The earth is greening and 16 other comments on climate hysteria
By Simon Rozendaal
(Translation from his article in Netherlands Elsevier’s weekly Magazine, January 21st, 2017, with author’s permission)
In fact vegetation is thriving, figures for wind power are misleading, “sinking” islands are not sinking, safer nuclear energy is in the offing, and more that can be said loudly now that there is a real climate skeptic in the White House.
When Donald Trump was elected as president of the United States of America, the first thing that the Dutch media reported with unconcealed revulsion was that he was a ‘climate skeptic’.
The exact nature of this exotic species may not have been immediately clear to the reader or viewer of the Dutch media, because climate skeptics are consistently being ignored by them. But everyone should understand that it is something awful – even worse than a populist.
In Europe, and certainly in the Netherlands, global warming is seen as a threat, outclassing all other threats, viewed as being even much more dangerous than the rise of Islamic terrorism. One doesn’t need to be a fan of Donald Trump to frown upon this presumption.
Skeptics have been mislabeled
Much of what people daily hear about climate and climate skeptics is demonstrably wrong. The climate adviser to former President Barack Obama, Steven Koonin, tried in 2014 to infuse some nuance into the debate by arguing in The Wall Street Journal that the science is not unambiguous: not all experts believe global warming is caused entirely by man.
Nor is it certain that the current, fairly mild warming will continue unconstrained in the coming decades. What is certain is that the earth is rapidly greening, courtesy of the infamous carbon dioxide (CO2). And that’s just one of the many comments one could make on climate hysteria.
Ice melting everywhere, but not around Antarctica
Sea ice around Antarctica is growing by about 1.5 percent per decade. Even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the climate panel of the United Nations), which hardly ever shies away from a little exaggeration – confirms this in its reports.
The most likely explanation – presented by Richard Bintanja of the Netherlands Royal Met Office (KNMI) – is that the melting of the ice caps on the main land of Antarctica produces a layer of fresh water on the surrounding seawater. According to the laws of physics fresh water freezes more quickly than seawater. Therefore, we sprinkle salt on our roads in winter. Thus, warming may lead to more ice. If this theory is correct, this phenomenon should disappear over thirty years, so that the sea ice would melt at the Antarctic as well.
The Earth isn’t out of whack
> The land area of the Marshall Islands – a chain of volcanic atolls in the Pacific Ocean – is not sinking, but rising. The sea level rise is offset by the washing ashore of sand.
> The rate at which the concentration of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, has slowed down since 2000. Presumably, as has been published in Nature Communications a few months ago, because plants absorb more carbon dioxide from the air.
> The same magazine also recently stated that the carbon stored in peat and bogs, is contained more firmly than previously thought. The probability that global warming will reach a tipping point because this carbon is released from the peat and swamp methane (which causes a 28 times stronger greenhouse effect than CO2) is small.
10 the cost to put man on the moon for 0.17 Celsius
Critics claim that the Netherlands Energy Agreement [comparable with the Energiewende in Germany], which aims at a share of 16 percent renewable energy by 2023, will cost 100 billion euros — more than a couple of major projects together, such as the Delta Works, the Betuwe railway, the tunnel under the Green Heartland and the acquisition of JSF fighter plane.
The annual costs of the international climate agreement, concluded in Paris last year, is estimated to be between $ 1,000 and $ 2,000 billion. In comparison: the man-on-the-moon-program cost in today’s value approximately $100 billion. On the Manhattan Project, which produced the American atomic bomb, 24 billion was spent (adjusted for inflation).
That means that international climate policy costs each year ten times more than the man-on-the-moon-program and the development of the atomic bomb together. If climate policy intentions come true, the result will be only a net 0.17 degrees less warming by 2050, as has been calculated by the Danish (skeptical) environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg, founder of the think tank ‘Copenhagen Consensus Center’.
This enormous expenditure will not only affect the wallets of citizens, but also the environment. After all, economic growth in the second half of the twentieth century, did not only produce more disposable income for many, but also generated the money to tackle the pollution of forty years ago.
Geed news: the earth 14% greener than 1980
The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm (parts per million) in 1800 to over 400 now. In percentage terms this rise looks less scary: from 0.028 to 0.04 percent of the total atmosphere.
This increase does not only have negative consequences. To the contrary, plants convert sunlight using CO2 into carbohydrates which become part of their mass. For them, carbon dioxide is a yearned-for fertilizer. The increase in carbon dioxide has greened the earth, said Ranga Myneni of Boston University in a lecture in 2011. On the basis of satellite images he concluded that the earth had become 14 percent greener over the past thirty years. The increase manifests itself everywhere, even in arid regions such as the Sahel.
