problems persisted and in some cases grew worse. For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables but we haven’t converted our dams into batteries, partly for geographic reasons. You need the right kind of dam and reservoirs, and even then it’s an expensive retrofit.

A bigger problem is that there are many other uses for the water that accumulates behind dams, namely irrigation and cities. And because the water in our rivers and reservoirs is scarce and unreliable, the water from dams for those other purposes is becoming ever-more precious.

Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy California has had to block electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, or pay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid.

Despite what you’ve heard, there is no “battery revolution” on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons.

As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. What kills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines.

In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with.

Solar farms have similarly large ecological impacts. Building a solar farm is a lot like building any other kind of farm. You have to clear the whole area of wildlife.

In order to build one of the biggest solar farms in California the developers hired biologists to pull threatened desert tortoises from their burrows, put them on the back of pickup trucks, transport them, and cage them in pens where many ended up dying.

As we were learning of these impacts, it gradually dawned on me that there was no amount of technological innovation that could solve the fundamental problem with renewables.

You can make solar panels cheaper and wind turbines bigger, but you can’t make the sun shine more regularly or the wind blow more reliably. I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural.

Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost.

There’s been a lot of publicity about how solar panels and wind turbines have come down in cost. But those one-time cost savings from making them in big Chinese factories have been outweighed by the high cost of dealing with their unreliability.

Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables.

I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Climatism support :

SEE also : IF CO2’s Your Poison, Renewable Energy Is No Antidote | Climatism

*

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.

It’s reasonable to ask whether nuclear power is safe, and what happens with its waste.

It turns out that scientists have studied the health and safety of different energy sources since the 1960s. Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.

Strange as it sounds, nuclear power plants are so safe for the same reason nuclear weapons are so dangerous. The uranium used as fuel in power plants and as material for bombs can create one million times more heat per its mass than its fossil fuel and gunpowder equivalents.

It’s not so much about the fuel as the process. We release more energy breaking atoms than breaking chemical bonds. What’s special about uranium atoms is that they are easy to split.

Because nuclear plants produce heat without fire, they emit no air pollution in the form of smoke. By contrast, the smoke from burning fossil fuels and biomass results in the premature deaths of seven million people per year, according to the World Health Organization.

Even during the worst accidents, nuclear plants release small amounts of radioactive particulate matter from the tiny quantities of uranium atoms split apart to make heat.

Over an 80-year lifespan, fewer than 200 people will die from the radiation from the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, and zero will die from the small amounts of radiant particulate matter that escaped from Fukushima.

As a result, the climate scientist James Hanson and a colleague found that nuclear plants have actually saved nearly two million lives to date that would have been lost to air pollution.

Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant.

Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.

A single Coke cans worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.

All of the waste fuel from 45 years of the Swiss nuclear program can fit, in canisters, on a basketball court-like wearhouse, where like all spent nuclear fuel, it has never hurt a fly.

By contrast, solar panels require 17 times more materials in the form of cement, glass, concrete, and steel than do nuclear plants, and create over 200 times more waste.

We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan anywhere to deal with solar panels at the end of their 20 to 25 year lifespan.

Experts fear solar panels will be shipped, along with other forms of electronic waste, to be disassembled—or, more often, smashed with hammers—by poor communities in Africa and Asia, whose residents will be exposed the dust from toxic including lead, cadmium, and chromium.

Wherever I travel in the world I ask ordinary people what they think about nuclear and renewable energies. After saying they know next to nothing, they admit that nuclear is strong and renewables are weak. Their intuitions are correct. What most of us get wrong—understandably — is that weak energies are safer.

But aren’t renewables safer? The answer is no. Wind turbines, surprisingly, kill more people than nuclear plants.

In other words, the energy density of the fuel determines its environmental and health impacts. Spreading more mines and more equipment over larger areas of land is going to have larger environmental and human safety impacts.

It’s true that you can stand next to a solar panel without much harm while if you stand next to a nuclear reactor at full power you’ll die.

But when it comes to generating power for billions of people, it turns out that producing solar and wind collectors, and spreading them over large areas, has vastly worse impacts on humans and wildlife alike.

