507 private links
Statistics Norway just published a bomb-shell of a paper that offers a real analysis of global temperatures. The English translation of the paper is available HERE, and is well worth looking at for anyone interested in the facts behind global temperature trends. https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf //
Climate Discussion Nexus offers an introduction to why this paper is so important:
Well, this is awkward. Statistics Norway, aka Statistisk sentralbyrå or “the national statistical institute of Norway and the main producer of official statistics”, has just published a paper “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”
The awkward part isn’t trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it’s also available in English. It’s that the Abstract bluntly declares that “standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures” while the conclusions state “the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.”
But the really awkward part is that a paper from a government agency dares to address openly so many questions the alarmist establishment has spent decades declaring taboo, from the historical record on climate to the existence of massive uncertainty among scientists on it. //
Oracle | October 20, 2023 at 9:35 am
Freeman Dyson spent one year studying global warming and came to the same conclusion- in the mid 90’s (though his big controversial interview was about 2005?). //
Zachriel | October 20, 2023 at 1:12 pm
Statistics Norway just published a bomb-shell of a paper that offers a real analysis of global temperatures.
The paper is a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed. Nor does it offer a “real analysis.” The analysis doesn’t even attempt to account for greenhouse gases or combine those effects with other drivers of climate. The paper also cites approvingly several claims that have already been shown to be in error, while discounting or ignoring the findings of scientists far outside their own field of study.
Essentially, what the paper does is look at the curve and say that it could be natural because natural changes can cause large fluctuations. While true, that doesn’t mean that the current warming isn’t due to greenhouse gases. ...
Interestingly, no eco-activists are blockading the roads into Reinhardswald (site of Sleeping Beauty Castle), or tying themselves to trees to protect the “old growth forests” //
The energy suicide of Germany is rapidly becoming legendary.
Legal Insurrection readers will recall that the nation shuttered its last nuclear power plant in 2023. The German government decided to double down on net-zero dreams and renewable energy promises.
Germany is already big on wind: with nearly 30,000 onshore wind turbines, the country trails only the US and China.
But it’s not enough to meet the country’s climate goals. Today, only 0.8% of Germany’s land area is approved for onshore wind energy. By 2032, the government wants to have 2% of land area allocated for onshore wind power. This means installing between 1,000 and 1,500 new turbines a year, or four to five a day by 2030, as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently said.
Germany needs wind energy to meet its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2045, a target it’s currently in danger of missing, according to multiple studies. The country also missed its emissions reduction targets the last two years in a row, according to think tank Agora Energiewende. //
A large area of Reinhardswald, an ancient German forest featured in the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, is being partially cut down in favour of 241-metre tall wind turbines.
Following a months-long construction freeze, administrative courts have allowed heavy machinery to raze parts of the forest, including some trees that are more than 200 years old.
Around 120,000 trees in the 200km² mountainous woodland in the Weser Uplands in the district of Kassel, Hesse, are said to have been condemned to the axe. //
Germany passed legislation in 2019 to shut down all its coal plants by 2038, and last year the country shuttered the last three plants in its once-formidable nuclear fleet (in 1990 nuclear provided a quarter of Germany’s electricity).
As a result, the country has been forced to import electricity and natural gas at substantially higher prices. Germany has recently been delaying planned closures of coal plants and is now also planning new gas plants as well, but the damage has been done. Germany now has some of the highest prices for electricity in the world.
As a result, the entire German economy is in the doldrums. Growth forecasts for this year were recently slashed to just 0.2%, and as inflation is forecast to come in at about 2%, that implies actual economic contraction. Other indicators are also dire, with orders at German engineering firms and overall foreign investment dropping dramatically. //
The study found that the older a tree is, the better it absorbs carbon from the atmosphere. In fact, the research suggests that almost 70 per cent of all the carbon stored in trees is accumulated in the last half of their lives. //
smooth | March 12, 2024 at 8:51 am
But the climate extremists always say plant more trees to remove CO2 from the air? //
smooth | March 12, 2024 at 9:40 am
France has 56 nuclear power sites. All EU countries combined have over 160 active nuke power sites. Germany going to boycott them all?
The Gentle Grizzly in reply to smooth. | March 12, 2024 at 9:57 am
Yes. Because the master race knows better. Why do things simply with existing technology when one can do it the German way: needless complexity for the sake of it, and then call it “precision engineering”. //
Apparently, normalcy has been restored to NYC to the point that Mayor Eric Adams has approved controversial rules regulating the amount of delicious, smokey aroma generated from the area’s pizzerias.
Democrat Mayor Eric Adams has approved a new green plan that requires facilities using wood- and coal-fired stoves to cut their smoke by 75 percent.
