“BLIND trust in authority is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
– Albert Einstein
***
AS many of you may have read from twitter, I’ve decided to back-off, temporarily, from the constancy of battle against the Left’s ideological crusade against science and reason, in favour of completing my degree in psychology/counselling. A modality that will, most probably, be in ‘yuge’ demand in the coming years, following the Left’s most recent assault on your freedoms and existence, COVID-19. A mutation of the common coronavirus that just happens to fall in a US election year. A natural mutation that has a survival rate of 99.97% (globally). In my country, Australia, the average age-of-death-by-covid is 83. The average age of mortality in Australia is 82, and yet, in Victoria, we are suffering the most draconian lockdown measures in-the-world. The mind boggles…unless you’re a socialist, of course.
SO, in an effort to soothe our collective wounded COVID souls, at the same time, help soothe the ails of the constant barrage of impetuous climate alarmism, set aside twelve minutes of your precious time to view some of the incredible work done by (GBR-climate-science-hero) Jennifer Marohasy, as she documents, with Emmy Award winning cameraman Clint Hempsall, the pristine, Great Barrier Reef, for all to marvel.
Enjoy and best,
Jamie
***
Via Email (1/10/20)
(Climatism bolds)
via Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Researcher, Writer & Filmmaker
Keeping You in the Loop
Many of the media headlines that give the impression the Great Barrier Reef is a ruin are based on aerial surveys by one man. The same Terry Hughes who incorrectly claimed the inshore reefs off-Bowen are now mud-flat. Paid not by an oil company, but rather the long-suffering Australian taxpayer through generous research grants, he gets to sit in a light aircraft and fly at about 300 metres altitude every few years and determine (by looking out the window) that the corals are badly bleached.
Hughes is a myth maker. The Great Barrier Reef is still beautiful. There are still colourful corals and curious fish.
Earlier this year, I went to the Ribbon reefs with Emmy Award winning cameraman Clint Hempsall in search of death and bleaching. Instead we found so much life as I explain in my second short film, just yesterday uploaded to a new page at the Institute of Public Affairs’ website:
Great Barrier Reef
The short film will only take 12 minutes of your time. The music was all composed by local Noosa guitarist Mungo Coats.
At the Ribbons, in January, the waters were so warm, the corals so colourful and the fish not at all frightened of me. In fact, as you will see in the film – a giant cod fish looked me in the eye, and more than once! He came back to me, again and again. We swam together. It was magical.
For me, the Ribbons at the Great Barrier Reef, are the most special and awe-inspiring place on this planet. I was so privileged to dive them with Clint Hempsall and so much thanks to Mungo Coats for putting it all to music.
Great Barrier Reef
Thanks for caring.
Sincerely,
Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Researcher, Writer & Filmmaker
*
What is the true state of the Great Barrier Reef? If you asked most Australians, they’d say the Great Barrier Reef is at risk of imminent collapse from climate change. It was for questioning this claim, and the quality of science behind it, that eventually led to Dr Peter Ridd being sacked from James Cook University.
In January 2020, Emmy Award winning cameraman Clint Hempsall, and IPA Senior Fellow Jennifer Marohasy decided to find out. They spent a week exploring the Ribbon Reefs 250kms to the north east of Cairns in search of coral bleaching – the process of corals turning white as a result of warmer water temperature, which climate scientists say is being caused by climate change. Some argue 60% of the coral at the Ribbon Reefs was irretrievably bleached in 2016.
CLICK TO PLAY : https://ipa.org.au/greatbarrierreef
If there was extensive bleaching back then, Jennifer and Clint couldn’t find much evidence of it in January this year. What they did find was healthy corals, curious clown fish, a giant potato cod, reef sharks, and an underwater cave. Indeed, much of the coral Clint filmed was growing vertically and would thus be invisible to the aerial surveys underpinning the bleaching scare.
The Ribbon Reefs have coral gardens hanging over underwater cliff-faces that drop 2,000 metres to the sea floor – all washed over twice a day by the warm waters of the South Pacific. There are ten such coral reefs in far north Queensland where they grow over the top of the north eastern edge of Australia’s continental shelf.
“This means the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be related to the sum of temperatures in previous years.”
Another inconvenient fact about nature, science and the biosphere, completely ignored by ‘CO2-consensus’ zealots.
Science Matters
This post is prompted by a recent exchange with those reasserting the “consensus” view attributing all additional atmospheric CO2 to humans burning fossil fuels.
The IPCC doctrine which has long been promoted goes as follows. We have a number over here for monthly fossil fuel CO2 emissions, and a number over there for monthly atmospheric CO2. We don’t have good numbers for the rest of it-oceans, soils, biosphere–though rough estimates are orders of magnitude higher, dwarfing human CO2. So we ignore nature and assume it is always a sink, explaining the difference between the two numbers we do have. Easy peasy, science settled.
