The First Shots in the Climate Wars

Sierra Foothill Commentary

Joel Kotkin

In launching their now successful protests against President Emmanuel Macron’s gas hike, the French gilets jaunes (yellow jackets) have revived their country’s reputation for rebelling against monarchial rule. It may well foreshadow a bitter, albeit largely avoidable, battle over how to address the issue of climate change.

[. . .]

In California the zealous apparatchiks of the Air Resource Board are working overtime to make life worse for most residents — even though the state since 2007 has trailed 35 states in emission declines. California’s gains are further clouded by the fact that the state exports its pollution to other states as well as overseas. And the fires, which produced massive emissions, were made much worse by state’s mismanaged forest policies — and those imposed on federal lands by environmental groups. (Just because Trump says something doesn’t make it de facto untrue).

Ultimately politics may force a shift…

View original post 254 more words

Advertisements

NASA: Antarctica Is Adding Ice, Not Losing It

PA Pundits - International

By Andrew Bolt ~

Ross Ice Shelf Antarctica

Didn’t they say the science was settled? Weren’t we called “deniers” for doubting?

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

One of the great truths that underpinned the Enlightenment was that all knowledge is provisional and that doubt is the key to greater wisdom.

It is a very dangerous development intellectually to now see “sceptic” turned into a label of abuse.

Andrew Bolt writes for the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, and The Advertiser and runs Australia’s most-read political blog. On week nights he hosts The Bolt Report on…

View original post 24 more words

Climate-modeling illusions not based on reality

Tallbloke's Talkshop

A different view – source: ARGO marine atlas [credit: climatedepot.com]
Basing government energy policy on inaccurate, failing models is getting ever harder to justify. Predictions of severe climate problems have not materialised.

The US government has funded more than 100 efforts to model our climate for the better part of three decades; none have come close to actual results, says ClimateChangeDispatch.

They are exercising precisely what prominent writer H.L. Mencken described as “the whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”.

View original post 203 more words

5 Signs Eco-pessimists are Wrong

Science Matters

This video accompanied an editorial at Investor’s Business Daily Climate Hoax: Global CO2 Emissions Spike, Despite Paris Climate Pledges.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Climate Change: Three years after leaders from around the world signed on to the Paris climate agreement, pledging to cut their carbon footprints, global CO2 emissions accelerated. Does anyone still think President Donald Trump was wrong for pulling the U.S. out of this sham agreement?

According to the Global Carbon Project, which monitors this, global CO2 emissions climbed by 1.6% last year. They are on track to shoot up by 2.7% this year. That’s after three years of annual emissions remaining flat.

Worse After Paris Deal

Wait a minute. The accelerating growth in carbon emissions came after some 200 countries signed the Paris agreement?

At the time, Barack Obama called the Paris agreement “an enduring agreement that reduces global carbon pollution and sets the…

View original post 642 more words

Urban Heat Island Influence Inadequately Considered in Climate Research

Reblogged from Watts Up With That:

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deliberately limited climate science to focus on CO2 and temperature. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) directed them only to consider human causes of climate change. They used this to narrow the focus of all variables that create the climate and thus eliminate major variables that cause climate change. A major example is the so-called greenhouse gases (GHG). Three of them account for almost 100% of the total; by volume, they are Water vapor (H2O) (95%), Carbon dioxide (CO2) (4%) and Methane (CH4) (0.36%). There are no accurate measures of any of these regarding the amount actually in the atmosphere or the changes in input and output from natural sources over any period.

All agencies agree that Water vapor is by far the largest and most important, but it gets virtually no attention. I do not intend to argue about the various attempts to downplay its importance. They are all proof of how little we know because each manipulator achieves different results. The IPCC admits humans add H2O to the atmosphere. However, they consider the amount so small relative to the atmospheric total and therefore of no consequence in their calculations. The problem is the effect of water vapor as a GHG is so large that it is probable that even a 2% variation could explain a great deal of the effect of CO2 and indeed all the effect of human-produced CO2. Proving this is complicated by the fact that H2O and CO2 overlap significantly on the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

clip_image002

The second significant IPCC bias is on temperature and specifically global warming. The planet is named Earth but should be Water. There is no life without it. Vladimir Koppen recognized its importance in climate. The first operation in his climate classification system is to identify those climates with insufficient rainfall to support plants.