Our intuitive sense that sunlight is dilute sometimes shows up in films. That’s why nobody was shocked when the recent remake of the dystopian sci-fi flick, “Blade Runner,” opened with a dystopian scene of California’s deserts paved with solar farms identical to the one that decimated desert tortoises.

Over the last several hundred years, human beings have been moving away from what matter-dense fuels towards energy-dense ones. First we move from renewable fuels like wood, dung, and windmills, and towards the fossil fuels of coal, oil, and natural gas, and eventually to uranium.

Energy progress is overwhelmingly positive for people and nature. As we stop using wood for fuel we allow grasslands and forests to grow back, and the wildlife to return.

As we stop burning wood and dung in our homes, we no longer must breathe toxic indoor smoke. And as we move from fossil fuels to uranium we clear the outdoor air of pollution, and reduce how much we’ll heat up the planet.

Nuclear plants are thus a revolutionary technology—a grand historical break from fossil fuels as significant as the industrial transition from wood to fossil fuels before it.

The problem with nuclear is that it is unpopular, a victim of a 50 year-longconcerted effort by fossil fuel, renewable energy, anti-nuclear weapons campaigners, and misanthropic environmentalists to ban the technology.

In response, the nuclear industry suffers battered wife syndrome, and constantly apologizes for its best attributes, from its waste to its safety.

Lately, the nuclear industry has promoted the idea that, in order to deal with climate change, “we need a mix of clean energy sources,” including solar, wind and nuclear. It was something I used to believe, and say, in part because it’s what people want to hear. The problem is that it’s not true.

France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.

Oil and gas investors know this, which is why they made a political alliance with renewables companies, and why oil and gas companies have been spending millions of dollars on advertisements promoting solar, and funneling millions of dollars to said environmental groups to provide public relations cover.

What is to be done? The most important thing is for scientists and conservationists to start telling the truth about renewables and nuclear, and the relationship between energy density and environmental impact.

Bat scientists recently warned that wind turbines are on the verge of making one species, the Hoary bat, a migratory bat species, go extinct.

Another scientist who worked to build that gigantic solar farm in the California desert told High Country News, “Everybody knows that translocation of desert tortoises doesn’t work. When you’re walking in front of a bulldozer, crying, and moving animals, and cacti out of the way, it’s hard to think that the project is a good idea.”

I think it’s natural that those of us who became active on climate change gravitated toward renewables. They seemed like a way to harmonize human society with the natural world. Collectively, we have been suffering from a naturalistic fallacy no different from the one that leads us to buy products at the supermarket labeled “all natural.” But it’s high time that those of us who appointed ourselves Earth’s guardians should take a second look at the science, and start questioning the impacts of our actions.

Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet – Quillette

•••

SHELLENBERGER Related :

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


HURRICANES & Climate Change : Landfalls

DR. CURRY HIGHLIGHTS :

“While there is no observational evidence of increased frequency or intensity of landfalling hurricanes, either in the Atlantic or globally, there is very clear evidence of increasing damage from landfalling hurricanes. Is this increase in damage solely attributed to increasing population and wealth in vulnerable coastal locations, or is there an element of climate change that is contributing to the increase in damage?”

“Klotzbach et al. and Weinkle et al. argue that given that there are no significant trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes since 1900, we would expect an unbiased normalization to also exhibit no trend over this time period.”

*

NOTABLE SLIDES :

slide08-1

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Part III: is there any signal of global warming in landfalling hurricanes and their impacts?

View original post 3,279 more words


STATE OF THE POLAR BEAR REPORT 2018: Polar Bears Continue To Thrive

“Polar Bears thriving”!

RATHER inconvenient message for climate change hysterians to handle. Trigger time.

DON’T expect to see this ‘good news’ report anywhere on the mainstream media. They are only interested in adverse environmental stories, death and catastrophe, in order to push their CO2-centric, man-made global warming agenda.

polarbearscience

Press Release 27 February 2019, International Polar Bear Day

New Report: Polar Bears Continue To Thrive

State PB 2018 cover 27 Feb 2019

Inuit paying the price of rising bear populations

The State of the Polar Bear Report for 2018, published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, confirms that polar bears are continuing to thrive, despite recent reductions in sea ice levels. This finding contradicts claims by environmentalists and some scientists that falls in sea ice would wipe out bear populations.