What about the fact that nature continues to absorb about half of human emissions, even while FF CO2 increased by 60% over the last 2 decades? What about the fact that so far in 2020 FF CO2 has declined significantly with no discernable impact on rising atmospheric…
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know,
it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
– Mark Twain
Tallbloke's Talkshop
Credit: OH 237 @ Wikipedia Natural climate variability similar to what we see today has been going on for thousands, if not millions of years, whether ‘greenhouse gas’ theorists moaning about modern human activities like it or not.
– – –
The Roman Empire coincided with warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the Med, says The GWPF.
The Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F (2°C) hotter during the Roman Empire than other average temperatures at the time, a new study claims.
The Empire coincided with a 500-year period, from AD 1 to AD 500, that was the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the almost completely land-locked sea.
POLAR BEARS – The New Symbol Of Climate Scepticism and A Stable Arctic | CLIMATISM
“THE polar bear as an icon for climate change is dead because the distorted predictions made by polar bear specialists were wrong.”
“THIS is a lesson for researchers in other areas who have failed to stop the invasion of politics into their science.”
– Dr Susan Crockford
***
Hat tip @EcologySenseUK
FOR years, the Polar Bear has been abused by climate change activists as the poster child of ClimateChange™️. They didn’t use rats or spiders to promote their misanthropic agenda. Instead, they chose the cute, cuddly, fluffy polar bear to illicit a desired emotional response.
“Climate Action” Poster Child | CLIMATISM
YOU would have noticed that the polar bear is a much less common feature in science, while the fake news mainstream media has stopped using the polar bear as a propaganda tool to drive their climate agenda.
THE Arctic bear has been superseded by child soldiers and penguins …
This Penguin Species Could Disappear By the End of the Century | Reader’s Digest
*
REAL SCIENCE …
POLAR BEARS
“PUBLIC safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.” – Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe,
government document says – The Globe and Mail
WITH deadly irony, polar bear numbers have grown dramatically and to “dangerous” levels as carbon dioxide emissions have risen. A CO2 correlation, at last!
INDIGENOUS Inuit’s of Northern Canada are now facing the very real task of having to cull the population as “the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
“Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern,”
“Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe, government document says – The Globe and Mail
Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe, government document says | The Globe and Mail
*
POLAR BEAR POPULATION (1981 – 2015)
Polar Bear Population (1981 – 2015)
*
POLAR BEAR POPULATION – THE LATEST COUNT
via Susan Crockford PhD :
Susan Crockford is zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals.
UNTIL last year, Dr. Crockford ‘was’ adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, until UVic bowed to outside pressure and rescinded her adjunct professor status.
TELLING the truth on climate change and polar bears is considered heresy in the post-normal society of climate change hysteria that we currently inhabit. Just ask Peter Ridd.
About | polarbearscience
Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000)
Posted onMarch 26, 2019|
It’s long past time for polar bear specialists to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate that will never be achieved and determine a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Since they have so far refused to do this, I have done it for them. My extrapolated estimate of 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.
Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) | polarbearscience
In 2014, the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘has never been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.’
In my new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, I contend that this situation will probably never change, so it’s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this.
UPDATE: I have made this a sticky post for a while: new posts will appear below.
These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘known’ to ‘unknown’ subpopulations within so-called ‘sea ice ecoregions’ (defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey, see Amstrup et al. 2007), as shown below, to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.
USGS – Polar Bear Ecoregions
Since the PBSG has so far refused to take this step, I took on the challenge. I contend that an estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. See the graph below from my new book:
Global polar bear population size estimates to 2018. From Chapter 10 of The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Crockford 2019).
This new estimate for 2018 is a modest 4-6 fold increase over the 10,000 or so bears that existed in the 1960s and after 25 years, a credible increase over the estimate of 25,000 that the PBSG offered in 1993 (Wiig et al. 1995).
However, my new estimate is much larger than the improbable figure of about 26,000 (range 22,000-31,000) offered by PGSG biologists in 2015 (Regehr et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015). The scary question is this: what do Arctic residents do if there are actually as many as 58,000?
See my new book (Crockford 2019) for the full rationale and references used to arrive at this figure.
The bottom line: it is scientifically unacceptable for the PBSG to continue to refuse to provide an extrapolated ‘best guess’ global estimate for polar bears, given that the scientifically accurate estimate they crave is essentially unattainable. An estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.
REFERENCES
Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. & Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century.US Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Pdf here
Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.
Regehr, E.V., Laidre, K.L, Akçakaya, H.R., Amstrup, S.C., Atwood, T.C., Lunn, N.J., Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, G.W., & Wiig, Ø. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556
Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., and Garner, G.W. (eds.) 1995. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 11th working meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group, 25-27 January, 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/
Wiig, Ø., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Laidre, K., Lunn, N., Obbard, M., et al. 2015. Ursus maritimus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22823A14871490. Available fromhttp://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0 [accessed Nov. 28, 2015]. See the supplement for population figures.
Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) | polarbearscience
*
WATCH …
TUCKER CARLSON interviews Zoologist and Polar Bear specialist Dr. Susan Crockford on the prime time ratings-killer show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in a must watch segment that demonstrates how “overpopulation”, not extinction, is now the problem :
*
PROPAGANDA RULES
THIS is what your children are being taught and ordered to say about Polar Bears and global warming climate change. Blatant lies and falsehoods …
Kiddies Climate March – Melbourne, Australia 15.03.19
***
THE ARCTIC
DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic remain a popular and effective fear-mongering tool in the bag of ClimateChange™️.
SOME of the Arctic sea-ice predictions made by alarmists ‘scientists’ and the mainstream media over the years. ALL of which have failed to materialise :
“Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
“Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
“Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
“Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
“North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
“Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
“Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
“Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
“Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
“Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
“Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)
ARCTIC sea-ice extent is within the 1981-2010 median :
Sea Ice Index | National Snow and Ice Data Center
Sea Ice Index | National Snow and Ice Data Center – Blue Marble view
*
ARCTIC SEA-ICE VOLUME
ARCTIC sea ice volume has been trending upwards for the past twelve years.
Arctic Sea Ice Volume Increasing For 12 Years | Real Climate Science
*
ARCTIC TEMPS and MELT CYCLES
ARCTIC temperatures and melt cycles correlate almost perfectly with ocean circulation cycles (AMO) driven by the sun, and show zero correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels :
Reykjavik, Iceland Temperatures Vs. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
***
CONCLUSION
AN old Slovak proverb states, “The truth rises to the surface like oil on water.” So too, over time, has the truth been revealed as to the actual state of polar bears and the supposed “shrinking” Arctic.
THE mainstream media and climate scientists are aware of the underlying data on polar bears and the Arctic. They simply choose not to share the truth with you or any positive ‘Climate Change’ news, for that matter.
GOOD news climate stories would only spoil their “Climate Emergency” agenda that they have worked so hard to manufacture and maintain. Not to mention, would put in jeopardy a load of reputations, egos and money now at stake. The scam, it seems, is almost too big to fail.
AS for the polar bear, it is ours now! We own it as the symbol of a stable Arctic and a ClimateChange™️ agenda on life-support, becoming more hysterical by the day, under constant siege by ‘inconvenient’ scientific data and a litany of failed predictions.
SNOWFALLwill 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)
“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif (2000)
“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” – Spiegel (2000)
“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” – IPCC (2001)
“End of Snow?” – NYTimes (2014)
***
WE all associate snowstorms with cold weather. But, the effects of snow on our climate and weather last long after the storm has passed. Due to snows reflective properties, its presence or absence influences patterns of heating and cooling over Earth’s surface more than any other single land surface feature.
CLIMATE models from the 1970s have consistently predicted that CO2-induced global warming climate change should be causing a significant decline in total snow cover. However, Global snow cover has actually increased since at least the start of the record (Connolly et al, 2019), leading to some scepticism within the scientific community about the validity of the climate models.
IN my humble opinion, the snow that keeps on falling, bolstered by the increased frequency and reliability of the solar-driven Polar Vortex, will be key determinants in the eventual and inevitable death of the Global Warming cult.
THE public can touch, see and feel the white fluffy stuff that needs cold air to proliferate. And, being a substance that they can interact with, it makes it far harder to “disappear”.
THEY will then become overtly suspicious of the increasingly shrill “Hottest Year Evahh” cries, yelled at every heat wave by climate luvvies.
WHAT does the science say, versus observed reality?
*
WHAT THE ‘VAST BODY ‘ OF SCIENTIFIC ‘EXPERTS’ ASSURED US ABOUT SNOW
CRU :
IN 2000, climate expert Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) assured us that :
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)
SNOWFALL Will Become “A Very Rare And Exciting Event…” | Climatism
*
U.N. IPCC :
IN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of mankindpersonkind…
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
THEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”
warmer-winters-ipcc
*
CSIRO :
A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that resorts could lose up to 40% of their snow by 2020 …
CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in Victoria
By 2020, the average annual duration of snow-cover decreases by between five and 48 days; maximum snow depths are reduced and tend to occur earlier in the year; and the total area covered in snow shrinks by 10-40%
CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in Victoria
*
THE SCIENCE OF SNOWFALL WAS ‘SETTLED’ BY THE ‘97% CONSENSUS’
2000 : Prediction from Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research…
“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif
2000 : Spiegel…
“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
2004 : Mark Lynas told us…
“Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” – Mark Lynas
2005 : Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel…
Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
2005 : George Monbiot on climate change and snow…
Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us…
2006 : Daniela Jacob of Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg…
“Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
Less Snow and Drier Summers in German Forecast | Germany| News and in-depth reporting from Berlin and beyond | DW | 30.04.2006
2006 : The Independent‘s somber editorial admonished us that the lack of snow was evidence of a “dangerous seasonal disorder”…
The countryside is looking rather peculiar this winter. It seems we have a number of unexpected guests for Christmas. Dragonflies, bumblebees and red admiral butterflies, which would normally be killed off by the frost, can still be seen in some parts of the country . . . Some might be tempted to welcome this late blossoming of the natural world as a delightful diversion from the bleakness of this time of year. But these fluctuations should be cause for concern because it is overwhelmingly likely that they are a consequence of global warming . . . all this is also evidence that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than many imagined…
2007 : BBC “One Planet Special”…
“It Seems the Winters of Our Youth are Unlikely to Return” presenter Richard Hollingham … speaks to climate scientists to get their views. Their conclusion? In the words of the BBC, they all give “predictions of warmer winters, for UK & the Northern Hemisphere”.