The global temperature data is entirely inadequate to determine anything other than the data is inadequate. It only covers 15% of the surface and less than 1% above the surface. The US temperature record is probably the best in coverage and instrumentation, yet the Watts surface station analysis found only 7.9% with accuracy better than 1°C.

clip_image004

It is multiple times worse for precipitation data. Distribution is almost infinitely variable with large differences occurring in a matter of meters. It is problematic even with vertical fall, but the wind makes that rare, and instrument design the most difficult of any at the weather station. That is for rainfall; accurate snowfall measurement is far more difficult.

On a global basis, the network is inadequate over vast areas. A 2006 study of monsoons in Africa concluded,

Africa’s network of 1152 weather watch stations, which provide real-time data and supply international climate archives, is just one-eighth the minimum density recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail to report.

The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) contaminates the surface temperature data. The first study to measure the UHIE was by Tom Chandler and detailed in the 1965 book The Climate of London. The work triggered heat island studies in many urban areas, including the ones I participated in for Winnipeg in the late 1960s

A simple schematic of an Urban Heat Island Dome

After establishing its existence, adjustments to many temperature records began. They still make them, but it is a very imprecise adjustment. It is a major cause of the variations between regional and global averages by different groups. You can influence the outcome you desire by choosing the amount of adjustment made. Urban areas are almost all growing, so, presumably, there is a changing adjustment. This is problematic and when combined with the paucity of weather stations, underscores the difficulty of establishing a global temperature.

Precipitation records are even less adequate. In a way, this makes my next point academic. (Notice how that means it is irrelevant to the real world.) In 1967, my thesis supervisor, Dr. Bruce Atkinson, published work based on his doctoral thesis titled, A Preliminary Examination of the Possible Effect of London’s Urban Area on the Distribution of Thunder Rainfall 1951-60.” The argument is that precipitation potential is enhanced in the urban environment by

  • more rapid evaporation,
  • an increased volume of evaporated moisture,
  • increased condensation nuclei from the production of dust particles,
  • upward transport of the particles in the convective cell that is the urban heat island,
  • upward transport and cooling in the urban cell,
  • increased instability of adiabats as they travel over the outside of the urban dome.

In 1968, support for this urban influence on precipitation appeared in a report of the La Porte weather anomaly. The city of La Porte is in the county of LaPorte, Indiana. While plotting precipitation patterns in the region, Stanley Changnon noticed a significant increase, (30 to 40%) in precipitation levels after 1925. He attributed the increase to the growth of the urban area of Chicago and particularly the construction of steel mills and other heavy industries.

The La Porte claim engendered discussion and disagreements, notwithstanding Atkinson’s research in London. Years later the American Meteorological Society (AMS) reported that,

Earlier research has used ground-based instruments, including rain gauge networks, ground-based radar, or model simulations, to show that urban heat islands can impact local rainfall around cities like St. Louis, Chicago, Mexico City and Atlanta.

NASA resolved the disagreement in 2002 when Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd and colleagues published the results of a study using data from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite. They found that,

…mean monthly rainfall rates within 30-60 kilometers (18 to 36 miles) downwind of the cities were, on average, about 28 percent greater than the upwind region. In some cities, the downwind area exhibited increases as high as 51 percent.

I was unable to find any reference to adjustments to precipitation data based on these findings. The IPCC AR5 Physical Science Report appears to confirm the lack of adjustments. However, much of what they report appears to indicate the data is affected by the UHIE. In their general observations about precipitation they wrote,

Confidence in precipitation change averaged over global land areas is low prior to 1951 and medium afterwards because of insufficient data, particularly in the earlier part of the record (for an overview of observed and projected changes in the global water cycle see TFE.1). Further, when virtually all the land area is filled in using a reconstruction method, the resulting time series shows little change in land- based precipitation since 1901. NH mid-latitude land areas do show a likely overall increase in precipitation (medium confidence prior to 1951, but high confidence afterwards). For other latitudes area-averaged long-term positive or negative trends have low confidence (TFE.1, Figure 1). {2.5.1}

In their more detailed analysis. they wrote,

It is likely that since about 1950 the number of heavy precipitation events over land has increased in more regions than it has decreased. Confidence is highest for North America and Europe where there have been likely increases in either the frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation with some seasonal and regional variations. It is very likely that there have been trends towards heavier precipitation events in central North America.

The areas they identify are where the weather station network is inadequate, but the best globally. The NASA study also notes that,

By showing how space-borne platforms can be used to identify rainfall changes linked to cities and urban sprawl, the research may help land managers and engineers design better drainage systems, plan land-use, and identify the best areas for agriculture. Also, it highlights the need for scientists to account for impacts of urbanization when they design computer models that forecast the weather or predict regional climates.

There is some crude accommodation for the temperature impact of the urban heat island. All it does is create confusion because the overall database is inadequate and the variations due to the effect even more uncertain. In reality, a temperature error of even 2 or 3°C is of little consequence. However, 30 and 40% errors in precipitation are of great consequence for all the managers and engineers planning the list NASA identifies.

It is time to shut down the IPCC and its politically biased climate claims that focus on temperature and CO2 while ignoring or distorting far more important variables and factors.

Researchers conclude livestock have no detectable effect on climate

From BeefMagazine.com:

By Amanda Radke | Dec 05, 2018

 

Good news — researchers have debunked the cattle and climate change myth! Check out the latest findings and share this blog post far and wide!

 

Cow burps are destroying the ozone layer — we’ve all heard that one, and frankly, it’s time for the industry to ditch that myth once and for all.

As our industry zeroes in on topics of sustainability and ways we as beef producers can improve for the better, I continue to beat the same drum — cattlemen and women already do a spectacular job of managing our land and water to produce more beef using fewer resources.

Simply stated, beef production isn’t just sustainable; it’s regenerative. And despite what the naysayers claim, cattle grazing and consuming by-products of crop production play a critical role in our ecosystem.

Our consumers should be able to enjoy beef without guilt because it’s good for them and the planet. Period.

Yet, the link between cattle and climate change really seems to have caught hold. From the Meatless Mondays folks to the increasing sentiments that plant-based diets are far superior, we have a tough road ahead of us if we are ever going to change public perception and continue to foster feelings of trust and confidence with our consumers about our product.

New research conducted by agrobiologist and scientific researcher Albrecht Glatzle is a good place to start. He is a professor with INTTAS (Initiative for Research and Extension of Sustainable Agrarian Technologies), Filadelfia, Paraguay.

According to newly published research by Glatzle, who has written over 100 scientific papers and two textbooks, “There is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate.”

That’s news so good you better read it twice! New research is proving what we’ve known all along, and now it’s our job to spread this research far and wide.

As printed in the Climate Dispatch, Glatzle writes, “Our key conclusion is there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors.

“Between 1990 and 2005, the world cattle population rose by more than 100 million head (according to FAO statistics). During this time, atmospheric methane concentration stabilized completely.

“These empirical observations show that livestock is not a significant player in the global methane budget. This appreciation has been corroborated by Schwietzke et al. who suggested that methane emissions from fossil fuel industry and natural geological seepage have been 60–110% greater than previously thought,” he writes.

“We could not find a domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of the atmospheric methane concentration. Consequently, in science, politics, and the media, the climate impact of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been systematically overstated.

“Livestock-born GHG emissions have mostly been interpreted isolated from their ecosystemic context, ignoring their negligible significance within the global balance. There is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate.”

Please share this blog post on social media today to help spread this message with our consumers. As the industry attempts to tweak and fine-tune this already well-oiled beef producing machine, this is an important conclusion to share as it truly reinforces what we’ve always known — beef producers were the original environmentalists and conservationists.

We’ve been improving the soil through cattle grazing for centuries as cattle aerate the soil with their hooves, fertilize it with their manure, reduce the spread of wildfires by grazing brush and promote new growth with each bite. Plus, by keeping grasslands intact instead of converting to monoculture farming or commercial/residential development, cattle help store more carbon and promote biodiversity of the soil.

It’s about time we get credit for our environmental efforts, don’t you think?

Related: 4 facts on cows & climate change that can’t be ignored

Related: Study ignores nutritional factor when evaluating climate impact

Arctic Ice Machine Back on

Science Matters

Can2018325to342Seventeen Days in Hudson Bay are shown in the above animation.  In the lower center, Hudson Bay pushed its ice extent up to 1.24M km2, 98% of maximum.  Just to the northeast, Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay are completely frozen over, with Baffin Bay reaching down.  At the top left you can see Chukchi Sea growing ice toward Bering Strait.

The graph below shows recent progress in ice extent recovery.

Arctic2018342From days 330 to 339, 2018 extents were flat and went below average.  Now freezing has resumed as shown in the animation above and nearing average again in the graph.  At day 342 (Dec. 8) 2018 is 540k km2 greater than 2007 and 400k km2 more than 2016.

The table below shows the distribution of ice in the various Arctic basins.

Region 2018342 Day 342 
Average
2018-Ave. 2007342 2018-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 11502523 11629820 -127297 10963264 539259
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1070498 1069593 905 1062538 7960

View original post 129 more words