More than 130 businesses will be impacted by the law, including many famed pizza joints. Businesses can apply for an exemption from the mandate – which goes into effect on April 27 – but they must prove they can not financially meet the requirements.
Still, business must then cut their emissions by 25 percent. //
The costs of the ventilation control systems are enormous, and they are likely to force many pizzerias to close. //
To cook pizza in the traditional way, ovens need to reach 1,200 degrees. Only coal-fired ovens can reach such high temperatures. //
From April 2020 to July 2022, Gotham’s population fell by nearly a half million people, or 5.3% — wiping out almost three-quarters of the gains over the previous decade, DiNapoli reports, citing Census figures.
That was more than double the state’s 2.6% drop, and it came while the nation overall was expanding by 0.6%.
Matt Whitlock @mattdizwhitlock
·
This city of Honolulu is suing oil and gas companies for bad weather, accusing them of causing climate change.
The Hawaii Supreme Court - who said the 2nd Amendment “violates the spirit of Aloha” green-lit the absurd case.
It’s up to the Supreme Court to fix this.
Alliance For Consumers @for_consumers
Replying to @for_consumers
Pay attention to this new cert petition coming out of the Hawaii Supreme Court...
It's a golden ticket that just got placed before the Supreme Court, at least for those of us who want to see the Left’s public nuisance campaign grind to a halt:
https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-947/301676/20240228105935605_Sunoco_pet.pdf
Background: Honolulu is suing energy companies for their alleged role in driving climate change. There are two dozen other cases making these types of claims in other states.
What makes this case interesting is that it’s the first big-ticket climate change case where a state supreme court conclusively weighed in on the merits of how these cases should work…
The Hawaii Supreme Court said that these claims can go to trial in state court irrespective of federal law.
The Hawaii Supreme Court decision is a dangerous precedent – it allows a single judge or jury in state court to weigh liability for global greenhouse gas emissions and assign billions in fines, effectively steering energy policy for the rest of the country. And it did so based on its own reading of federal law.
Make no mistake, lawsuits like this one are designed to reshape entire sectors of the economy.
Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, said as much in a decision dismissing Oakland’s climate-nuisance suit….
8:34 AM · Mar 6, 2024
Here’s something the Biden administration and CA Gov. Gavin Newsom haven’t talked about: electric cars actually emit more soot and particulate matter than their gas-powered counterparts—because of their tires. //
the WSJ writers argue that tire wear from the far-heavier EVs is more contaminating:
Where do most particulate emissions attributed to cars come from? California speaks as if their primary source is the tailpipe. That was true in the past. But today most vehicle-related particulate matter comes from tire wear. Cars are heavy, and as their tires rub against the road, they degrade and release tiny, often toxic particles. According to measurements by an emission-analytics firm, in gasoline cars equipped with a particle filter, airborne tire-wear emissions are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions.
Through the European Green Deal, European bureaucrats are ignoring citizen opposition in deindustrializing Western Europe and reducing its agricultural production.
They’re using climate laws to attempt to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The agricultural policy provisions of these laws—the euphemistically named Farm to Fork Strategy—have European farmers uniting in protest like never before.
These laws are driving up food prices and reducing agricultural jobs while having practically no effect on the planet’s temperature. Using calculations from government models, even if the European Union had no emissions at all, it would only make a difference of 0.13 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.
Why is nuclear power Green today when it wasn’t yesterday? Because it was never about the science.
Nuclear power has been the NetZeroiest energy on Earth since the sun formed from collapsing interstellar gas. Nuclear plants don’t produce any CO2 at all, but that wasn’t good enough because it was never about CO2 either. It was always about power and money and profits for friends.
And the best friend of a bureaucrat is a captive-dependent-industry, one that survives on handouts. Those in need of Big Government largess always lobby for Big Government, donate to Big Government causes and cheer on everything Big Government wants them to cheer on, even if it’s a naked man in high heels.
Yesterday gas was a fossil fuel, but today it’s a sustainable one:
In a radical move, the French government has quietly dropped their renewables targets from their draft energy bill, risking being seen as unfashionable losers in billionaire ski clubs. The nation that, forty years ago, built 56 nuclear reactors in 15 years has decided they just need to build another 6 to 14 new nuclear plants to reach “Net Zero” by 2050. This puts them in danger of being one of the only nations on Earth that might reach their target.
This, of course, is terrible for the renewables industry as it risks exposing the wanton frivolity and utterly superfluous nature of the wind and solar subsidy farms. If France can do this without the bird chopping, the slave labor and the lithium bombs, so can nearly everywhere else.
