Climate Change Mega Thread

[nepal]

If it feels colder this year, well apparently it is colder. Looking at the historical graph below today (red vertical line), Penticton is on the lower side of the cold average.

[Jlabute]

UAH6 satellite, global average tropospheric temperature anomaly has dropped below 0 to -0.01c with the advent of La Nina.
The global average oceanic tropospheric temperature anomaly is -0.07 deg. C. We are also now entering a period of long sun inactivity which will affect polar ozone layers, and only speculation as to what this will do to climate. The grand solar minimum is expected to last at least 33 years, and deepen 10 years from now.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

https://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-th ... e-climate/

[Glacier]

The Great Barrier Reef is now completely gone due to climate change.

[Jlabute]

Physicists’ Lab Experiment Shows A CO2 Increase From 0.04% To 100% (1,000,000 ppm) Leads To No Observable Warming


Two University of Oslo physicists designed several variations of a tabletop experiment trying to confirm the IPCC’s claimed CO2-forcing capacity. Instead they found:
(a) 100% (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 “heats” air to about the same temperature that non-greenhouse gases (N2, O2 [air], Ar) do
(b) no significant temperature difference in containers with 0.04% vs. 100% CO2.

https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/01/phy ... le-warming


Another study by Seim and Olson in 2020 also confirm this finding.

"The fundamental assumption of the greenhouse theory is that increasing the CO2 concentration by a factor of 2 or more (i.e., from 0.03% to 0.06%) leads to 2 to 4 degrees of additional warming (at least), aligning with expectations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Instead of observing these strong temperature responses to increasing CO2 concentrations, Seim and Olsen found there is almost no effect at all – perhaps an additional 0.15°C at most – when adding pure (100%) CO2 to a halogen-heated chamber (+30°C)"

Notes of their experiment:
“The idea that backscatters from CO2 is the main driver of global temperatures might be wrong.”
“The temperature [in a thermophile] with [100%] CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5% [an additional 0.15°C for a container heated from 20°C to 50°C]

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

[Jlabute]

It seems that solar variability can drive climate variability on Earth on decadal timescales (the decadal climatic variability that Michael Mann recently ‘proved’ doesn’t exist).

That’s the conclusion of a new study showing a correlation between the end of solar cycles and a switch from El Nino to La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean.

In this new study, the researchers use a 22-year “clock” for solar activity derived from the Sun’s magnetic polarity cycle, which they consider a more regular alternative to the 11-year solar cycle.

Coincidence Unlikely
Applying this to climate studies the researchers found that the five estimates of the end of a solar cycle that occurred between 1960 and 2010-11 all coincided with a flip from an El Nino (when sea surface temperatures are warmer than average) to a La Nina (when the sea surface temperatures are cooler than average).

https://climatechangedispatch.com/the-c ... confirmed/

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 20EA001223

[ckil]

Interesting and informative chart Jlabute.

[Jlabute]

If it feels colder this year, well apparently it is colder. Looking at the historical graph below today (red vertical line), Penticton is on the lower side of the cold average.

It does feel colder. Not just the Okanagan, but lots of places. Not since 1930 has France has such a cold April and has declared a "calamité agricole" due to temperatures 7c below average. The government is assisting lots of farmers.

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French- ... -continues

La Nina causing crop failures everywhere, from Brazil to the US.
https://www.fruit-processing.com/2021/0 ... confirmed/



As for the solar variability, it amazes me what has been recently discovered. We determined that the Earth, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn tidal forces cause the suns 11 year cycle. Such discoveries are recent and up until then scientists were trying to fathom a cycle model without the planets.

Back in 2009 I see a hypothesis that Neptune and Uranus modulate the grand minima with graphs showing a grand minima occurring now (called the Landscheidt minimum)

http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/5

Some believe the total solar irradiance modulation at 0.45% is insignificant but a large portion of the TSI can be in particular bands, like UV. UV radiation can fall by 1% to 8% or more and some believe UV, MUV, FUV or EUV bands have the greatest control on climate as they have an effect on ozone and stratospheric temperatures. Who knows what happens with cloud cover, and changing magnetic fields and so on.

There is no doubt we have just entered a long solar grand minimum and we will learn a lot about it. Not many are talking about it though which is a shame. It only happens once in a lifetime if at all. The short term result can be winter weather heading south more often for longer periods and we have to be prepared. None of this has anything to do with CO2. The short term results are upper latitude wide-spread crop losses. The solar cycle 26 will put us deep into the minimum come 2030. No one knows the long term results and it has been brushed off as insignificant by those who professionally need to ignore it. Will our ignorance and arrogance slap us in the face?

[Jlabute]

Grants Schmantz.

Since we have a "renewable" electric future, the grants for offshore wind farms apparently is "obscene".

"GWPF research has shown that just six offshore windfarms are now sharing £1.6 billion pounds in subsidies between them every year. Three receive annual subsidies of over a quarter of a billion pounds each year. On a single day in April last year, Hornsea 1 received a subsidy payment of nearly £1.5 million pounds.

The level of subsidy is sufficient to cover the construction cost of these windfarms in just six or seven years, meaning that future payments will represent almost pure profit for the operators.