The report’s author, zoologist Dr Susan Crockford, says that there is now very little evidence to support the idea that the polar bear is threatened with extinction by climate change.

We now know that polar bears are very resourceful creatures. They have made it through warm periods in the past and they seem to be taking the current warming in their stride too”.

In fact, it is the human residents of the…

View original post 341 more words


MUST READ : Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw – Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion

GLOBAL WARMING GROUPTHINK SHEEP - CLIMATISM

Global Warming Groupthink ‘Siyanz’ | CLIMATISM


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 Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

FASCINATING article by author Norman Rogers on how the siyanz science of global warming climate change has been fatally corrupted by a culture of groupthink and doomsday hysteria that has snowballed into a viciously protected $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) global Climate Crisis Industry.

*

Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion

From American Thinker

By Norman Rogers

William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States.  He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government.  His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive.  Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council.

The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.”  The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer.  That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change.  The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer.

Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization.  In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure.  A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.”  We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows.

What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare.  If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse.  Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field.  The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world.  They won’t give up the glory without a fight.

Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth.  But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry.  As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry.  The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.

Climate science has gone off the rails.  President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address.  He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money.  Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster.  If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster.

Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype.  There was global cooling that preceded global warming.  There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others.  It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions.  Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested.  The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions.

Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests.  Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests.  Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences.  We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code.  Scientists are not different.  They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work.  They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing.  But these things happen.

Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype.  Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink.  Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing — for example, climate science.  Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion.  They are in no position to contradict groupthink.  They have families to feed.  The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money.  To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization.

The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform — for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure.  There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype.  When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious.  The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics.  When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible.

Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science.  But scientists are humans, not gods.  They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play.  We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another.  The fake predictions are never completely fake.  There is usually some real science buried in all the hype.  For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet.  The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored.  Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water.  Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses.  CO2 is greening deserts.  How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2?

DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer.  But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria.  The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa.  DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.

Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science.  For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review.  Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality.  The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science.

Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes.  The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money.  That should be an ethical violation.  Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances.

There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories.  It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem.  Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.

Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.

H/t WattsUpWithThat

•••

 

SEE also : 

Read the rest of this entry »


PANIC DENIED : Sea Levels In And Around Sydney Harbour 1886 to 2018

Sydney Harbour Sea Levels 1886-2018 - CLIMATISM

Sydney Harbour Sea Levels 1886-2018 | CLIMATISM


“CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud:
it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending
tens of billions of dollars of public money
every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda.”
Leo Goldstein

***

SEA-LEVEL RISE alarmism is just one in a long line of propaganda tools used by the Climate Crisis Industry to promote the narrative that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming climate change.

VERY little of the carefully orchestrated fear-mongering is based on observed reality and empirical evidence, rather, worst-case climate model scenarios pushed into the unaccountable future, designed to scare you and policy makers into (costly) “climate action now!”.

SEA level alarmism holds significant implications for the public who bear the burden of carbon-dioxide related taxes. Those living within coastal areas, constrained by further punitive imposts as insurance companies exploit the climate of fear for their own profit.

SEA levels vary by geographical region from positive to neutral to negative. Where positive sea-level ‘rise’ is concerned, the best science demonstrates that there is no immediate or long-term crisis in play. Importantly, no acceleration has been detected in the era of industrialisation.

*

VIV Forbes of the Carbon Sense Coalition is a member of the climate-realist think tank The Salt Bush Club  – a group of famed ex-industry leaders and climate science experts fighting back against dangerous and costly climate alarmism with fact-based reports filled with reason and common sense. Not hyper-climate alarmism and climate-model based theory that underpins mainstream media climate reporting.

FROM their About page:

INTRODUCING THE SALTBUSH CLUB

banner-5

Members, Skills and Concerns

“We have been listening to scare-mongers and panicky children for too long – it’s time to listen to sensible people and grown-ups.”
November 2018

The Saltbush Club is an unplanned venture. Tapping a deep vein of public concern about the Paris climate agreement, it just grew. In about a month, with zero corporate or government support, a few lone individuals have attracted an imposing line-up of sensible people who are well informed on all aspects of the climate debate, and on the growing energy, water and infrastructure problems facing Australia. Many are only prepared to publicise their concern since they have been freed from corporate, academic or government restraints. They are now expressing long-held but often-suppressed opinions.

A much larger group of “Silent Members” have indicated support, but do not want their names made public because they fear that exposure would harm their prospects for employment, promotion or business. They will help, but silently.

All Saltbush members are concerned that climate-alarm policies promoted by most politicians are not based on sound science, and are already causing great damage to Australian industry, jobs and consumers.

Members include people with formal qualifications and experience in geology, physics, chemistry, meteorology, astronomy, climatology, spectroscopy, electromagnetic radiation, geophysics, geochemistry, land forms, sea levels, vulcanology, palynology, engineering, metallurgy, law, medicine, veterinary science, pharmacy, pathology, sociology, classics, economics, accounting, ecology, soil science, environmental science, carbon accounting, pollution control, mathematics, statistics, electronics, communications, computer science, modelling and forecasting. No longer can it be claimed that there is “no debate among scientists”.

***

They understand that the war on hydro-carbon fuels and grazing animals in Australia is not based on sound science, but is part of a broad international agenda designed to strengthen UN agencies, centralise decision making and weaken property rights with international rules and taxes.

They aim to change the climate of public opinion, thus changing the political agenda.

There is no consensus – it is time for a debate.

On behalf of the founders:

Jerry Ellis Chairman
Hugh Morgan
Jo Nova Media Director
Ian Plimer
Viv Forbes Executive Director

See a list of founding members here: https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/saltbush-founding-members.pdf

About – The Saltbush Club

*

Dr G M Derrick reports the simple facts on the state of sea-level rise around Sydney Harbour over the past 132 years of records.

THE information is what we should be receiving from our politicians and media. Instead the information we receive about climate change and sea-levels is filled with exaggeration, alarmism, ‘homogenisation’, and plenty of politics in order to drive a political agenda of climate catastrophe in order to justify costly fixes, schemes, scams and taxes.

THE big losers – empirically-based science, the simple truth and the taxpayer who is forced to pay billions upon billions for fake fixes (windmills, solar panels and carbon taxes) to a fake scam.

***

By Dr G M Derrick

Executive Summary

  1. There has been NO significant sea level rise in the harbour for the past 120 years, and what little there has been is about the height of a matchbox over a century.
  2. Along the northern beaches of Sydney, at Collaroy there has been no suggestion of any sea level rise there for the past 140 years. Casual observations from Bondi Beach 1875 to the present also suggest the same benign situation.
  3. A rush to judgement by local councils and State Governments by legislating harsh laws and building covenants along our coastlines now seems misplaced.
  4. The falsehoods and mendacity of the IPCC and climate alarmists should be rejected out of hand, and efforts be made to ensure that science, not propaganda, defines our school curricula in matters of climate and sea levels

Full article: https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/sea-levels-sydney.pdf [PDF, 3 MB]

***

CLIMATISM SL SUPPORTS

SEA LEVELS

SEAS have risen 400 feet or 120,000 mm since the end of the last Ice Age, around 15,000-20,000 years ago :

*

SEA-LEVEL RISE ACCELERATION?

WHAT is pertinent to the sea-level rise debate is whether SLR is accelerating due to human CO2 emissions.

Dr Judith Curry …

Sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since the last Ice Age…the question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions.  It doesn’t look like there is any great acceleration, so far, of sea level rise associated with human warming.  These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers — Greenland and Antarctica.  The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing.  Greenland shows large multi-decadal variability. ….  There is no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way.” — Dr. Judith Curry, video interview published 9 August 2017

“Observed sea level rise over the last century has averaged about 8 inches, although local values may be substantially more or less based on local vertical land motion, land use, regional ocean circulations and tidal variations.

(Climatism bolds)

Sea level rise acceleration (or not): Projections for the 21st century | Climate Etc.

*

ACCORDING to “the science” there has been no stat-sig or relevant acceleration of sea-level rise since industrialisation :

*

SOMETHING other than carbon dioxide caused seas to rise, at the current steady rate, around 1790 :

(NB// 85% of man-made CO2 was emitted after 1945.)