2007 : Schleswig Holstein NABU…
“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
2007 : Western Mail (Wales Online) … article, entititled “Snowless Winters Forecast for Wales as World Warms Up” quotes one of the global warming movement’s key figures, Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office…
Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
2007 :Die Zeit…
“First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
2008 : Another prediction…
A study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps’s entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow. It found a dramatic “step-like” drop in snowfall at the end of the 1980s which has never recovered, New Scientist magazine reported…. In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records. “I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.
2012 :
Enjoy snow now . . . by 2020, it’ll be gone | The Australian
2012 :
Griffith associate professor Catherine Pickering says snow is rapidly disappearing because of global warming and by 2020 Australia may not have any left.
“We’ve predicted by 2020 to lose something like 60 per cent of the snow cover of the Australian Alps,” Professor Pickering, from the Griffith School of Environment, said.
“Unfortunately because our current emissions and our current rises in temperatures are at the high end of the predictions, it’s definitely coming to us sooner and faster.”
2019 :
A low-pressure system will bring snow during Friday through Saturday, mostly above 1400m, but possibly reaching 1200m, followed by another cold surge and more snow during Sunday into Monday. All up we can expect 20-40cm across all resorts…
This season has already passed expectations… The latest reading from Spencer’s Creek a week ago was up at 228.8cm, which puts us well above average. But looking lower down at Deep Creek (1620m) and Three Mile Dam (1460m), snow depths are fairly average.
2014: the global warming theory-obsessed New York Times touted “The End of Snow?”…
“The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level.
This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks…”
(Climatism bolds)
The End of Snow? – The New York Times
2017 : The Age’s resident global warming catastrophist Peter Hannam signalled the end of snow…
Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope | The AGE
Australia’s ski resorts face the prospect of a long downhill run as a warming climate reduces snow depth, cover and duration. The industry’s ability to create artificial snow will also be challenged, scientists say.
Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope | The AGE
***
THE SNOW THEY TOLD YOU WOULD “DISAPPEAR” KEEPS ON FALLING
CONTRARY to dire ‘expert’ prognostications and climate models to the contrary, global snowfall continues to fall in abundance, aided by ‘record-breaking cold temperatures’…
UNITED STATES
Colorado ski resorts reporting record October snowfall for 2019-20 season
Arctic blast: SNOW and record-breaking cold temperatures across the U.S. today | CBS News
A staggering 1,204 U.S. sites Recorded their Coldest-Ever October Temperatures last month – Electroverse
Arctic Conditions Grip the United States – Rewrite the Record Books, this is Big – Electroverse
Rochester shatters snowfall record on Veterans Day
Rochester shatters snowfall record on Veterans Day | RochesterFirst
*
ALGERIA
Multiple Key Roads Blocked in Algeria Following Heavy Snowfall – Electroverse
*
FRANCE
Heavy Early-Season Snowfall Paralyzes Southeast France – 330,000+ Homes left without Power – Electroverse
*
IRAN
Massive blizzard leaves Tehran a winter wonderland | The Times of Israel
*
MALLORCA, SPAIN
What?
Snow in Mallorca?
A premature onset of winter was troubling millions of Spaniards . In the northern half of the country, large parts of the country were covered with a thick and large white blanket early in the morning after heavy snowfall during the night. Snowfall fell to 700 meters in some regions. More than 80 roads, including major highways and highways, were closed or were nearly impassable for normal cars, the media said, citing the authorities.
Was? Schnee auf Mallorca? | Euronews
*
SWITZERLAND
November-Schnee-Rekord in Samedan | Wirtschaft | Bote der Urschweiz
SNOW ⋅ In Samedan in the Upper Engadine and in Santa Maria in the Münstertal, in November never so much snow has fallen as this year.The snow depth in the two Grisons municipalities was 77 and 71 centimetres respectively on Sunday afternoon.
*
GERMANY
H/t @Havenaar64
In Grisons, there was fresh snow up to 71 centimeters during the night on Sunday. That’s a record in November. It also snowed far into the lowlands.
In Grisons, there was fresh snow up to 71 centimeters during the night on Sunday. That’s a record in November. It also snowed far into the lowlands – Saas-Fee mit Auto nicht erreichbar – News Panorama: Vermischtes – tagesanzeiger.ch
The image is an animation of IMS Snow and Ice charts for NH, starting October 1 to November 12, 2019 in weekly increments. Note how the white area was sparce to begin and then grew from a weekly area of 9M km2 to 23.5M km2 through the month of October. As shown in the graph from Rutgers Global Snow Lab (GSL), the October 2019 monthly average of 22.3 M km2 is the fifth highest in their record.
nh-october2019-snow-cover
October 2019 was 4.7M km2 above the mean October area of 17.5 M km2. That ranks fifth out of 52 years; along with 2014 and 2016 making three of the highest snow cover years out of the last six! (OMG.) As Dr. Judah Cohen has observed, Siberian October coverage is a significant factor in forecasting coming winter conditions.
Rapid NH Snow Cover Oct. 2019 | Science Matters
***
GLOBAL SNOW EXTENT
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab (NH Winter)
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab (NH Fall)
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab (Eurasian Winter)
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab (Eurasian Fall)
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab (NA Winter)
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab (NA Fall)
NB// Spring snowpack globally shows a decline across all global regions. But, if we are to identify “declining” snow as a result of mankind’s CO2 emissions, then two seasons are increasing snowpack, versus the other, indicating an overall increase per season.
*
NH TOTAL SNOW MASS
Finnish Meteorological Institute data for total snow mass for the Northern Hemisphere, excluding the mountains, indicates snowpack has been consistently above the 30 year average (1982-2012) in both the 2018/19 season and even more significantly in the current 2019/20 season :
2018/19
FMI NH Snowpack 2018-19
2019/20
FMI NH Snowpack 2019-20
*
ALARMIST U-TURN!
NOW, of course, climate ‘scientists’ are trying to dig themselves out of snow that’s kept falling …
Looking back at 65 years’ worth of statistics, Environment Canada’s senior climatologist David Phillips noted that since 1948, winter temperatures in the prairie regions have increased by an average of four degrees Celsius… Ironically, warmer weather can mean greater snowfall. “As we warm up, we may see more moisture, we may see more moist air masses, and therefore we could very well see more snow rather than less snow, because the air masses are going to be more moist and so therefore you’re going to be able to wring out more snow than you would be if it was dry air,” Phillips said.
*
UNFORTUNATELY for CO2-centric climatologists like David Phillips, attempting to ‘dig’ themselves out of their “end of snow” predictions, abundant snow requires cold air to proliferate …
“The reality is cooling, not warming, increases snowfall.”
“Interestingly, some scientists have stated that increasing snow is consistent with climate change because warmer air holds more moisture, more water vapor and this can result in more storms with heavy precipitation. The trick, of course, is having sufficient cold air to produce that snow. But note that 93% of the years with more than 60″ of snow in Boston were colder than average years. The reality is cooling, not warming, increases snowfall.”
– Veteran meteorologist Barry Burbank
Will The Snowiest Decade Continue? – CBS Boston
***
RETURN OF THE ‘POLAR VORTEX’
NORTHERN Hemisphere winters have been particularly brutal over the past decade thanks to a climatic system known as the “Polar Vortex”.
Polar Vortex | NOAA
The polar vortex is a large area of low pressure and cold air surrounding the Earth’s North and South poles. The term vortex refers to the counter-clockwise flow of air that helps keep the colder air close to the poles (left globe). Often during winter in the Northern Hemisphere, the polar vortex will become less stable and expand, sending cold Arctic air southward over the United States with the jet stream (right globe). The polar vortex is nothing new – in fact, it’s thought that the term first appeared in an 1853 issue of E. Littell’s Living Age.
The science behind the polar vortex | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
*
THE Polar Vortex is a direct threat to anyone in its path, promising life-threatening low temperatures that can shatter records and plunge regions into a deep freeze.
DUE to its increased frequency over the past decade, the Polar Vortex not only threatens business and affected communities, but also directly threatens the climate ‘science’ cabal and sycophant mainstream media whose “Hottest Year Evahh” PR campaign is being drowned out by the increased frequency of abnormally cold and deadly, fall and winter conditions.
HOT = COLD! SHUT UP AND OBEY!!
FULLY aware that the ‘inconvenient’ Polar Vortex cannot be told to politely ‘go away’, climate scientists have decided to write off the generationally-cold conditions as a result of a ‘warming’ planet.
I kid you not …
This Is Why Global Warming Is Responsible For Freezing Temperatures Across The U.S.
The country is freezing in an unprecedented fashion, and global warming is to blame. Sound crazy? The cold snap that North America is experiencing east of the rocky mountains, with temperatures at Arctic-like levels, is real, but it’s only part of the story. Simultaneously, there are record warm temperatures happening in other parts of the world, from Australia to the actual Arctic.
While a small but vocal minority of people might use the faulty logic of, “it’s cold where I am, therefore global warming isn’t real,” even schoolchildren know that weather isn’t climate. But these extreme cold snaps have gotten more severe in recent years, due to a combination of global warming and a phenomenon you’ve likely heard of: the polar vortex. Here’s the science of how it works, and why global warming is paradoxically playing a major role in today’s record-low temperatures.
This Is Why Global Warming Is Responsible For Freezing Temperatures Across The U.S.
*
NAT GEO
Snow in Texas and ice in Alabama? Bizarre cold weather could become more common | Nat Geo
Some scientists think, though, that the frequency and intensity of these kinds of cold interludes may be changing as the planet warms, as counterintuitive as that might sound.
“This Arctic outbreak is connected to the behavior of the jet stream and the polar vortex,” says Judah Cohen, an atmospheric scientist at MIT. And those, in turn, are affected by a changing climate—mostly by intense warming in the high Arctic.
The topic is controversial in the atmospheric science community, but some think they see a connection between a warmer planet and cold blasts of weather like the one North America is experiencing right now.
Snow in Texas and ice in Alabama? Bizarre cold weather could become more common | Nat Geo
*
MAINTREAM MEDIA COLLUSION
THE same cover-story was being run back in January 2019, to explain-away the Polar Vortex that was raging then …
WHY Chicago is so cold.
Global Warming might be to blame…
Why Chicago is so cold – The Economist explains
*
HISTORY DENIAL
FORTY years ago, the New York Times blamed the Polar Vortex on global cooling and increasing Arctic ice. Now they say the exact opposite – the Polar Vortex is caused by global warming and decreasing Arctic ice!
“A gradual increase in area of the northern circumpolar vortex, the massive flow of frigid air around the Arctic, has been recorded by Drs. Angell and Korshover.”
International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – The New York Times
*
SAME Polar Vortex during the 1970’s “Global Cooling” scare …
1977 Global Cooling Polar Vortex
*
SCIENCE has known about the Polar Vortex for decades. But, because it contradicts the current ‘global warming’ theory, it’s conveniently forgotten …
Science Mag – 1975
*
THE Polar Vortex used to be evidence of “Another Ice Age” setting in …
Another Ice Age?
Time Magazine Monday, Jun 24, 1974
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex
TIME Magazine Archive Article — Another Ice Age? — Jun. 24, 1974
*
NOW the same Polar Vortex is evidence that the Earth is burning up …
How frigid polar vortex blasts are connected to global warming | The Conversation
ANY student of history can look back and discover that all of history’s mass-murdering socialists — from Hitler to Stalin to Mao — have manufactured audacious lies and scapegoats as a means to consolidate power into a malevolent Central Authority.
THE global warming climate change scare, with its draconian, green centrally planned agenda and underlying misanthropic ideology, is no different. A grandiose con used by globalist elites in their never-ending lust for power and control.
AN absolute must watch video by geologist, scientist and leading climate realist, Tony Heller, which unequivocally destroys the purported; CO2-induced, man-made Climate Change “crisis” that is undermining Western economies, frightening our children and warping, otherwise intelligent adult brains.
THE first thought that came to me after watching this superb 20 minutes of pure science and logic was this quote from former UN IPCC Japanese Scientist – Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist:
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.”
WATCH…
Green Jihad
This video is a 20 minute course Tony Heller has composed to teach climate scientists the basic science which many of them choose not to understand. Pay close attention to who Swedish professor Svend Arhenius is related to.
World news – Aggressive spiders flourish in hurricanes scientists | 9News
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
– Voltaire
***
ANOTHER great example of how climate ‘scientists’, supported by the compliant mainstream media, use scary things to frighten you into submission and belief that the world is in peril, care or ‘evil’ mankind and his/her ‘evil’ trace gasses.
BUT, have you ever noticed how global warming climate change threatens imminent decline in cute, cuddly animals like Polar Bears? Yet, on the other hand, climate change threatens an *increase* in our most feared critters, like “aggressive” spiders?
NINE News Australia reports:
How global warming could make spiders more aggressive
By Richard Wood
1:04pm Aug 20, 2019
Global warming may result in more aggressive spiders around the world, a new study suggests.
Researchers at McMaster University in Canada found that aggressive spiders have a greater chance of surviving and reproducing following hurricanes than more docile breeds.
The study suggests the evolutionary impact of spider populations will be affected by extreme weather events, which scientists predict will increase because of rising sea levels caused by global warming.
Extreme weather events such as hurricanes may cause aggressive spiders to flourish, scientists have found.. (AAP)
Experts studied the communal spider or tangle web spider which lives in North and South America, reports the Independent.
They found aggressive colonies had a higher rate of reproduction after a tropical storm, while in storm-free regions more docile spiders thrived.
Researchers studied 240 colonies throughout North and South America and compared them with control sites.
Features of aggressive behaviour included the speed and number of attackers that respond to prey, the tendency to eat other spiders and how easily foreign spiders get into a nest.
Experts studied the communal spider or tangle web spider which lives in North and South America, to determine how they behaved after hurricanes impacted their environments. (Supplied)
RELATED ARTICLES
Five new species of spider found in Australia
Possum-eating spider photo goes viral
Funnel web spider venom could end malaria
Results suggest aggressive spiders are better at gaining resources but are more prone to infighting if they are short of food or the colony gets too hot.
The study – published in Nature, Ecology and Evolution – found that after hurricanes, more aggressive colonies produced more eggs and had more spiderlings survive into early winters.
Lead author Jonathan Pruitt said more extreme weather will impact wildlife development.
“As sea levels rise, the incidence of tropical storms will only increase. Now more than ever we need to contend with what the ecological and evolutionary impacts of these storms will be for non-human animals,” he said.
IN order to validate the ‘science’ that spiders ‘could’ become more aggressive due to global warming, we should check the data.
ACCORDING to the latest government data and the last two U.N. IPCC reports on “Extreme Weather”, there has been “NO” increase in extreme weather events, even as CO2 has risen to 400PPM – a rise of one CO2 molecule in every 10,000 parts of atmosphere since 1950.
“Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy”– UN IPCC SR15 (2018)
“There is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.” – UN IPCC SR15 (2018)
Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue
*
AUSTRALIAN TROPICAL CYCLONES
AUSTRALIAN tropical cyclones are declining in both intensity and frequency as CO₂ rises:
Florida Major Hurricane Strikes: Still No Trend « Roy Spencer, PhD
***
IS NATURAL SEA-LEVEL RISE ‘ACCELERATING’?
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:
Short-Term Tide Gauge Records from One Location are Inadequate to Infer Global Sea-Level Acceleration | SpringerLink
*
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.)
It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800 « JoNova
*
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
Relative Sea Level Trend 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia – NOAA Tides & Currents
*
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 :
Relative Sea Level Trend 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia – NOAA Tides & Currents
***
CONCLUSION
UNTIL the official ‘scientific’ data suggests that extreme weather events, like hurricanes and tropical cyclones are, in fact, increasing in frequency and intensity and not the other way around, as is occurring now, we should take such scary ‘spider’ studies with a pinch of salt and a whole lot of suspicion as to the real motives of the global warming climate change, misanthropic movement.
Heaviest snow in years expected over WA’s Stirling Ranges this weekend as cold blast hits – ABC News
SNOWFALLwill 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)
“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” – Spiegel (2000)
“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” – IPCC (2001)
“End of Snow?” – NYTimes (2014)
***
WEATHER is, of course, not climate.
WE are keenly reminded of this fact by our global warming climate change hysterical friends ‘if’ a significant snow event or cold blast is reported on the media.
THOUGH, do keep in mind the “End-Of-World” prophecies declared by our same friends every time a two-day heat wave (in summer) is reported, on repeat, throughout the mainstream media.
THE rules are simple – cold equals weather, hot equals climate!
*
SKIING in Australia takes place in the high country of the states of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, as well as in the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra), during the southern hemisphere winter. The season varies between ski fields and years, starting from mid June and ending mid October. The past three years have seen extended seasons across most higher altitude resorts.
WHILE most of the regular season since then has been ‘regular’, the latter half has been anything but, with the past two weeks seeing record snow dumps.
OFFICIAL MEASUREMENTS
SNOWY Hydro have been measuring weekly natural snow depths at three locations the Snowy Mountains of NSW since the 1950’s. Their highest measuring site is at Spencers Creek (1,830m elevation) near Charlotte Pass.
THE latest readings have been impressive. Record-breaking, in fact …
ACCORDING to Elders weather:
The natural snow depth at Spencers Creek was 202.7cm this week. This is the earliest date for a depth of two metres to be measured at Spencers Creek in 15 years.
It’s also an increase of 77.5cm from last week and, impressively, the third weekly increase of more than 70cm so far this season. This is a new record for Spencers Creek. Prior to 2019, there had only ever been two weekly depth increases 70cm or more in any one season, with data available back to 1954.
While there have been some long periods without any significant snow this season, when it has snowed, it’s been exceptional in a historical context.
Elders Weather
*
WITH more snow on the way this weekend for Australia’s ski fields, natural snow depth could reach its deepest level in two decades …
Deep snow at Australia’s ski fields | The Weekly Times
*
“SETTLED” SNOW SCIENCE?
WITH ‘unexpected’ snow over the past four years boosting historical averages across Australia’s ski fields, the big question still remains: Is Australia’s premier science body, the CSIRO, and the Ski industry willing to retract their ‘end of snow’ predictions?
A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that resorts could lose a quarter of their snow by 2020 …
CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in Victoria
By 2020, the average annual duration of snow-cover decreases by between five and 48 days; maximum snow depths are reduced and tend to occur earlier in the year; and the total area covered in snow shrinks by 10-40%
CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in Victoria
*
THE “97% Consensus Of Experts” AGREED, TOO!
IN 2000, climate expert Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) assured us that :
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)
SNOWFALL Will Become “A Very Rare And Exciting Event…” | Climatism
*
IN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of mankindpersonkind…
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
THEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”
warmer-winters-ipcc
*
THE SCIENCE WAS “SETTLED”
2000 : a prediction from Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research…
“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif
2000 : Spiegel…
“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
2004 : Mark Lynas told us…
“Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” – Mark Lynas
2005 : Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel…
Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
2005 : George Monbiot on climate change and snow…
Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us…
2006 : Daniela Jacob of Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg …
“Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
Less Snow and Drier Summers in German Forecast | Germany| News and in-depth reporting from Berlin and beyond | DW | 30.04.2006
2006 : The Independent‘s somber editorial admonished us that the lack of snow was evidence of a “dangerous seasonal disorder”…
The countryside is looking rather peculiar this winter. It seems we have a number of unexpected guests for Christmas. Dragonflies, bumblebees and red admiral butterflies, which would normally be killed off by the frost, can still be seen in some parts of the country . . . Some might be tempted to welcome this late blossoming of the natural world as a delightful diversion from the bleakness of this time of year. But these fluctuations should be cause for concern because it is overwhelmingly likely that they are a consequence of global warming . . . all this is also evidence that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than many imagined…
2007 : BBC “One Planet Special”…
“It Seems the Winters of Our Youth are Unlikely to Return” presenter Richard Hollingham … speaks to climate scientists to get their views. Their conclusion? In the words of the BBC, they all give “predictions of warmer winters, for UK & the Northern Hemisphere”.
2007 : Schleswig Holstein NABU…
“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
2007 : Western Mail (Wales Online) … article, entititled “Snowless Winters Forecast for Wales as World Warms Up” quotes one of the global warming movement’s key figures, Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office…
Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
2007 :Die Zeit…
“First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
2008 : Another prediction…
A study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps’s entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow…. In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records. ”I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.
2012 :
John Clarkson (@JohnClarksonGSM) | Twitter
Enjoy snow now . . . by 2020, it’ll be gone | The Australian
2014: the global warming theory-obsessed New York Times touted “The End of Snow?”…
“The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level.
This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks…”
(Climatism bolds)
The End of Snow? – The New York Times
2017 : The Age’s resident global warming catastrophist Peter Hannam signalled the end of snow…
Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope | The AGE
Australia’s ski resorts face the prospect of a long downhill run as a warming climate reduces snow depth, cover and duration. The industry’s ability to create artificial snow will also be challenged, scientists say.
Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope | The AGE
*
U-TURN!
NOW, of course, climate ‘scientists’ are trying to dig themselves out of snow that’s kept falling …
Looking back at 65 years’ worth of statistics, Environment Canada’s senior climatologist David Phillips noted that since 1948, winter temperatures in the prairie regions have increased by an average of four degrees Celsius… Ironically, warmer weather can mean greater snowfall. “As we warm up, we may see more moisture, we may see more moist air masses, and therefore we could very well see more snow rather than less snow, because the air masses are going to be more moist and so therefore you’re going to be able to wring out more snow than you would be if it was dry air,” Phillips said.
*
UNFORTUNATELY for CO2-centric climatologists like David Phillips, attempting to ‘dig’ themselves out of their “end of snow” dud-predictions, you need cold air to make snow!
VETERAN Boston meteorologist Barry Burbank explains …
“Interestingly, some scientists have stated that increasing snow is consistent with climate change because warmer air holds more moisture, more water vapor and this can result in more storms with heavy precipitation. The trick, of course, is having sufficient cold air to produce that snow. But note that 93% of the years with more than 60″ of snow in Boston were colder than average years. The reality is cooling, not warming, increases snowfall.”
Will The Snowiest Decade Continue? – CBS Boston
***
CONCLUSION
LISTEN to what the ‘experts’ promised you back then. Because, if they got it wrong then, how can you trust what they are foretelling today or tomorrow? The answer is you cannot, because they have no idea what long-range conditions Mother Nature is going to serve up in such a “chaotic” and complex system as our climate.
AND, most importantly, does the CSIRO and “97% of all climate experts” still stand by their ‘end of snow’ predictions? Or is their alarmist sophistry simply more global warming climate change fear-mongering based on CO2-centric ideology, eco-religious dogma and overheated UN IPCC and CSIRO climate computer models that do not accord with observed reality?
IN parting, keep in mind how the Climate Change theory-obsessed mainstream media sells you snow in the era of Global Warming theory-madness …
“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
***
THE polar bear as an icon for Global Warming Climate Change is dead, because the distorted predictions made by Polar Bear ‘specialists’ were wrong.
THIS is a lesson for researchers in other areas who have failed to stop the invasion of politics into their science.
*
TUCKER CARLSON interviews Zoologist and Polar Bear specialist Dr. Susan Crockford on the prime time ratings-killer show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in a must watch segment that demonstrates how “overpopulation”, not extinction, is now the problem :
*
THE Global Warming Policy Foundation has since released an excellent short video showing why the polar bear no longer serves as the icon of the climate change movement :
If Renewables Are So Great for the Environment, Why Do They Keep Destroying 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 :
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.
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
written by Michael Shellenberger
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet – Quillette
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.
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet – Quillette
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.
Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany andpays little more than halffor 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 fearsolar 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 toldHigh 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 :
Environmentalist Tells Tucker Carlson: Renewables Can’t Save The Planet | The Daily Caller
This post is prompted by a recent exchange with those reasserting the “consensus” view attributing all additional atmospheric CO2 to humans burning fossil fuels.
Credit: OH 237 @ Wikipedia
Recent Comments