There are further bills to pay too, because windfarms are causing destabilization of the electricity grid. The cost of the Balancing Mechanism, which deals with grid imbalances, is rising rapidly, costing each household £65 per year, a figure that is rising at a rate of £20 per year.

Direct subsidies therefore amount to an annual payment from each household of £350, a sum that is rising by at least £25 per year."

The whole world pays for these wasteful structures. They waste land and more money than they are worth... without even generating the amount of electricity to cover the subsidies.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/17/ ... -revealed/

https://www.thegwpf.com/high-wind-subsidies/

[Glacier]

[d0nb]

A few stories from the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

After a stint at the Obama Energy Department, Steven Koonin reclaims the science of a warming planet from the propaganda peddlers. https://www.thegwpf.com/what-climate-sc ... t-matters/

“I’ve been building models and watching others build models for 45 years,” he says. Climate models “are not to the standard you would trust your life to or even your trillions of dollars to.”

No kidding. It would be nice to hang on to our last billion or two if that is an option.

Ten million jobs are at risk due to a legal commitment to go carbon neutral by 2050, new research has found.

Two in five workers in the UK’s poorest regions are reliant on high-emitting industries for jobs.
The report says Britain must launch a major new job ¬creation agenda in the Red Wall to find replacement positions and help retrain workers in new careers. https://www.thegwpf.com/ten-million-job ... ro-pledge/

Yeah, well, who cares about poor people anyway? They don’t even attend meetings in Davos.

A modest proposal: Put some of them to work manufacturing (environmentally friendly) Pixie Dust. The dust would allow surplus unemployed poor people to fly to Davos where the uber-rich and their political toadies could use them as skeet shooting targets.

Chinese President Xi Jinping wins prestigious ‘Climate Hypocrite of the Year’ award https://www.thegwpf.com/chinese-preside ... ear-award/

Ladies and Gentlemen, we give you Xi Jinping, the president of China. The General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party is a deserving winner this year for his smooth parading of “concern” for the climate while all the time building hundreds of coal-fired power stations in China and around the world as fast as he possibly can.

Drat! Passed over again! Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio and John Forbes Kerry must be devastated. The unfairness is compounded by the fact that Xi Jinping used a whole country to pad his resume, whereas Leo and John’s very substantial contributions are made at either their own expense or that of a rich widow.

[Jlabute]

In 1988, the father of Catastrophic Global Warming James Hansen, gave us a prediction of run-away global warming in front of the US Senate. His predictions based on CO2 emission trends, went from 1988 to 2019 and showed three scenarios. Shortly after his presentation in 1988, politicians were frightened, and the IPCC was founded.

Scenario "A" was a business as usual model showing temperatures as they might be in 2020 if we do nothing and let CO2 exponentially increase. Today, we consider this prediction nonsense, but it started the scare.

Scenario "B" was an arithmetic rise in CO2 which James considered more plausible.

Scenario "C" is a prediction based on a "net zero" draconian reduction in CO2 emissions in order to save the world. which current UAH satellite data tracks.

None of the scenarios predict El Nino. Now we are sitting at a slightly higher than business as usual emissions, with UAH satellite temperatures indicating the world is saved, or at least CO2 did not warm the planet as expected.

[JLives]

Looks like two random charts posted with no context by not a climate scientist to me.

[GordonH]

Here is impo game changer on C02
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=88429

[Jlabute]

Here is impo game changer on C02
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=88429

Yup, it is interesting. Do you think the company "Carbon Engineering" can be profitable? CO2 to pellets at Squamish costs $1.1B+ as a pilot project. In order for Canada to extract all the CO2 they emit I thought I read somewhere we would need 10,000 of these CO2 extraction plants. If you wanted to go from CO2 to fuel that'll cost extra, maybe that would be $2B(??). Not sure. In total, 20 trillion dollars. Or 10 trillion to do half that. Does it make inexpensive fuel? We do not know that yet either. The Squamish plant only does the CO2 extraction according to their process model. It also requires a lot of electricity and natural gas to do it. I suppose we will see where it goes.

In short order, "IF" we are mandated to go all electric, would it be worth-while?

[Jlabute]

Looks like two random charts posted with no context by not a climate scientist to me.

As the theory goes, rising CO2 causes rise in temperature. Science does not tell us how much warming we get from CO2. These charts are not random.

The two charts are standard James Hansen graphs. The Bottom graph (used by the IPCC) displays what Hansen thought would be mankind's CO2 emissions in a few scenarios. In 1988, no one knew how the world would choose to use fossil fuels so Hansen gave some fossil fuel use scenarios, A, B, C, D. The chart above is the predicted temperature from those scenarios. Are you saying James Hansen was not a climate scientist? Really ironic isn't it since he was wrong.

The predictions were made back in 1988 and scared the world. The graphs above are annotated by those who want to make the point that the father of CO2 warming was wrong in 1988.

In 2018, we had MORE CO2 emitted (11.5Gt) than James Hansen's "business as usual scenario A", but the resulting temperature overlaid with UAH is closer to "scenario C" or 1/3rd his expected temperature.

This chart made by Nick Stokes shows UAH out to 2016 although we know all temperatures after the 2016 large El Nino are much lower.

Scenario "A" is obviously wrong, and it is what started the global warming scare.