Myneni’s paper appeared in April last year in Nature Climate Change. 32 researchers from 24 international institutions had participated in the exercise. In 2011 Myneni still believed that the half of the increase in plant growth could be attributed to CO2.
Currently, he estimates that this figure should be 70 percent. One of his co-authors, Zaichun Zhu from Beijing University, points out that a green continent of the size of two times the U.S. has been added to the earth because of CO2 fertilization.
Bonus of warming outweighs the negative factors
The Dutch should know better than anybody else that plants love CO2. Since 2005 the Shell refinery in Pernis (near Rotterdam) supplies carbon dioxide to greenhouses in South Holland through pipelines. Thus, hundreds of Dutch growers can achieve higher yields.
The Swedish Nobel Prize winner for chemistry, Svante Arrhenius, who more than a century ago was the first in the world who presented the theory of global warming, was also aware that an increase in CO2 would have beneficial effects.
In his book ‘Worlds in the Making’ (1908) he predicted that the earth would warm up and that agricultural yields would rise. As the discoverer of the greenhouse effect, this global greening was more important to him than global warming. He might haven been surprised to learn that today the reverse is the case. In fact, the positive effects haven been skillfully swept under the carpet.
Climate skeptics are being ignored, vilified and badgered by their universities
William Happer (77) is emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University (USA). He was dismissed in 1993 from the US Energy Department as Vice President Al Gore did not like his critical views. Greenpeace is conducting an ongoing slander campaign against Happer on the Internet.
Judith Curry (63), former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology (USA), believes that there is some man-made global warming, but in her view the role of nature is dominant. A few weeks ago she resigned, partly because there is too much ‘insanity’ and ‘alarmism’ in climate science.
The Swedish Professor Lennart Bengtsson (81) was director of the European ECMWF weather bureau and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology. In 2014 he joined the advisory council of skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). He became the target of an fierce orchestrated campaign of mud-slinging, and so he felt forced to withdraw from the council within two weeks.
A study by Roger Pielke Jr. (48), professor at the University of Colorado (USA), showed that the number of storms and hurricanes has not increased. Subsequently, Pielke – who believes that humans contribute to global warming – was so vilified that he has chosen a different field of research.
Trump: ‘Sometimes it gets warmer, sometimes cooler.’
The president of the United States, Donald Trump, is called a climate skeptic (in The New York Times even a ‘climate denier’). He has appointed several people in his cabinet, who are known to be climate skeptics.
He wants step out of the Paris’ climate agreement as soon as possible and said: ‘Sometimes it gets a little warmer, sometimes cooler.’ That is called weather. It has often been alleged that Trump said that man-made global warming was a Chinese fabrication. But it is ignored that he emphatically said that this was meant as a joke.
However, he did say: ‘I think climate change is just an expensive, very expensive way to raise more taxes.’
Many journalists are not objective about climate
Alan Rusbridger, former editor of the British newspaper The Guardian, said recently in an interview with NRC Handelsblad [a Dutch daily] that his newspaper had decided in 2014 to take action against climate change. The newspaper was campaigning against oil companies under the motto: ‘Keep it in the ground.’
Rusbridger, who is now at the University of Oxford, admits that his newspaper thereby clearly exceeded all boundaries of objectivity and independence, but in this case the goal justifies the means.
Jelmer Mommers, reporter on climate and energy for the internet newspaper ‘Correspondent’, says and writes repeatedly that objective reporting like the ‘old media’ is not a priority for him. With his articles he wants to contribute to the fight against global warming.
Henk Hagoort, until recently head of the Dutch Public Broadcasting Corporation, has admitted several times that he does not want objective reporting on climate. He thinks that the television network should encourage Dutch politicians to take urgent action against climate change. During a radio discussion Hagoort stated he refused to make programs that questioned the existence of a climate problem.
The many hidden costs of offshore wind
Offshore wind technology is progressing rapidly. For instance, Shell believes it can build wind farms that are profitable at 5.45 cents per kilowatt hour. Four years ago that figure was still 17 cents. Good news, partly because offshore wind blows twice as often and twice as hard. And partly because the learning curve leads to more efficient production.
And thus ‘only’ 300 million subsidy has to be spent on wind farms, cheers Minister Henk Kamp (minister of economic affairs, Classical Liberals, VVD). But it should be noted that, ultimately, the real price of major projects is often twice as high than the budgeted one. Also, the low price of offshore wind power is still well above the market price, which is now just over 3 cents, and will fall further below 2 cents according to experts.
The integration of wind power also requires additional investment. For example, the high-voltage network has to be improved and strengthened earlier than planned. Backup must be secured by gas plants that can quickly respond to rising demand when the wind is not blowing. Storage is required in case the wind blows, but there is no demand. The cost of all this is not attributed to wind, but ‘socialized’, i.e. passed on to the consumer.
Producers and government hold out false hopes of low electricity prices of wind power. But the reality in Denmark and Germany proves to be different, since electricity prices in these countries are among the highest in the world. It is nice that prices for wind power have fallen so rapidly, but in the mean time citizens will be facing rising energy bills by up to thousands of euros per year.
It’s like a salesman who tries to palm off a cooking-plate on you, a little bit more expensive, but very fashionable. Just before you leave the store, the friendly smiling man tells you: ‘You do realize, however, that you need to purchase a new set of cookware for this wonderful cooker?’ Oops! And just when you are about to leave the shop, he adds: ‘It is also advisable to buy a new extractor … indeed even a new kitchen.”
Fossil fuels are more subsidized than wind power
Mark Rutte (Netherlands Prime Minister, Classical Liberals, VVD) said in 2010 during the election campaign: ‘Wind turbines are not running on wind, but on subsidies.’ Proponents of wind are embarrassed by these comments. And so they reciprocate with the statement that fossil fuels are even more heavily subsidized.
In a sense this is true. But it is like comparing apples with oranges. In countries such as Venezuela, Indonesia and Mexico, poor people are being subsidized so that they can buy petrol.
In Western countries, the generation cost of electricity amounts to a few cents per kilowatt hour. However, in addition to all kinds of taxes and surcharges, the citizen has to pay 20 cents. These surcharges are partly explainable (transmission and distribution), but they also are in reality simple taxation. To promote the interests of national industry in international competition, these are excluded from these disguised taxes. Companies pay half the price for power than consumers.
It’s sloppy reasoning to compare these two forms of ‘subsidy’ with the subsidies to wind turbines, solar cells and electric cars, which are currently not (and maybe never) competitive without subsidies.
Back to prehistory: chop down trees. Green!
Most of the ‘green’ electricity generated in the Netherlands, does not come from wind turbines or solar cells, but from coal plants. In these plants so-called ‘biomass’ is mixed with coal. Wood pellets, the size of a suppository, constitute the major form of biomass.
Take the Amer-9-coal power plant in Geertruidenberg. It is even considering burning more wood pellets than coal. To that end, trees are being chopped and turned into wood pellets in the southern United States. Subsequently they are being transported in containers by ocean liners to Rotterdam and then by barges to Geertruidenberg via the Bergsche Maas.
The owner of the coal power plant, the German energy company RWE, will receive an estimated yearly subsidy of 1 billion euros. All this to achieve the renewable energy objectives of the Netherlands Energy Agreement.
This illustrates just how misguided energy policy has become under the influence of climate hysteria. Thus, the export of timber from the United States to the European Union has quadrupled in recent years. Wood – traditionally fuel of primitive societies – is back in Europe.
Today there are more polar bears than ever before
The polar bear is the favorite poster child of the melting of Arctic ice, as predicted by climate activist and former vice president Al Gore. He stated in 2009 that the Arctic would be ice-free in the summer of 2013. This would imply that the polar bear – which lives around the North Pole – would gradually become extinct.
The truth is that polar bears are doing fine. Of course, the bears suffer from melting sea ice and they have partly moved to more populated areas in Alaska and Canada to find food. But there are more polar bears than before. In 1966 there were only 10,000, now more than 25,000. According to the Canadian zoologist Susan Crockford, it is because the hunting of polar bears is better restricted than before. So hunting was a bigger problem than global warming.
Better nuclear energy is in the offing
Nuclear power is already safe and clean. Of all energy the atom is also the most energy intensive: a wheelbarrow uranium can generate as much electricity as an entire battery of wind farms in the North Sea. The problem is that so much misinformation has been disseminated that many people do not realize that although the nuclear energy does represent certain risks, it still has a very good safety record, despite Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
The good news is that there are new types in the offing (the thorium and the molten salt reactor) that are even safer. Even the environmental movement, traditionally a fierce opponent of nuclear energy, has to admit that it is not easy to come up with objections to the new nuclear power. The problem is that it will take another twenty years before various options become available.
Ideal transition fuel
Natural gas (and shale gas because that is the same substance: methane) produces 50% less CO2-emission than coal. So replacing oil and coal with natural gas is a good option to achieve reduction of CO2-emissions. Yet, in his recent Energy Agenda minister Henk Kamp (VVD) announces that new homes will not be connected to the gas grid and that existing homes will become gas free. All homes must be gas-free in 2050.
This is a bizarre decision. Because of its low CO2 emissions, easy and wide availability and relatively low price, natural gas is the ideal transition fuel to bridge the period until 2050 and even 2100, when alternative energy options (socially acceptable nuclear power, more efficient solar cells) will probably be competing without subsidy with cheap coal power.
How shale gas was thwarted
Shale gas has boosted the U.S. economy and made a major contribution to the decline of American CO2 emissions since 2007. In ‘Between pride and hysteria’ (2015), energy journalist Remco de Boer explained why shale gas did not succeed in the Netherlands. Some environmental activists were looking for a new issue, people living near drilling sites feared value losses of their homes, politicians and administrators had weak knees. De Boer on the ability of citizens to influence policy: ‘Three people with a banner and an alarming message in front of the town hall, attended by the local newspaper, and you have already made a lot of progress.’
Pinstripe activism versus multinationals
Climate activism is no longer confined to public demonstrations. They go to court (as the Dutch action group Urgenda did in 2015) or the stock market, such as the Dutch ‘Follow This’ (with 1,800 members and 6 million shares) and the British ‘Share Action’-groups. They are particularly targeting Shell.
The emergence of pinstripe activists as Mark van Baal (founder of ‘Follow This’) seems to have success. Shell, Unilever and pension fund ABP, are increasingly posing as green and sustainable businesses.
By some this is seen as an argument that wind and solar energy represent the future. But that’s nonsense. Earlier Shell has invested in nuclear energy, but stepped out of it again. Ditto for solar cells. Shell has invested in windmills and bio alcohol. It is putting bets on several horses and watching how the markets (read: subsidies) will develop.
It is above all green window-dressing with which multinationals adorn themselves. At a climate conference it was suggested that CEO Paul Polman of Unilever should have a chat with president Trump about sustainability. Yet, Unilever manufactured margarine with trans-fatty acids, which has caused many people to die prematurely. With its production of palm oil in Southeast Asia, Unilever has since contributed to the extinction of the orangutan. In an interview Polman advised people not to shower for too long, and in having done so, his company is now suddenly on record as being sustainable.
Relationship between CO2 and climate is not one-to-one
Even when our ancestors had no cars, there was climate change. CO2 is only one of many factors that drive the climate. This is evident from the graph that shows the relationship between CO2 and temperature since 1900.
The rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere shows a relatively straight line, but the temperature varies. From 1900 to 1940 it increased, between 1940 and 1970 it slightly declined, between 1970 and 1998 the temperature rose again, but since 1998 it seems to have stabilized, although alarmists try to ignore, deny or qualify this (‘at sea, the warming continues’, so they say).
When the temperature in 2015 and 2016 reached new highs – partly due to a strong El Niño, and a spike in periodically oscillating ocean currents – it was said that the warming was back again.
Now that El Niño is over (late 2016), the global temperature has dropped again and it is generally expected that 2017 will not break any records. All in all, it seems that global warming pause or hiatus has lasted now almost twenty years.
Keep a cool head – there is time to think.
The earth has indisputably warmed up. With the caveat that this process has been going on for nearly 20,000 years, since the last ice age. It accelerated since the Little Ice Age – the period from 1500 to 1800 – when Hendrick Avercamp and other masters of the Low Lands painted their famous winter scenes.
The human race had no impact on the alternation of ice ages and warm periods in the geological past. These processes were the result of the position of the Earth’s axis and oscillations in the orbit in which the Earth moves around the sun. Nor had our ancestors anything to do with the warming over the last few thousand years.
The period starting with 1900 is a different story. Then the warming was undoubtedly reinforced by the burning of fossil fuels. Almost everyone agrees on that. — even climate skeptics. It is not true that they deny the existence of global warming and the fact that man contributes to it.
The debate is about the share of man in global warming. The IPCC, the alarmist prone climate panel of the United Nations, concluded in a recent report: ‘It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in the surface temperature between 1951 and 2010 has been caused by man’. In other words, maybe almost half of the current warming was not caused by us.
The IPCC itself indicates that the science is not yet settled. Climate change is not black and white. Between ‘climate change is a fairytale disseminated by the Chinese’ and ‘the science is settled, leave those fossil fuels in the ground’, there are fifty shades of gray. Consequently, there is no justification for the current hysteria, whereby any kind of weather phenomenon is framed as evidence that the climate is upset and politicians of left and right, activists groups, multinationals and even generals, pretend that climate is world problem number 1, and so suggest that we could control weather with higher taxes.
Of course, ultimately we need to switch to non-fossil fuels. Yet we still have a lot of time to do so. For the moment it seems that the earth is more robust than the alarmists believe. For almost twenty years we are experiencing mild warming and CO2 appears to have a beneficial, greening effect.
There are plenty of reasons telling us that keeping a cool head is the reasonable thing to do.
Simon Rozendaal is a chemist (honorary member of the Royal Dutch Society of Chemists, KNCV), and has been writing on science for over forty years, first for NRC Handelsblad and for Elsevier, the leading Dutch weekly news magazine, for thirty years now.
46 responses to “Dutch Expert: With Trump In Office, Now Safe To Expose The Many Myths Of Climate Alarmism”
“Ice melting everywhere, but not around Antarctica”
this claim is plain out false. Both Arctic and Antarctic did reach a lowest point in the record last november.
This is the reason,. why this gif of global sea ice shows a total disaster in 2016.
The “opinion” of your “expert” is outdated.
Meanwhile you weather bigots ignore what is going on all over the Northern Hemisphere:
Headlined from here.link for EACH headline are inside:
2½ times normal monthly snowfall in one weekend
Highway mayhem in B.C.
Dude, where’s my car? – B.C. buried by snow
Afghanistan – Heavy snow, avalanches kill more than 100
Qatar – Lowest temperature in recorded history
Coldest month on record in Bridgeport, Connecticut
‘Apocalyptic’ SNOWSTORM blasts Middle East
Unprecedented snowfall in West Azerbaijan
Snowiest January in a century in Chama, NM
So much snow that it buried an avalanche warning sign
Record snowfall in Kashmir
Record snowfall in Western Colorado
Near record-breaking snowpack in Utah
Full year’s worth of snow in one day – Video
India – Record snowfall cuts off Kashmir Valley
Record snowfall in Placer County, California
Record Snowfall in Riverton Wyoming
Record-crushing snowfall in California
Snowiest winter in Moscow in 20 years
Two Russian icebreakers trapped in “heavy severe ice” until May or June
Record snowfall in Salt Lake City, Utah
Record snowfall in southcentral Alaska
New Zealand – Heaviest summer snowfall in living memory
Snowiest month ever at Mammoth Mountain, California
Boise beats all-time record for snowfall so far this season
on and on it goes…….
You are a tedious warmist bore, Sod.
Don’t forget that human-caused warming produces both more snow and less snow. Therefore, the predictions of this theory are always confirmed and falsified together. Spectacular confirmations are an inexhaustible source for some people to prove their point, whereas skeptics use the boring principle that one falsification suffices to reject a theory. All the snow you mention will not convince Sod. When he freezes to death he will realize in his last minute that he was right. The same will happen when he gets a stroke during a heat wave.
No, The Arctic is still WAY ABOVE Holocene average.
This year , just one section in the Kara Sea is being affected by a constant WEATHER pattern sucking lees cold air up into the area.
Elsewhere, the rest of the sea ice is doing very well.
The problem is that the same WEATHER pattern is cause a large cold anomaly over much of the Northern Hemisphere.
Andy, your chart shows the obvious Jet stream flow. It is VERY loopy right now.
Don’t mix up climate and weather. He specifically provided a decadal trend which is climate. You provided weather.
“Don’t mix up climate and weather. He specifically provided a decadal trend which is climate. You provided weather.”
No. a decadal “trend” becomes climate, when you add a measurement of correlation., like an r^2 value.
How will that number look on antarctic data like this one:
Your “antarctic trend” is utter garbage. while the arctic trend is a fact.
“while the arctic trend is a fact.”
But meaningless unless you are Climate Change Denîêr, like sob. Denying the pre-LIA climate.
Just part of the AMO cycle.
The negative feedback from accelerated plant growth was predicted by Arrhenius in 1908; few Climate Alchemists know this, or are prepared to admit..
This and other biofeedbacks keeps Earth’s mean surface temperature in a very narrow range. The OCO-2 satellite is observing this but, at least in the pre-Trump era, the data are being restricted to pretend there are no such effects.
Make America Great!
“The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm (parts per million) in 1800 to over 400 now.”
I wish they learn what the junk science is and avoid using it when also making valid realistic science arguments.
Ernst Beck compiled over 80,000 CO2 chemical bottle data collected by a number of scientists over 180 years. When the data is plotted, it clearly shows that atmospheric CO2 has gone up and down quite a lot over the last 200 years. CO2 has been as low as 280 ppm and well above 500 ppm in several excursions, two in the 1800s and one centered around the 1940s. It was Callendar and his colleagues who dishonestly discounted all of these bottle data studies except for two French studies that used a sulfuric acid assay that was notorious for producing low CO2 results. Callendar and friends then arbitrarily set 280 ppm CO2 as the “historical” CO2 concentration and claimed it had been low like this almost forever, until 1950 when we started really emitting CO2.
However, looking at ice core data, an expert on ice cores, Jaworowski, estimated that the micro-fracturing that occurs during core extraction is so traumatizing that ice cores loose 30 to 50% of their CO2 while being retrieved. Of course, the warmists want low CO2, so they are not willing to recognize these losses and pretend the low ice core CO2 values to be perfect.
However, if one takes the ice core data and back-calculates a 40% CO2 loss, the CO2 values would be 300 to 500+ ppm, often higher than CO2 is today.
In every way these “scientists” have done their best to always misinterpret, ignore, alter, or delete information that does not serve their purposes. This make then not scientists but propagandists serving a political agenda.
In REAL SCIENCE we look at all the parameters around any phenomenon before making conclusions. The education system seems to have completely forgotten how to use the scientific methodology these days for political and greedy reasons.
Modern scientists are so poorly educated that it almost makes me sick. Political nonsense and greed has destroyed science. This is why nobody believes them any more. What they predict NEVER happens. And without prediction there is no useful science.
The fact is the CO2 is rising and the Temperature is going down.
CO2 is no more of a green house effect than a vacuum is. The molecular mass and the amount of energy absorbed is NO greater nor lesser than Oxygen and nitrogen in the air. Water as in clouds contain massive amounts of solar energy, but the net result of clouds is cool down on earth below. This is because of blocking solar radiation.
The real reason for temperature rise is the OZONE depletion from CFC’s (now banned in most countries). The OZONE layer is NEVER discussed in this climate pseudoscience. It is the MAIN PARAMETER of heat transfer from the sun to the earth.
The ozone layer got so thin that harmful radiation reached an all time high and so is skin cancer. You can see the rise in temp follows the rise in the use of CFC’s and then the reduction in CFC’s shows the lowering of the temperature we have now.
The ozone layer is now healing and so the temp is cooling as OZONE is the filter of harmful radiation (all solar radiation is filtered by ozone and only ozone). The fact is we NEED MORE CO2 not less to cause more temperate climate on earth.
Climate temp changes was caused by CFC’s and Ozone depletion. This time period is over, we hope.
NOW we need MORE CO2 in order to feed humans and animals on earth. 1200 PPM would be ideal for 3 times the crop production per acre.
You are indeed correct regarding radiative gases cooling the planet. In fact, having an atmosphere actually cools the sunny side of Earth, giving the surface conduction and convection heat transportation. At night, the atmosphere tends to keep the surface warmer than having no atmosphere but as the Earth turns it never approaches the scold it should be. Overall, at atmosphere cools the planet and radiative gases cool the night side.
From the above article: “The Swedish Nobel Prize winner for chemistry, Svante Arrhenius, who more than a century ago was the first in the world who presented the theory of global warming,”
First, Arrhenius did not win a Nobel for his CO2/warming conjecture. a conjecture that never was confirmed. This fail hypothesis was dragged out, dusted off and presented a valid science to an ignorant world and the same was on.
CO2 and water vapor are “radiative gases” that can convert thermal energy in the air to IR radiation and vice versa. During the day these gases are saturated by solar input operating in both directions and producing essentially no effects. As Earth’s surface is always hotter than the surface in daylight, any downward-directed IR would be reflected/rejected by the surface as the energy levels in the surface equivalent to the IR energy content would already be full. The warmist “science” says that CO2 and water vapor in the upper tropical troposphere (at -17 deg C) warms the surface (at 15 deg C). It’s simply impossible and foes against the solidly founded laws of thermodynamics.
And ozone at altitude is too thin to do anything to the surface temperature. You should also know that CFCs did NOT break down any ozone. That scare was a fraud perpetrated by Dupont Chemical to get their out of patent refrigerant banned so that they could offer a more expensive, patented replacement. Twenty years later, after that second refrigerant was out of patent, the scientist who fabricated the evidence that CFCs broke down ozone in the ozone layer has admitted to the fraud.
We now know that it is nitrogen gas and solar radiation that causes ozone breakdown at certain temperatures. We are not involved in this.
South Australia hit with electricity issues again
Spot prices reaches $13,440/MWh !!
Demand: nearly 3000MW……. wind: 100MW
“Widespread power blackouts were imposed across Adelaide and parts of South Australia with heatwave conditions forcing authorities to impose load shedding.”
Spotprice forecast to reach $14,000/MWh on Thursday
Where was wind power… ALL GONE. !!
Just when most needed…
what a USELESS JOKE of an energy supply.
No wonder they are termed UNRELIABLES.
“Where was wind power… ALL GONE. !! ”
again: the obvious solution for high demand on hot days is solar + battery.
If i had to give strategic advice to sceptics on this blackout, it would be simple: avoid the topic at all costs, it is doing massive damage to your targets.
Strategic advise from a delusional misfit.. roflmao !!
Wind did NOT deliver when needed .. face FACTS, if you even know what they are.
The black out was caused by power companies declining to bid on the market. There were reserves which were not switched on.
by the way, a 45 minute blackout on a super hot day simply screams “solar + power wall”, so i assume the insane power companies are doing advertisements for their worst foes, just to cash in a few extra cents.
YAWN.. you really are WAAAAY past the DELUSIONAL stage, aren’t you , little sob.
Very good article about the blackout. We now know, that Pelican station had additional reserves.
Building more coal plants for peak demand is obviously stupid.
The “opinion” of your “expert” is outdated.
On the porch of the local hardware store, during my grandfather’s late years the old men would sit and play checkers and talk about the weather. Someone would say “If you don’t like the weather, wait a few hours and it will change.”
So what’s new under the Sun? Not much.
But, yes, I would have worded several things in the essay a little differently.
Still, over the next 30 years expect to see coal, oil, and gas powering the world and most autos running on gasoline. And the climates of the World will be basically the same as they are now.
The more likely explanation — as explained in the peer-reviewed literature — is that sea ice expanding because Antarctica and the Southern Ocean have been cooling. See:
Bizarrely inconsistent with the tenor of the article, echoing the politics of the UN and the politicised “science” of IPCC opinion.
In contradistinction, lines of evidence suggest that the later 20th century warming lies within the bounds of natural variation, the average standard deviation of centennial temperature being estimated from ice-cores at 0.98 ± 0.27C over the last 8000 years.
An estimate of the centennial variability of global temperature. Lloyd, PJ. Energy & Environment · Vol. 26, No. 3, 2015
Others more recently suggest no warming trend in the last century and a half whatsoever:
“The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the random variation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.”
There is no significant trend in global average temperature. Reid, J.
Energy & Environment 0(0) 1–14 (2017)
Nonsense and theoretical speculation.
A bizarrely inconsistent statement in the context of the article. The politics of the UN and the politicized hand-waving “science” of the IPCC guarantee almost anything else but the exercise of science. It appears far more likely that late 20th Century warming lies within the bounds of natural variation and that climate alarmism is the favoured political polemic of eco-Marxist globalists.
An estimate of the centennial variability of global temperatures. Lloyd PJ. Energy & Environment · Vol. 26, No. 3, 2015
There is no significant trend in global average temperature. Reid J. Energy & Environment 0(0) 1–14 (2017), DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686447
The author has been sucked in by alarmists and greens. He is completely wrong about methane see here https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/. The absorptivity/ emissivity of methane is about one fifth of CO2. Water vapor is more important than CO2 by a factor of more than ten. However, methane does not and can not burn in the atmosphere.
Methane is 28 times better than CO2 to build a backradiation-powered blast furnace, warmunist scientists find out.
May I explain as an amateur how the back radiation-powered furnace works? Let the furnace be deprived from all fuel and the methane molecule be a little mirror at a distance of half a light year. The furnace may emit an IR photon that meets the mirror and is radiated back to the furnace where it arrives after one year. In the mean time the furnace has cooled down by many degrees whereas the photon is as red as when it was emitted (we may ignore an expanding universe). Therefore, the photon will be gratefully absorbed by the furnace making it warmer in the sense that its cooling rate slows down. The assumption is of course that the furnace is a steadily cooling object. Am I correct in the theoretical foundation of AGW?
Younger Germans around me still completely brainwashed, including “Weather is different now”. I laugh at them. They even desperately resort to blaming local river floods on CO2.
Warmunism is a Noble Lie; a Platonic false religion to implant desired behaviours in people. Though shalt not burn fuel lest you be punished.
The purpose: Trillion Dollar fraud.
Trump will obviously do massive damage to the environment.
But the good news is, he will also do massive damage to “sceptics”, as the fake news will get called out more and more.
Within 6 months basically everyone with a working brain on this planet will know, that the majority of sceptic talking points are alternative facts akin to the “bowling green massacre” and that not calling them out is a error of massive proportions.
The pendulum will swing back mightily.
“Trump will obviously do massive damage to the environment.”
BULS**T just make op more fantasy sob.
What is he going to start removing wind turbines??
That’ll hurt the environment, yeah… you dopey git. !!
And yes the pendulum has swung.. for at least 4 years, probably 8.
the fact Trump got in shows which way the pendulum has swung, the green nonsense is in the past now.
The days of “oogly-boogly” … “scare of the week” … “hockey schtick” … “the world is coming to and end” … “keep paying us grant money” … “criminally adjusting data” … over-hyped nonsense climate science is hopefully over.
I hope we get back to basics, back to the scientific process, use the models but don’t rely on them, and move on.
Very interesting article in the Atlantic: Journalist looks for scientists supporting Trump and basically only finds names that we know already (“climate sceptics”).
Please check this one out, it is interesting!
And, for once, i would even point to Breitbart:
They are taking the BP report as too progressive on renewables. The sceptic movement is going to be in for a horrible wake up call.
It the world outside the alternative facts, neither energy demand will rise as much as they predict it does, nor will fossil fuels expand as predicted.
No griff, wind and solar have just about done their dash.
People can no longer put up with the environmental pollution for wind turbines.
Governments can no longer justify the subsidy support and feed-in mandates causing economic disruption.
People can no longer put with the totally UNRELIABLE nature of wind power.
The subsidies and mandates will be removed , and once there is a level playing field, wind and solar will gradually phase out, leaving nothing but a whole heap of decaying environmental hazards for someone else to clean up.
“The sceptic movement is going to be in for a horrible wake up call. ”
Shiver me timbers. I’ve been getting a horrible wake up call from the internationalwarmunists every year: ELECTRICITY COSTS UP ANOTHER 15% DUE TO STATE MANDATED THEFT.
I’m as mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore. The Olde Parties are on their way of becoming A STATISTIC. SPD, CDU: traitors and frauds. (Greens, Linke: also-rans.)
[…] relationship between CO2 and climate is not […]
[…] relationship between CO2 and climate is not […]
It seems that, driven by the need to continually support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming thesis climate scientists are examining the temperature record at altogether too fine a scale, month by month, year by year.
Viewing the Holocene interglacial at a broader scale is much more fruitful, on a century by century and even on a millennial perspective.
Our current, warm, congenial Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years, spanning from mankind’s earliest farming to recent technology.
However Ice Core records show:
• the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.
• each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
• for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point known as the “climate optimum”, have had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.
• but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, 3000 years ago, has seen a temperature loss at about 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.
• the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacials, the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
• the slight beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.
• the recent warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, (Black death, French revolution, etc.) has been wholly beneficial
• eventually this late 20th century minor temperature excursion will come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.
• other published Ice Core records exhibit the same pattern of a prolonged relatively stable early Holocene period followed by a subsequent much more rapid decline in the more recent past.
As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last eighteen years or more and as the sun spot record is diminishing substantially, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent further warming.
A real tipping point towards cooling and the end of the Holocene interglacial occurred about 3000 years ago.
This point is more fully illustrated here:
[…] Tja, met de komst van Donald Trump mag er op klimaatgebied nu veel hardop worden gezegd, waarover vroeger moest worden gezwegen. Zie ook Simon Rozendaal: ‘With Trump in Office, Now Safe to Expose the Many Myths of Climate Alarmism.’ […]
New EPA head doers not know what the EPA is about:
“The EPA’s mission is to “protect human health and the environment – air, water and land”.
He declared that the EPA can be “pro-energy, pro-jobs and pro-environment”.”
But hey, he is just working on the alternative facts, like the whole Trump government is…
REALITY will always be an alternative to the FANTASY land you and your fellow brain-dead twitterers live in.
You should try it some time, REALITY.. … nah.. too much to expect.
OT, found on BoltA blog
“Open borders are fine until you run out of other people’s neighbourhoods”.
In the real world, real cars are meeting criteria that the car industry claims can not be met.
“Automakers have officially submitted a letter asking the new head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, to abdicate his responsibility for protecting the environment by loosening the fuel efficiency standards they agreed upon with the Obama administration in 2011. Pruitt, who calls himself a “leading advocate against the EPA” and has spent much of his life fighting against the agency, has received over $270,000 in lifetime campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.
The automakers claim that the 54.5mpg CAFE standard would be too costly to implement by 2025, and that consumer demand isn’t there for more efficient vehicles.
In totally unrelated news, as of three months ago, Tesla had well over half a billion dollars worth of customer deposits, most of which are for a car that nobody has even driven yet, but is significantly more efficient than the new rule requires. That car was unveiled a year ago as the biggest product launch of all time, with an unprecedented tens of thousands of customers camping out overnight or lining up early at stores worldwide to put a deposit of real, actual money down on a car they hadn’t even seen yet. Tesla’s 2014 CAFE performance was 278.9 mpg, over five times higher and eleven years earlier than the 54.5mpg 2025 target the automakers, who have much more experience than Tesla, claim they cannot possibly meet.”
it must be really bad to live in the world with the “alternative facts”.
lol, Let’s see how many of those pre-orders translate to actual sales , shall we. 😉
There are a lot of inner city ghetto yuppies out there, for sure.
Did you pre-order, sob ?
Golf also beats the unachievable standard:
” You are here: Home » Future Product » Volkswagen Brand »
EPA rates VW’s 2017 e-Golf at 126 mpg-e and boosts range to 125 miles”
You have a strange fixation on my personal habits. They do not matter. Why not focus on the facts? The car industry says, they can not achieve these targets. But the facts show, that they CAN be achieved. It is the real facts, not your alternative ones.