*

NO ‘acceleration’ in sea-level rise exists in any NOAA or PSMSL tidal gauge records :

Relative Sea Level Trend
680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia

*

ONE third of all human (CO2) influence has occurred over the past 20-30 years which has not caused acceleration of sea-levels, a jot :

*

THOUGH not as ‘scientific’, it is interesting to use the visual point of Fort Denison to note the high-tide line and the notable absence of SL rise since 1885 to present :

***

COASTAL INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS

CLIMATE change hysteria and groupthink propaganda freely and uncritically spread by the compliant mainstream media has influenced local municipalities to wrongly and deceptively raise rates to cover “climate change” threats and damage as well insurance companies raising premiums. The result has been a devaluing of many coastal homes of up to 25% and the same increase in insurance premiums.

HERE’s an example of what the NSW Govt and Lake Macquarie Council are projecting for the 21st Century:

*

OVERHEATED, CO2-CENTRIC U.N. IPCC CLIMATE MODELS

THE very same modelled exaggeration alarmism is evident in the ensemble of U.N. IPCC CMIP5 climate models that basically act as evidence that drives the entire $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) Climate Crisis Industry and associated climate policy settings that are sending Australian and other Western nations’ electricity prices through the roof, forcing businesses to close and/or move offshore and causing rampant energy poverty, hurting our most vulnerable.

*

IT’S OFFICIAL : South Australia Has The World’s Highest Power Prices!

(With the closure of the 1,550 MW Hazlewood power plant in Victoria, since this chart was produced, Victoria’s power prices are now nearing SA’s)

***

CONCLUSION

ENERGY poverty, rising insurance premiums, business closures, job losses and the highest electricity prices in the world is 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.

JUST as socialist central planning failed miserably before it was replaced by free market economies, green central planning will have to be discarded before Australia and other Western nations, crippled by pseudoscientific climatology and the mad rush into costly and intermittent ‘green’ energy, will see a return to energy security, competitive pricing, business prosperity, job opportunities and a ‘liveable’ existence for our most vulnerable.

••• Read the rest of this entry »


JAPAN ACKNOWLEDGES THE GLOBAL WARMING ‘PAUSE’ : Sanctions 35 New Coal Power Plants Added To The 100 Currently Operational

sushi-sake-coal-1200x630

Sushi, Sake, and Coal: Japan’s Peculiar Response to the Climate Conundrum » BarbWire


“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming
at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Kevin Trenberth, National Center For Atmospheric Research, USA (2009)

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the
tropical troposphere … This is just downright dangerous.”
Peter Thorne, Hadley Centre, Met Office, UK (2007)

***

THE Japanese government has identified and acknowledged the current ~20 year-long global warming “pause” or “hiatus”. The (inconvenient) atmospheric phenomenon that has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals for many years now.

BASED on data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the government has justified the expansion of its global-leading, ultra-supercritical HELE coal-fired power plant technology both domestically and abroad.

PRIME MINISTER Abe has sanctioned the addition of 35 new coal power plants to the 100 currently operational.

“Japan’s use of coal is not justified exclusively on the basis of the country’s nuclear debacle. The heart of the reason is Japan’s climate.

For the past three decades, there has been no significant warming in its major cities.”

*

CLIMATE Scientist Vijay Jayaraj reports (Climatism attachments, bolds added) :

Sushi, Sake, and Coal: Japan’s Peculiar Response to the Climate Conundrum

We all know that the Japanese love their sushi. Japan is also famous for sake, a rice wine unique to the country. Lately, the Japanese have shown unrestrained love for a commodity that is increasingly demonized by climate groups: coal.

Global warming alarmists blame coal for causing dangerous global warming. But the Japanese beg to differ. They have revived their love affair with coal. Why? That’s an interesting story.

Soon after the Fukushima nuclear incident, public sentiment towards nuclear energy became hostile. Many organizations, including foreign non-profits, called for the closure of nuclear plants on fears of future mishaps.

The Fukushima plant was outdated and less safe than Japan’s other, modern nuclear plants. Yet, the impact of the Fukushima disaster (in which no one died from radiation exposure) remains fresh in people’s minds, and the nation was not ready to defend the operations of other nuclear plants.

The Japanese government caved in to the pressure and closed many nuclear plants. By 27 March 2012, Japan had only one out of 54 nuclear reactors operating. As a result, the country was forced to seek alternative sources of energy generation.

The Japanese understood that renewable sources like wind and solar could not provide stable and affordable electricity, at least not in the magnitude necessary to meet peak energy demands of Japan’s power-guzzling cities.

The most economical and safe solution was coal. Contrary to popular belief and the mainstream media, coal is not as polluting as you might think.

Moreover, coal is a tried and tested source of energy, guaranteeing superior-quality, stable output to meet the energy demands of modern cities and industries.

With the development of “clean coal technology,” coal combustion now results in fewer contaminants and more energy, making it far superior to the combustion plants of previous decades.

So, Japan went against the tide and embraced coal with both arms.

It now employs the most advanced and safest coal combustion technology available on the planet, becoming a leading manufacturer and exporter of clean coal technology.

But Japan’s use of coal is not justified exclusively on the basis of the country’s nuclear debacle. The heart of the reason is Japan’s climate.

For the past three decades, there has been no significant warming in its major cities.

Data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) clearly indicates that there has been no significant deviation in the monthly average temperature between 1998 and 2018. The period between is of special importance to the Japanese government.

As per the climate doomsday theorists, temperatures should have displayed a strong warming trend as the manmade carbon dioxide emissions increased exponentially.

But the temperature levels failed to display any warming trend. That flies in the face of the notion that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration levels control temperature over the island nation—or, for that matter, the world.

Last week, Sapporo recorded its coldest day in 40 years. In fact, winter in Japan had no warming trend from 1986 to 2018, with the January monthly mean temperature anomalies displaying a cooling trend. If anything, there has been a cooling trend in Japan between 1998 and 2018.

So, the reason for Japanese embrace of coal is pretty clear: no significant warming, coupled with the post-Fukushima anti-nuclear hysteria.

No country would want to reduce its emissions when its monthly average temperatures are actually decreasing. It is for this reason that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe refuses to stay true to the hasty anti-coal commitments he made at the UN’s international climate summits.

Instead of discouraging the use of coal, Japan is increasing its dependency on coal. Abe has sanctioned the addition of 35 new coal power plants to the 100 currently operational. The country is also encouraging its Asian neighbors and other developing countries to purchase its clean coal technology.

The Japanese response to the anti-coal establishment, besides being bold, accurately reflects climate reality. Japan understands the need to prioritize the domestic energy needs over faulty, pseudo-scientific forecasts of climate doom.

The lack of warming, however, is not limited to Japan. Satellite temperature measurements (between 1979 and January 2019) show no significant warming in the earth’s atmosphere during the past 19 years.

Other countries should emulate Japan’s example, especially in the developing world. Domestic energy needs are far too important to be slain on the altar of global warming hysteria.

Sushi, Sake, and Coal: Japan’s Peculiar Response to the Climate Conundrum » BarbWire

Vijay Jayaraj

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), is Research Associate for and Contributor for Developing Countries, for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. He lives in Chennai, India.

FOLLOW Vijay on Twitter : @vjxxvj

***

 

REFRESHING to see government energy policy being driven by empirical evidence and real-world data, and NOT by fear, hysteria, mainstream media climate change advocacy and alarmism or politically-driven, CO2-centric, UN IPCC climate models.

BRAVO Japan for standing up to the climate groupthink bullies and misanthropic eco-activists. Instead, supporting their industry and citizens by providing them with cheap, abundant and clean (HELE) coal-fired power technology to advance and maintain their world-renowned pristine environment, civic cleanliness, health and wealth!

“The Japanese response to the anti-coal establishment, besides being bold, accurately reflects climate reality. Japan understands the need to prioritize the domestic energy needs over faulty, pseudo-scientific forecasts of climate doom.”

***

PIC of Kinkaku-ji Palace Kyoto from my recent family trip to ‘pristine’ HELE powered Japan!

IF you haven’t been to Japan – GO! Incredible people, culture and country…

Jamie Japan Trip - Kinkaku-ji Royal Palace Kyoto - Jan 2019

Jamie Japan Trip – Kinkaku-ji Royal Palace Kyoto – Jan 2019 (iPhone 8 – No filter!)

•••

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »