Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[trichrider]

carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent. Jan 25, 2018


i thought you asked.


and the 97% was not of all scientists. it was 97% of the accepted papers supporting the global warming narrative who received grant monies from the NGOs set up to further that narrative. there were actually only about two thousand respondents to the online survey that they use to produce that 97% figure. some weren't even scientists but grad students working toward their thesis'.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

Still grasping at straws huh?


Siberia heatwave: why the Arctic is warming so much faster than the rest of the world

On the eve of the summer solstice, something very worrying happened in the Arctic Circle. For the first time in recorded history, temperatures reached 38°C (101°F) in a remote Siberian town – 18°C warmer than the maximum daily average for June in this part of the world, and the all-time temperature record for the region.

more...
https://theconversation.com/amp/sib...much-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-world-141455


But there's nothing to see here... move along.

 

[1G12]

carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent. Jan 25, 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static in the atmosphere however. It is generated by natural processes and absorbed by others.
Natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly from ice cores and indirectly through proxies.
So, concider what happens when we add more CO2 to the carbon cycle from outside of the “natural” carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 35 gigatons is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean can't absorb all the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere and as a consequence atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (from Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100 ppm normally takes 5000 to 10,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since preindustrial times creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While the fossil fuel derived CO2 is a very small part of the global carbon cycle the effect is cumulative because natural carbon exchange can't absorb all the additional CO2.
So, the level of atmospheric CO2 is building up and that build up is accelerating.
Also, it's not the percent of CO2 in relation to the other atmospheric gases that's important, it's the total amount that's important since most of the other gases don't trap heat. So, .04% means nothing. It's called physics.

 

[trichrider]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"While the fossil fuel derived CO2 is a very small part of the global carbon cycle the effect is cumulative because natural carbon exchange can't absorb all the additional CO2."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds


From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
...Every year, about half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants. “While our study did not address the connection between greening and carbon storage in plants, other studies have reported an increasing carbon sink on land since the 1980s, which is entirely consistent with the idea of a greening Earth,” said co-author Shilong Piao of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at Peking University.


...so that CO2 isn't being sequestered? i'm pretty sure that this increase in 'greening' is a natural result of what you say isn't happening.
do you believe in homeopathy? because this tiny fraction of atmospheric gases would be mimicking homeopathy for your hypothesis to hold water...
and thank the stars for that warmth.



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]

 

[trichrider]

SPECIAL ISSUE: ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY AND BIOMETEOROLOGY

The influence of circulation weather types on the exposure
of the biosphere to atmospheric electric fields

Received: 19 September 2019 /Revised: 25 February 2020 /Accepted: 14 April 2020

Abstract

We present an analysis of the impact of circulation weather types (CT) on a factor that might influence biological systems and the human condition, the electric state of the atmosphere. We present results on the influence of CT to the magnitude, the direction(positive or negative), the fluctuation magnitude, and the short-term peaks of the atmospheric electric field (potential gradient,PG), using data from a station in Greece. CTs with high vorticity centers over Greece are associated with high positive and negative excursions of the PG, higher PG variability, and rain events. CTs with thinner 850–500 hPa layer are associated with higher daily mean values of fair-weather PG. We also examine the influence of CT on the frequency and amplitude of the naturally occurring extremely low-frequency electric field fluctuations known as Schumann resonances (SR) using data from a station in Hungary. The first and second mode SR frequencies are increased during CTs associated with higher 500 hPa geopotential heights and higher 850–500 hPa layer thickness. This hints to a lower-upper atmosphere coupling. So, CTs not only influence the general temperature and humidity conditions to which the biosphere is exposed, but they also affect its exposure to atmospheric electric fields.


Conclusions

In this paper, an attempt was made to find possible connections with circulation weather types, potential gradient values,and other indicators of the electric state of the atmosphere.The highest positive excursions of hourly PG above +1000 V/m and even + 8000 V/m occur for circulation types associated with Saharan dust transport over the site. Saharan dust is known to be charged and is also of human health significance. Increased efficiency of deposition to the lungs of charged particles and surface charge being a key factor influencing lung inflammation, this observation is of high bioclimatological significance. We find also interesting correlations of the electrical state of the atmosphere with the NE-E summer Etesian winds that might also carry particles from the East.It is found that circulation types affect the near-ground electric state of the atmosphere in terms of DC electric field magnitude, DC electric field fluctuations, DC electric field polarity, lightning, electric field frequency (SR), and amplitude. It is also found that certain changes from one CT to another cause large changes in the DC electric field magnitude. Flemming (1996) stressed that “the admixtures and pollutants pertaining to air quality criteria belong to the atmosphere and therefore, of course, to the field of meteorology, and due to their possible effects also to human biometeorology”. We note that atmospheric electricity also belongs to the field of meteorology and, due to its possible effects, also to biometeorology. Because large variations in aspects of the atmospheric electric environment are observed with different circulation weather types, the atmospheric electric environment deserves to be included in CT-related bioclimatic studies.It appears to us that with reasonable effort, it might soon be also possible to include certain aspects of the atmospheric electric field to biometeorological weather forecasts.


https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00484-020-01923-y.pdf

 

[1G12]

South Pole has warmed three times faster than rest of planet in last 30 years

South Pole has warmed three times faster than rest of planet in last 30 years

The South Pole, the most remote place on the planet, has warmed three times faster than other areas over the past three decades, scientists have said.

Research published in Nature Climate Change found that an abrupt shift has seen temperatures at the pole rocket upwards from 1989.

Since that point, temperatures at the South Pole have risen 0.6 degrees Celsius per decade, three times the rate for the rest of the planet.

Researchers believe that the high temperatures are being fuelled not just by a rise in greenhouse gases, but also by natural weather shifts in the tropics.

Read more: A 1988 warning about climate change was mostly right

The 'double whammy' sheds light on why Antarctica is bearing the brunt of climate change.

Dr Kyle Clem, of Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, said: “These trends were unlikely the result of natural climate change alone.

“The effects have likely worked in tandem to make this one of the strongest warming trends on Earth.”

“The South Pole has warmed at over three times the global rate since 1989,” he added.

The average rise of 0.61 degrees Celsius per decade was mainly driven by natural tropical climate variability – and was likely intensified by the burning of fossil fuels, Clem said.

 

[kickarse]

Yeah well its - 40c at the sth pole ATM, feels like -58c apparently
The "warmest" it got the last year, was -22 c in Jan and Feb
The record "high" is - 12.3 c, the record low is -82.8 c

Where is the the 3 x warming ? sounds like more bullshit to me

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3zxPCK10Wc


[youtubeif]h3zxPCK10Wc[/youtubeif]
Saharan Dust Cloud & Greenland Summer Ice Anomalies (1000)

 

[trichrider]

CMIP6 Climate Models Producing 50% More Surface Warming than Observations since 1979

June 25th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Those who defend climate model predictions often produce plots of observed surface temperature compared to the models which show very good agreement. Setting aside the debate over the continuing adjustments to the surface temperature record which produce ever-increasing warming trends, let’s look at how the most recent (CMIP6) models are doing compared to the latest version of the observations (however good those are).
First, I’d like to explain how some authors get such good agreement between the models and observations. Here are the two “techniques” they use that most annoy me.

1. They look at long periods of time, say the last 100+ years. This improves the apparent agreement because most of that period was before there was substantial forcing of the climate system by increasing CO2.
2. They plot anomalies about a common reference period, but do not show trend lines. Or, if they show trends lines, they do not start them at the same point at the beginning of the record. When you do this, the discrepancy between models and observations is split in half, with the discrepancy in the latter half of the record having the opposite sign of the discrepancy in the early part of the record. They say, “See? The observed temperatures in the last few decades nearly match the models!”

In the following plot (which will be included in a report I am doing for the Global Warming Policy Foundation) I avoid both of those problems. During the period of strongest greenhouse gas forcing (since 1979), the latest CMIP6 models reveal 50% more net surface warming from 1979 up to April 2020 (+1.08 deg. C) than do the observations (+0.72 deg. C).

Note I have accounted for the trends being somewhat nonlinear, using a 2nd order polynomial fit to all three time series. Next, I have adjusted the CMIP time series vertically so that their polynomial fit lines are coaligned with the observations in 1979. I believe this is the most honest and meaningful way to intercompare the warming trends in different datasets.
As others have noted, it appears the CMIP6 models are producing even more warming than the CMIP5 models did… although the KNMI Climate Explorer website (from which all of the data was downloaded) has only 13 models archived so far.


https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/0...surface-warming-than-observations-since-1979/

 

[1G12]

Russian Arctic sets 'fantastical' heat records: weather chief

Russian Arctic sets 'fantastical' heat records: weather chief

Moscow (AFP) - The Russian Arctic set record temperatures in June that sparked abnormal tundra fires, the head of Russia's weather service said Tuesday, blaming climate change for the "fantastical" anomalies.

Russia's northern territories, including parts of Yakutia region which borders the Arctic ocean, have faced a heat wave in recent weeks, and villages in the remote tundra are battling wildfires with some districts declaring a state of emergency.

"We had extremely anomalous weather" in June, Roman Vilfand said, adding that "previous records were broken easily".

He noted one record in particular in the Arctic town of Verkhoyansk, where temperatures reached 38 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit)on June 17.

"That is a fantastical degree," Vilfand said at a press conference, noting that Verkhoyansk previously set the record for the lowest temperature with minus 67.8 degrees Celsius.

Vilfand said the trend of hotter temperatures and sunnier weather was caused by climate change and a change in atmospheric circulation, with polar anticyclones -- phenomena that bring sunny skies -- becoming more frequent.

The lack of clouds, in turn, causes the ground to heat up during the Arctic summer, he said.

Previously "meteorologists didn't note fire hazardous situations in the polar regions often," he said, but this is now changing due to these patterns.

"It's an astonishing situation. Anticyclones happen more and more often and you can never predict where they are going to occur," he said.

"This is the most important problem of climate change and a result of climate change."

The resulting fires contribute to the cycle of warming since ash darkens the surface of ice that previously reflected the sun, causing it to melt instead, Vilfand said.

Russia is warming 2.5 times faster than the rest of the world due to its vast Arctic territories.

Though President Vladimir Putin has noted the benefits of warmer temperatures opening up transportation routes and energy resources, climate change is a huge hazard for the country's infrastructure built on permafrost.

 

[St. Phatty]

Moscow (AFP) - The Russian Arctic set record temperatures in June that sparked abnormal tundra fires, the head of Russia's weather service said Tuesday, blaming climate change for the "fantastical" anomalies.

Though President Vladimir Putin has noted the benefits of warmer temperatures opening up transportation routes and energy resources, climate change is a huge hazard for the country's infrastructure built on permafrost.

not too surprising.

just bakes in the sun on those hot summer days.

also, very rarely, compost will heat up so much that it spontaneously combusts, i.e. similar to pyrolysis.

and permafrost = old compost. LOTS of it.

why don't they cut a piece of permafrost, give it a Certificate that says "Russian Permafrost" - and SELL it ?

some Yuppies would buy it. just need the marketing.

 

[1G12]

Recent global warming has wiped out 6,500 years of cooling, study says

Recent global warming has wiped out 6,500 years of cooling, study says

Over the past 150 years, human-caused global warming has erased the natural global cooling that occurred over the previous 6,500 years, according to a study published Tuesday.

Scientists reconstructed the global average temperature over the past 12,000 years to reach their conclusion. They studied "paleoclimatic" sources from around the world – such as lake deposits, marine sediments, peat and glacier ice – to infer past temperature changes.

"Before global warming, there was global cooling," study lead author Darrell Kaufman, a paleoclimatologist at Northern Arizona University, said in a statement.

"Previous work has shown convincingly that the world naturally and slowly cooled for at least 1,000 years prior to the middle of the 19th century, when the global average temperature reversed course along with the build-up of greenhouse gases."

"This study, based on a major new compilation of previously published paleoclimate data, combined with new statistical analyses, shows more confidently than ever that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago," he said.

The rate of cooling that followed the peak warmth was subtle, only around 0.1 degree Celsius per 1,000 years, according to assistant research professor and study co-author Michael Erb, also of Northern Arizona University, who analyzed the temperature reconstructions.

The cooling seems to be driven by slow cycles in the Earth's orbit around the sun, which reduced the amount of summer sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere, culminating in the "Little Ice Age" of recent centuries, Erb said.

Since the mid-19th century, global warming has climbed about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), suggesting that the global average temperature of the last decade (2010-2019) was warmer than any time during the past 12,000 years.

"It's possible," Kaufman said, "that the last time the sustained average global temperature was 1 degree Celsius above the 19th century was prior to the last Ice Age, back around 125,000 years ago when sea level was around 20 feet higher than today."

 

[TychoMonolyth]

CMIP6 Climate Models Producing 50% More Surface Warming than Observations since 1979

June 25th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Those who defend climate model predictions often produce plots of observed surface temperature compared to the models which show very good agreement. Setting aside the debate over the continuing adjustments to the surface temperature record which produce ever-increasing warming trends, let’s look at how the most recent (CMIP6) models are doing compared to the latest version of the observations (however good those are).
First, I’d like to explain how some authors get such good agreement between the models and observations. Here are the two “techniques” they use that most annoy me.

1. They look at long periods of time, say the last 100+ years. This improves the apparent agreement because most of that period was before there was substantial forcing of the climate system by increasing CO2.
2. They plot anomalies about a common reference period, but do not show trend lines. Or, if they show trends lines, they do not start them at the same point at the beginning of the record. When you do this, the discrepancy between models and observations is split in half, with the discrepancy in the latter half of the record having the opposite sign of the discrepancy in the early part of the record. They say, “See? The observed temperatures in the last few decades nearly match the models!”

In the following plot (which will be included in a report I am doing for the Global Warming Policy Foundation) I avoid both of those problems. During the period of strongest greenhouse gas forcing (since 1979), the latest CMIP6 models reveal 50% more net surface warming from 1979 up to April 2020 (+1.08 deg. C) than do the observations (+0.72 deg. C).
[URL=https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP6-vs-CMIP5-vs-HadCRUT4-1979-Apr2020-550x413.jpg]View Image[/URL]
Note I have accounted for the trends being somewhat nonlinear, using a 2nd order polynomial fit to all three time series. Next, I have adjusted the CMIP time series vertically so that their polynomial fit lines are coaligned with the observations in 1979. I believe this is the most honest and meaningful way to intercompare the warming trends in different datasets.
As others have noted, it appears the CMIP6 models are producing even more warming than the CMIP5 models did… although the KNMI Climate Explorer website (from which all of the data was downloaded) has only 13 models archived so far.


https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/0...surface-warming-than-observations-since-1979/

Oh here we go again.

Roy W. Spencer is funded by the Heartland Institute (heartland.org)

Who is the Heartland Institute? Just listen to this. This is from an environmental attorney.
https://youtu.be/mYJHtauiP9Q?t=526

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKgrbQp24AQ
[youtubeif]WKgrbQp24AQ[/youtubeif]


UN to Investigate Northern Siberia’s Reported Record Arctic Heat — I Wonder What They’ll Find…

June 24, 2020 Cap Allon
The UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said Tuesday it is seeking to investigate the record high temperature recently reported from inside the Arctic Circle.

At a twice-weekly UN briefing in Geneva, Clare Nullis, WMO spokesperson, said that the 38C reported on June 20 in the Russian town of Verkhoyansk can only mean one thing — that we’re all still doomed.

That still unverified reading “comes amid a prolonged Siberian heat wave and an increase in wildfire activity,” said Nullis.
Nullis said the WMO will confer with Roshydromet, the Russian agency responsible for reporting Eastern Siberia’s weather, to see how unusual this event is. But Roshydromet has already told Nullis that this region “has very, very cold extremes in winter but is also known for its extremes in summer.”

So, Nullis knows that temperatures regularly hit 30+C in Verkhoyansk.
She should also know the town recorded a verified 37.3C back in 1988.
She must know that wildfires are a natural, regular occurrence in this area.
And that the Article circle recorded a balmy 37.8C way back in 1915.
Yet still, even with all this knowledge, Nullis still feels obliged to lay Verkhoyansk’s preliminary reading of 38C solely at the feet of man-made global warming.

“Climate change isn’t taking a break because of COVID-19, ” said Nullis.

“You know, temperatures are carrying on rising [and] we see continuing extreme weather events. We’ve seen satellite images this morning, and it’s just one mass of red — it’s striking and worrying.”

A wholly unscientific approach, Nullis, and an insult to the decades-worth of meticulously-thought-out-theories of climate researchers of the past, researchers that were permitted to express their findings and theories without fear of persecution, before the weather had been weaponized, and before the politicized global warming narrative had destroyed modern climate science.

Those researchers of the past were free to discover that during low solar output, the jet streams weaken and revert to a meridional (wavy) flow.

They found out that these pronounced, arching patterns can persist for months at a time, and that they have the effect of locking unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably hot weather on the other.

They discovered the phenomenon is also responsible for diverting cold Arctic air to the lower latitudes, while kicking warm Tropical air anomalously-far north — fully explaining why northern Siberia has been hot of late while southern Siberia is actually suffering record cold and snow (a fact ignored by the UN and MSM).

Article from Science Mag, dated 1975.

In addition to the “meridional circulation” pattern visualized above, what’s also worth noting about the articleis how temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere cooled from 1935 to 1970+ while atmospheric CO2 levels rose exponentially.

No AGW alarmists has ever been able to explain this, it’s another of those inconvenient truths that gets swept under the carpet — something former IPCC scientists Dr. Khadekar pointed out last year:

“You know earth’s climate was cooling from 1935-1977 when CO2 was rising very rapidly. And nobody talks about it! The earth’s climate warmed from 1977 – 1998 along with CO2 increase, but in the last 20 years, according to most climate scientists, there has not been any statistically significant warming of the earth’s climate.”

The Sun is still suffering its deepest solar minimum of the past 100+ years, meaning this meridional jet stream pattern will persist.

Regions like northern Siberia, Alaska, and the Arctic-itself will continue to be at risk from lingering pockets of anomalous heat, while the lower latitudes will suffer yet more anomalous, record-breaking cold.

And looking forward, this pattern will only intesify.
The coming solar cycle (25) and its subsequent minimum is forecast to be “the weakest of the past 200 years,” according to NASA no less:



Low solar activity = ‘global’ cooling.

However, it doesn’t take that big of adrop in the Sun’s power to cause a dramatic chill on planet Earth — there are more forcings than just Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at play, forcings the IPCC refuses to acknowledge in its bogus climate change reports.

An influx of Cosmic Rays is one such forcing.

During solar minimum, the Sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases — this allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere:



Cosmic Rays hitting Earth’s atmosphere create aerosols which in turn seed clouds (Svensmark et al) — making CRs an important player in our weather and climate.

And as well as an uptick in localized precipitation, there are other major climatic implications to increased cloud cover:
“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade,” points out Dr. Roy Spencer, “and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

The UN and its corrupted little offshoots –the IPCC, WMO (and WHO for that matter)– are political bodies, not scientific ones. We should trust utterances as much as we would any politician canvasing for votes.

The IPCC was created by the UN to push the global warming narrative, no matter what. If there is no global warming then the IPCC has no purpose. If there is no global warming then the UN is exposed for the dangerous frauds they really are.
“The Arctic is heating at roughly twice the global average,” say the WMO.


But then, they say that about everywhere:



Don’t fall for bogus political agendas.
The Grand Solar MAXIMUM is over.
Another solar-driven cooling cycle is upon us, and this one looks brutal.

Welcome to the next Grand Solar MINIMUM — “the Eddy Minimum“:

https://electroverse.net/un-to-investigate-siberias-reported-record-arctic-heat/

 

[kickarse]

Over the past 150 years, human-caused global warming has erased the natural global cooling that occurred over the previous 6,500 years, according to a study published Tuesday.

Scientists reconstructed the global average temperature over the past 12,000 years to reach their conclusion. They studied "paleoclimatic" sources from around the world – such as lake deposits, marine sediments, peat and glacier ice – to infer past temperature changes.

"Before global warming, there was global cooling," study lead author Darrell Kaufman, a paleoclimatologist at Northern Arizona University, said in a statement.

"Previous work has shown convincingly that the world naturally and slowly cooled for at least 1,000 years prior to the middle of the 19th century, when the global average temperature reversed course along with the build-up of greenhouse gases."

"This study, based on a major new compilation of previously published paleoclimate data, combined with new statistical analyses, shows more confidently than ever that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago," he said.

The rate of cooling that followed the peak warmth was subtle, only around 0.1 degree Celsius per 1,000 years, according to assistant research professor and study co-author Michael Erb, also of Northern Arizona University, who analyzed the temperature reconstructions.

The cooling seems to be driven by slow cycles in the Earth's orbit around the sun, which reduced the amount of summer sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere, culminating in the "Little Ice Age" of recent centuries, Erb said.

Since the mid-19th century, global warming has climbed about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), suggesting that the global average temperature of the last decade (2010-2019) was warmer than any time during the past 12,000 years.

"It's possible," Kaufman said, "that the last time the sustained average global temperature was 1 degree Celsius above the 19th century was prior to the last Ice Age, back around 125,000 years ago when sea level was around 20 feet higher than today."

Well thank fuck for that then, next ice age averted
Glad they can pick up a .1c difference over a 1000 years

But its all could's might's and maybe's and inferring what they would like to believe, they never let any facts get in the way

What's the margin of error for the .1c over 1000 years ?

 

[trichrider]

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

June 29, 2020

The author in Maranhão, Brazil, 1995




On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:

• Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
• The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
• Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
• Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
• The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
• The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
• Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
• Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level
• We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
• Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
• Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
• Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.
In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.
Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions
But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”
But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.
I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.
But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”
The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”
Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.
As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.
Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.
I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.
And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.
Some highlights from the book:

• Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
• The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
• The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
• 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
• We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
• Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
• Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
• “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
• Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
• The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?
In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism
Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.
Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.
The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.
The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.
But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.
The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.
Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.
Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.
Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.
The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. "Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.
“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”
That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.
I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.


https://environmentalprogress.org/b...Ilmwwaa2yTzMqwyAAzzXgDaXzuItO9FN4RtC38UNU2fww

 

[igrowone]

evening greetings to the thread readers
and so we have a passage opening on the arctic sea
the north eastern passage has seemed to have opened
but that's just my eye, judge the pictures yourself
and open by July 14th? likely a record

 

[St. Phatty]

waiting for some crafty Russian to sell Siberian Permafrost terrariums to the Yuppies in San Francisco for $100 a square foot.

they spend enormous amounts of money to hide the fact that they live in expensive boxes.

 

[trichrider]

China aims to control ports and shipping lanes in Europe and the Arctic

China's military and economic ambitions are growing in Europe and the Arctic, where the rising communist power may be trying to gain control over important shipping lanes or seaports, according to a top U.S. admiral and Western analysts.
“They're building the first nuclear icebreaker,” The Arctic Institute founder Malte Humpert said. “That’s going to be the test platform to build nuclear aircraft carriers. It’s all linked together … the Arctic is becoming a geopolitical space.”
Such activities have caught the attention of U.S. diplomats and military leaders, who warn that Chinese Communist officials aspire to project military power in the region.
“With China having its own precedent for making bogus claims over international waterways in the South China Sea, it's possible that China will also seek to bend the rules in their favor in the Arctic,” said Adm. James Foggo, commander of the U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa and Joint Forces Command Naples, during a recent webinar hosted by the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
Most analysts doubt that China would try to claim territorial sovereignty in the Arctic, as it has in the South China Sea, yet that’s not the only way to gain operational control over key territories.
“I just don't think China is really at that spot yet in the Arctic to make territorial claims, but they're certainly trying to make other claims,” the Heritage Foundation’s Luke Coffey said, referring to China's attempt to gain influence at the Arctic Council.
That intergovernmental organization, which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited last year, could have an important role in fencing China out of the region. “If the Arctic Council falls apart, and it becomes more of a free-for-all for all the various Arctic states, then, of course, there's an opening for China,” Humpert said.
That scenario would be conducive to China’s desire to use the Belt and Road Initiative, a global overseas investment program, to gain military advantages against the United States and Western allies. Lithuanian officials, for instance, have been resisting China's attempts to secure a controlling stake in a port on the Baltic Sea.
“The Chinese are offering financial relief and opportunities and then using that to influence governments in Europe,” Foggo said. “This type of influence is a security concern, and it could be used to restrict access to key seaports and airport facilities while providing access to sensitive government and military information through the technology of state-owned and state-controlled enterprises.”
Such investments raise the specter of an Arctic nation inviting China’s military to operate in its country, although U.S. influence and the relative wealth of the Arctic states augurs against such a development. Yet Beijing might not even need a territorial foothold, according to Humpert.
“The center of the Arctic Ocean is high seas, so it would have to be some kind of floating military installation,” he said. "It could be a seasonal installation on the ice.”
Or they could try to project power through the kind of platform that has been a mainstay of the U.S. military for decades. “When China will have multiple nuclear aircraft carriers, then it's not unrealistic that they will build one that is ice capable and could potentially be stationed in the Arctic, just as a show of force or to keep tabs on Alaska,” Humpert said.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...n-europe-and-the-arctic?utm_source=whatfinger

 

[kickarse]

Its been a bloody ripper Winter here, average is 13.5 c for down the rd
says we averaging 14.5c for the month, who knows they been known to get it very wrong at times, can show 25c there, and 12c everywhere else, not kidding, live 10 mile up the rd, know what the weather is doing, have rang up the BOM a few times about it lol

its probably pretty close tho?, better then the last 3-4 freezing cold wet ones I can tell ya lol

Does it make me believe in "man made global warming" ?
don't be stupid we all know that is bullshit hey