It’s a big change from 2014 when France aimed to reduce nuclear power to just 50% by 2025.
If coal is a planet wrecking problem, if it really mattered, about 30 countries are beating themselves up in acts of grandiose public flagellation, while one country is wrecking the planet and nobody cares. The truth is that no one is behaving like they think CO2 is causing a crisis. All over the West everyone wears the hippie-care coat while buying the cheapest fridges, phones and fashion they can get from the global coal furnace. And China nods the nod then keeps on adding coal power plants.
In Carnarvon yesterday the Bureau tells us that the temperature was “a record” 49.9 degree day (almost 122 Fahrenheit). But in 1896 the Brickhouse Station just 15 kilometers north of Carnarvon hit 121 Fahrenheit in the shade, and there were reports of birds dying and other measurements “in the shade” that were as high as 125F. Somehow man-made emissions have been heating the planet for 128 years but the current freakishly hot days are about the same as the ones when no one in Australia owned a car and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were still under 300 ppm.
Lest we forget, there are hundreds of thermometer records from the pre-1908 era that are apparently worth nothing to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Climate change threatens all life on Earth, so you’d think climate scientists would be excited about the longest historical records they can find, but for some inexplicable reason they show little interest in the historical records from 1896 when a heatwave struck and 437 people died across Australia.
Temperatures hit 50C in the shade in many places in January 1896. In locations hundreds of kilometers apart, people were reporting similar temperatures. Perhaps they were all wrong?
These maps and graphs make it clear just how brazenly unscientific the Hockey Stick is. //
In 2009 McIntyre did it again with Briffa’s Hockey Stick. After asking and waiting three years for the data, it took just three days to expose it too as baseless. For nine years Briffa had concealed that he only had 12 trees in the sample from 1990 onwards, and that one freakish tree virtually transformed the graph. When McIntyre graphed another 34 trees from the same region of Russia, there was no Hockey Stick.
The sharp upward swing of the graph was due to one single tree in Yamal. Epic cherry-picking!
Skeptical scientists have literally hundreds of samples. Unskeptical scientists have one tree in Yamal, and a few flawed bristlecones…
It was a audaciously unscientific.
Climate models don’t know why it was as warm years ago. [the models can't reproduce historical data given historical inputs]
The models are wrong.
The all important question that rises above and before ALL other questions is the one of evidence.
Is there any evidence that carbon dioxide causes major warming?
In science, “evidence” has a very specific meaning and for a very good reason. In a court of law or a game of football, the label “evidence” can be plastered all over the place. If 500 footballers signed a petition to change a rule, that would be “evidence” the rule needed changing. But if 5 billion people signed a petition to make it rain in Mumbai on Thursday, that’s a waste of paper.
Science is only about the natural world. That’s why human opinions are irrelevant.
It takes only one experiment to disprove a theory. The climate models are predicting a global disaster, but the empirical evidence disagrees. The theory of catastrophic man-made global warming has been tested from many independent angles.
The heat is missing from oceans; it’s missing from the upper troposphere. The clouds are not behaving as predicted. The models can’t predict the short term, the regional, or the long term. They don’t predict the past. How could they predict the future?
The models didn’t correctly predict changes in outgoing radiation, or the humidity and temperature trends of the upper troposphere. The single most important fact, dominating everything else, is that the ocean heat content has barely increased since 2003 (and quite possibly decreased) counter to the simulations. In a best case scenario, any increase reported is not enough. Models can’t predict local and regional patterns or seasonal effects, yet modelers add up all the erroneous micro-estimates and claim to produce an accurate macro global forecast. Most of the warming happened in a step change in 1977, yet CO2 has been rising annually.
Observations from every angle point to a similar conclusion
Studies involving 28 million weather balloons, thousands of satellite recordings, 3,000 ocean buoys, temperature recordings from 50 sites in the US and a 1,000 years of temperature proxies suggest that the Global Climate Models overestimate positive feedback and are based on poor assumptions. Observations suggest lower values for climate sensitivity whether we study long-term humidity, upper tropospheric temperature trends, outgoing long wave radiation, cloud cover changes, or the changes in the heat content of the vast oceans.
On the left, how it is presented, on the right with equal axes
What do you do when not enough people die to suit your religion? Distort the axis and hope no one notices.
Welcome to government-science, where one of top journals in the world uses graphic design tricks for political convenience. In this graph from the paper, 10 excess deaths from the heat looks “bigger” than 50 excess deaths from cold. Isn’t the whole point of a graph so we can compare the bars “at a glance”?
Björn Lomborg corrected this with chart on right. Doesn’t that tell a different story?
Thanks to Patrick Moore @EcoSenseNow:
The journal “Lancet” published the chart on left with unequal X-Axis* to downplay fact that cold causes 10X more deaths than heat in Europe. …This is disgraceful for a supposedly scientific journal.
Björn Lomborg‘s version shows us exactly how important heat deaths are. It’s no small thing. The news outlets are filled with heatwave porn trying to scare people about normal weather, while politicians try to justify spending billions to “cool” the world. These graphs hide the crime — increasing the cost of energy will kill far more than mythical cooling could ever save.
This is symbolic of the state of Science today: distorted by government funding until the point of it disappears.
‘Hippy’ has come to mean many things, and most people think of it as a harmless, ‘peace and love’ movement, or simply a way of dressing. In reality, my experience of hippies is one of angry doomers, and the flowery visage is a marketing ploy perpetuated by some of the most intolerant and controlling people I have ever known.
That’s the clincher. The beliefs held by my fellow hippies were at odds with their image. Today, we can see it more obviously - activists who preach peace but are the most rage-filled and violent of us all. They exist in every movement that is fighting for something good, yet they seldom represent what is good.
The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that [think tank fellow Rand] Simberg and Steyn made false statements, awarding Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer. It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”[...] //
Steyn, who the Associated Press reported represented himself, released a statement via Melissa Howes, his manager, "that he would be appealing the $1 million award in punitive damages, saying it would have to face 'due process scrutiny.'”
His statement continued:
We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue,.And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages. //
LaserTSV
4 hours ago edited
Why was the case filed in DC and not Pennsylvania? I am totally confused by all of this. Isn't $1M a small amount of money for court cases? I am thinking the legal bills for both parties was larger than $1M??? Will Steyn end up paying more than $1M to appeal this? //
Keith
21 minutes ago
What a complete travesty of justice, Mann couldn't even get another "climate scientist" to testify on his behalf.
Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
The only action needed to solve climate change is is a carbon tax.
There's a lot that's wrong here, with the first thing being that carbon itself is comparable to various vices. People can choose to not drink. They can't choose to not eat food, whose production releases carbon emissions. There's also that whole "breathing" thing to consider. Something like travel is also more of a necessity than not in the modern world.
Regardless, Musk couches his idea for a carbon tax in a populist message of not imposing draconian laws on farmers and air-conditioner usage. Okay, but who does he think would be affected by a carbon tax? For example, ranchers that create large amounts of carbon emissions raising cattle would be on the hook. Further, even if one makes the argument that a carbon tax would mostly impact large companies, guess what they'll do to their prices? And guess who will then pay that price increase. //
brookie
2 hours ago
CO2 is the gas of life.
DavidW
2 hours ago
I think Al Gore and John Kerry support carbon taxes. That disqualifies the concept immediately!!!
I have my doubts about the sustainability of “cellular agriculture.” //
…For Sanah Baig, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, these aims align well with the Biden administration’s own “bold goals” plan to reduce global methane emissions from food and agriculture by 30 percent within the decade. //
And, even if you removed all the cows in the United States and Europe, that wouldn’t touch the millions of methane-generating cud chewers in Africa.
James Hall @hallaboutafrica
·
Who says Africa doesn't contribute to global warming? Of all animals, the (um, how to put this?) biggest emitter of methane gas is the hippopotamus. The largest hippo ever weighed was 10,000 pounds (4536kg), and all are constantly passing gas.
9:41 AM · Sep 7, 2019 //
TargaGTS | January 23, 2024 at 7:59 am
I’m far more concerned with the nutritional value of these products than I am their ‘carbon footprint’…or ANY food’s carbon footprint. What is inescapable is MEAT is an essential element for the developing human brain. Adolescents need ample access to complex proteins that are only available in – you guess it – actual meat. There’s a reason why cultures that developed farming and animal husbandry developed at a much faster pace than cultures that did not. ANIMAL PROTEIN is the reason. //
WestRock | January 23, 2024 at 8:56 am
We’ve seen what happens when things are grown in labs – think Covid. And we know what happens when governments, NGOs and otherwise bad actors influence industries (and media and finance). Once our food becomes manufactured to a standard and controlled think how easily a drug or other agent of harm or control could be inserted into that food supply. No thanks.
Climate change is big news these days, from melting mountain glaciers to warming seas. But is the buildup of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere leading to a crisis?
That was the question at the core of a recent Oxford-style debate called Intelligence Squared U.S. The series is based on the Intelligence Squared program that began in London in 2002. Three experts argue in favor of a motion; three others argue against it.
In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.
- FOR: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, Philip Stott
- AGAINST: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville