I was at the Australian National University in October 2018, when the largest supercomputer in the Southern Hemisphere began running the simulations that have now been published as the IPCC’s Assessment Report No. 6 (AR6). It’s being touted as the most comprehensive climate change report ever. It is certainly based on a suite* of very complex simulation models (CMIP6).
Many are frightened by the official analysis of the model’s results, which claims global warming is unprecedented in more than 2000 years. Yet the same modelling is only claiming the Earth is warming by some fractions of a degree Celsius! Specifically, the claim is that we humans have caused 1.06 °C of the claimed 1.07 °C rise in temperatures since 1850, which is not very much. The real-world temperature trends that I have observed at Australian locations with long temperature records would suggest a much greater rate of temperature rise since 1960, and cooling before that.
Allowing some historical perspective shows that the IPCC is wrong to label the recent temperature changes ‘unprecedented’. They are not unusual in magnitude, direction or rate of change, which should diminish fears that recent climate change is somehow catastrophic.
To understand how climate has varied over much longer periods, over hundreds and thousands of years, various types of proxy records can be assembled derived from the annual rings of long-lived tree species, corals and stalagmites. These types of records provide evidence for periods of time over the past several thousand years (the late Holocene) that were either colder, or experienced similar temperatures, to the present, for example the Little Ice Age (1309 to 1814) and the Medieval Warm Period (985 to 1200), respectively. These records show global temperatures have cycled within a range of up to 1.8 °C over the last thousand years.
Indeed, the empirical evidence, as published in the best peer-reviewed journals, would suggest that there is no reason to be concerned by a 1.5 °C rise in global temperatures over a period of one hundred years – that this is neither unusual in terms of rate nor magnitude. That the latest IPCC report, Assessment Report 6, suggests catastrophe if we cannot contain warming to 1.5 °C is not in accordance with the empirical evidence, but rather a conclusion based entirely on simulation modelling falsely assuming these models can accurately simulate ocean and atmospheric weather systems. There are better tools for generating weather and climate forecasts, specifically artificial neural networks (ANNs) that are a form of artificial intelligence.
Of course, there is nowhere on Earth where the average global temperature can be measured; it is very cold at the poles and rather warmer in the tropics. So, the average global temperature for each year since 1850 could never be a direct ‘observation’, but rather, at best, a statistic calculated from measurements taken at thousands of weather stations across the world. And can it really be accurately calculated to some fractions of a degree Celsius?
AR6, which runs to over 4,000-pages, claims to have accurately quantified everything including confidence ranges for the ‘observation’ of 1.07 °C. Yet I know from scrutinising the datasets used by the IPCC, that the single temperature series inputted for individual locations incorporate ‘adjustments’ by national meteorological services that are rather large. To be clear, even before the maximum and minimum temperature values from individual weather stations are incorporated into HadCRUT5 they are adjusted. A key supporting technical paper (eg. Brohan et al. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research) clearly states that: ‘HadCRUT only archives single temperature series for particular location and any adjustments made by national meteorological services are unknown.’ So, the idea, that the simulations are based on ‘observation’ with real meaningful ‘uncertainty limits’ is just not true.
According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), which is one of the national meteorological services providing data for HadCRUT, the official remodelled temperatures are an improvement on the actual measurements. This may be so that they better accord with IPCC policy, with the result being a revisionist approach to our climate history. In general they strip the natural cycles within the datasets of actual observations, replacing them with linear trends that accord with IPCC policy.
The BOM’s Blair Trewin, who is one of the 85 ‘drafting authors’ of the Summary for Policy Makers, in 2018 remodelled and published new values for each of the 112 weather stations used to calculate an Australian average over the period 1910 to 2016, so that the overall rate of warming increased by 23 %. Specifically, the linear trend (°C per century) for Australian temperatures had been 1 °C per century as published in 2012 in the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network − Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) database version 1. Then, just in time for inclusion in this new IPCC report released on Tuesday, all the daily values from each of the 112 weather stations were remodelled and the rate of warming increased to 1.23 °C per century in ACORN-SAT version 2 that was published in 2018. This broadly accords with the increase of 22% in the rate of warming between the 2014 IPCC report (Assessment Report No. 5) which was 0.85 °C (since 1850), and this new report has the rate of warming of 1.07 °C.
Remodelling of the data sets by the national meteorological services generally involves cooling the past, by way of dropping down the values in the first part of the twentieth century. This is easy enough to check for the Australian data because it is possible to download the maximum and minimum values as recorded at the 112 Australian weather stations for each day from the BOM website, and then compare these values with the values as listed in ACORN-SAT version 1 (that I archived some years ago) and ACORN-SAT version 2 that is available at the BOM website. For example, the maximum temperature as recorded at the Darwin weather station was 34.2 °C on 1 January 1910 (this is the very first value listed). This value was changed by Blair Trewin in the creation of ACORN-SAT version 1 to 33.8 °C. He ‘cooled’ this historical observation by a further 1.4 °C in the creation of ACORN-SAT version 2, just in time for inclusion in the values used to calculate a global average temperature for AR6. When an historic value is cooled relative to present temperatures, then an artificial warming trend is created.
I am from northern Australia, I was born in Darwin, so I take a particular interest in its temperature series. I was born there on 26th August 1963. A maximum temperature of 29.6 °C was recorded at the Darwin airport on that day from a mercury thermometer in a Stevenson screen, which was an official recording station using standard equipment. This is also the temperature value shown in ACORN-SAT version 1. This value was dropped down/cooled by 0.8 °C in the creation of ACORN-SAT version 2, by Blair Trewin in 2018. So, the temperature series incorporated into HadCRUT5, which is one of the global temperature datasets used in all the IPCC reports shows the contrived value of 28.8 °C for 26th August 1963, yet the day I born a value of 29.6 °C was entered into the meteorological observations book for Darwin. In my view, changing the numbers in this way is plain wrong, and certainly not scientific.
The BOM justifies remodelling because of changes to the equipment used to record temperatures and because of the relocation of the weather stations, except that they change the values even when there have been no changes to the equipment or locations. In the case of Darwin, the weather station has been at the airport since February 1941, and an automatic weather station replaced the mercury thermometer on 1 October 1990. For the IPCC report (AR5) published in 2014, the BOM submitted the actual value of 29.6 °C as the maximum temperature for Darwin on 26th August 1963. Yet in November 2018, when the temperatures were submitted for inclusion in the modelling for this latest report (AR6), the contrived value of 28.8 °C was submitted.
The temperature series that are actual observations from weather stations at locations across Australia tend to show cooling to about 1960 and warming since then. This is particularly the case for inland locations from southeast Australia. For example, the actual observations from the weather stations with the longest records in New South Wales were plotted for the period to 1960 and then from 1960 to 2013, for a presentation that I gave to the Sydney Institute in 2014. I calculated an average cooling from the late 1800s to 1960 of minus 1.95 °C, and an average warming of plus 2.48 °C from the 1960s to the present, as shown in Table 1. Yet this new United Nation’s IPCC report claims inevitable catastrophe should the rate of warming exceeds 1.5 °C, yet this can be shown to have already occurred at many Australian locations.
This is consistent with the findings in my technical report as published in the international climate science journal Atmospheric Research (volume 166, pages 141-149) in 2015, which shows significant cooling in the maximum temperatures at the Cape Otway and Wilsons Promontory lighthouses, in southeast Australia, from 1921 to 1950. The cooling is more pronounced in temperature records from the farmlands of the Riverina, including at Rutherglen and Deniliquin. To repeat, while temperatures at the lighthouses show cooling from about 1880 to about 1950, they then show quite dramatic warming from at least 1960 to the present. In the Riverina, however, minimum temperatures continued to fall through the 1970s and 1980s because of the expansion of the irrigation schemes. Indeed, the largest dip in the minimum temperature record for Deniliquin occurs just after the Snowy Hydroelectricity scheme came online. This is masked by the remodelled by dropping down/cooling all the minimum temperatures observations at Deniliquin before 1971 by 1.5 °C.
In my correspondence with the Bureau about these adjustments it was explained that irrigation is not natural and therefore there is a need to correct the record through remodelling of the series from these irrigation areas until they show warming consistent with theory. But global warming itself is not natural, if it is essentially driven by human influence, which is a key assumption of current policy. Indeed, there should be something right-up-front in the latest assessment of climate change by the IPCC (AR6) explaining that the individual temperature series have been remodelled before inclusion in the global datasets to ensure a significant human influence on climate in accordance with IPCC policy. These remodelled temperature series are then incorporated into CMIP6 which is so complex it can only be run only a supercomputer that generates so many scenarios for a diversity of climate parameters from sea level to rainfall.
In October 2018, I visited the Australian National University (ANU) to watch CMIP6 at work on the largest supercomputer in the Southern Hemisphere. It was consuming obscene amounts of electricity to run the simulations for this latest IPCC report, and it is also used to generate medium to long range rainfall forecasts for the BOM. The rainfall forecasts from these simulation models even just three months in advance are, however, notoriously unreliable. Yet we are expected to believe rainfall forecasts based on simulations that make projections 100 years in advance, as detailed in AR6.
There are alternative tools for generating temperature and rainfall forecasts. In a series of research papers and book chapters with John Abbot, I have documented how artificial neural networks (ANNs) can be used to mine historical datasets for patterns and from these generate more accurate medium and long-range rainfall and temperature forecast. Our forecasts don’t suggest an impending climate catastrophe, but rather that climate change is cyclical, not linear. Indeed, temperatures change on a daily cycle as the Earth spins on its axis, temperatures change with the seasons because of the tilt of the Earth relative to its orbit around the Sun, and then there are ice ages because of changes in the orbital path of the Earth around the Sun, and so on.
Taking this longer perspective, considering the sun rather than carbon dioxide as a driver of climate change, and inputting real observations rather than remodelled/adjusted temperature values, we find recurrent cycles greater than 1.07 degrees Celsius during the last 2000 years. Our research paper entitled ‘The application of machine learning for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change’, published in GeoResJ in 2017 (volume 14, pages 36-46) shows a series of temperature reconstructions from six geographically distinct regions and gives some graphic illustration of the rate and magnitude of the temperature fluctuations.
ANNs are at the cutting edge of AI technology, with new network configurations and learning algorithms continually being developed. In 2012, when John Abbot and I began using ANNs for rainfall forecasting we choose a time delay neural network (TDNN), which was considered state-of-the-art at that time. The TDNN used a network of perceptrons where connection weights were trained with backpropagation. More recently we have been using General Regression Neural Networks (GRNN), that have no backpropagation component.
A reasonable test of the value of any scientific theory is its utility – its ability to solve some particular problem. There has been an extraordinary investment into climate change over the last three decades, yet it is unclear whether there has been any significant improvement in the skill of weather and climate forecasting. Mainstream climate scientists, and meteorological agencies continue to rely on simulation modelling for their forecasts such as the CMIP6 models used in this latest IPCC report – there could be a better way and we may not have a climate catastrophe.
* Following comment in the following thread from Greg Goodman on 15th August, I have added in the word ‘suite of’ because it is the case that CMIP6 is a project rather than a model, it is a project that runs a suite of simulation models.
Further Reading/Other Information
The practical application of ANNs for forecasting temperatures and rainfall is detailed in a series of papers by John Abbot and me that are listed here: https://climatelab.com.au/publications/
Chapter 16 of the book ‘Climate Change: The Facts 2020’ provides more detail on how the Australian Bureau of Meteorology takes a revisionist approach to Darwin’s history, click here:
There is an interactive table based on the maximum and minimum values as originally recorded for each of the 112 Australian weather stations used to calculate the official temperature values as listed in ACORN-SAT version 1 and version 2 at my website, click here:
The feature image, at the top of this blog post, shows Jennifer Marohasy in front of the supercomputer at the Australian National University in October 2018, which was running simulations for the latest IPCC report.
Allan Cox says
“In my view, changing the numbers in this way is plain wrong.”
My like scientific malfeasance; to change a record of observation without a valid reason is not science as I remember.
SCIENCE now seems to stand for: Silly Clots Investigating Every Nonsensical Claim Everywhere.
Regarding the current synchronized panic about “teh Klimate”.
The fear-mongering and shaming will continue at a steadily accelerating pace.
A few relevant quotes:
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
Dr David Frame,climate modeller, Oxford University.
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Finally, some sanity:
“The whole aim 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.
H. L. Mencken.
Seems to me the scientific method is amoral. An important criterion is securing funding. Unfortunately the government is effectively the only customer for science, so politics intersects with science. Possibly a blind trust could evaluate worthy theories more effectively.
Global Warming scratches a lot of backs. Beyond science we need to look at the economy and how CEOs are dictating policy when they’re not elected by popular vote
Mark M says
Is that a threat or a promise …
“As the IPCC’s scientific assessment reports are only published every seven years or so, this may be the authors’ last chance to warn people.”
>” … there is a need to correct the record through remodelling of the series from these irrigation areas until they show warming consistent with theory. ” [from the BoM]
We are lost.
Empirical data is *wrong* and must be made to conform with Theory (capitalised to conform with the ideology).
John Perkins says
To get global average temperature you need to take an average. To suggest that all the data is rigged sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Half the fossil fuels that ever existed on the planet have been turned into carbon dioxide in 50 years. That is not a cyclical change.
The observed link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature rise is undeniable.
You do not need an artificial neural network to work this out. If you can, just use the one in your head.
Peter Lang says
Jennifer, thank you for this excellent post.
Good points. There is just way too much uncertainty associated with predictions to bear trillions of dollars of costs.
Simulation per se is not bad and NNs can be part of a simulation. NN is just a fancy word for function approximation and it works well if you have a priori reason to believe that there IS a sufficiently smooth relationship.
spangled drongo says
Thanks for this great post, Jen.
Why doesn’t someone ask these “experts” what the natural climate variability temperature range is for the Holocene and then point out that we are still in the lower half [possibly lowest quarter] of that variability.
We know that “science” is not really the agenda but that is the way they sell their BS and we have to keep pointing this BS out to them.
It’s hard to believe that professional scientists on the international stage would do what they are doing.
You’ve done a great job pointing out their fakery at the bakery with this, Jen.
spangled drongo says
BTW, the latest Mean Sea Level measurement at Fort Denison [June 2021] is over an inch LOWER than the first one in May 1914 so that must tell any “climate scientist” like Blair Trewin that there is nothing happening other than Nat Var.
It even comes from his own BoM site:
Richard Bennett says
The alteration of historical temperature data in order to justify the political narrative on climate change is quite simply FRAUD. The politicians who have condoned this fraud MUST BE prosecuted. Fewer and fewer people now believe this climate change scam and people should now refuse to co-operate with implementation of these so-called green deals which will cost the people a vast fortune as individuals. Climate change corruption is highly damaging to the scientific community but fortunately Mother Nature will bite back hard and make the purveyors of false climate scenarios look like the ignorant fools that they are.
Richard Greene says
I read over one dozen climate science and energy articles every day.
This was the best article I read yesterday.
Thank you Jennifer for another excellent report.
I felt sick to the stomach when i heard they were about to publish the latest IPCC report.
I could have written a book of their predictions before i even heard about them in the news, it was sooooo obvious. And the News media reported it like it was a surprise !
OMG we are doomed, and lead by a bunch of sheep and lemmings.
Even the statement from the BOM about the altering (sorry, correcting the record through remodelling) of the temp records because of the irrigation is an admission of guilt for falsification of data.
A sackable offense in my line of work (pharmaceuticals and TGA compliance).
I just can’t believe professional scientists (and i use the word loosely and not to offend the real scientists, my apologies), would sell their souls for this rubbish, but the lies are just unimaginable.
My stomach literally goes into knots when i read this stuff, and it doesn’t take very long to jump on the net, get historical records, graphs and newspaper articles etc to prove them wrong. Almost every time they say something is a record it actually is not.
ianl was spot-on with his comment above, agree 100% Ian.
>” … there is a need to correct the record through remodelling of the series from these irrigation areas until they show warming consistent with theory. ” [from the BoM]
We are lost.
Can’t really say any more than Ian did,
I am guttered,
Please just keep up the good work Jennifer and i just hope one day that all of this rubbish and dribble is exposed on a reputable TV investigational program.
But my hopes are fading as they love the popular opinion stats that they all live by these days.
Thank you Jen. Very well explained. Sounds like they WILL use the methodology to produce reports that suits their purposes [take from that whatever you will].
Climate Change Facts : 2020 was a great informative read BTW.
I am a Medical Scientist now retired and I can share with you frankly that for over 25 years I have with colleagues been gobsmacked with how poor & highly selective the closed system that is used for peer review has become for Climate Change lit. Crafted & labelled to order & favour the desired public message & impression >and the Media are embedded. Too much push from Renewables’ enterprises and China $$$$$$.
Alex Epstein might be close : “The IPCC is not primarily a scientific organization, it is primarily a religious and political organization that manipulates science–including the work of many good scientists–………..”
Thanks, Regs Kerrie
Don B says
A featured IPCC hockey stick graph was constructed in a manner designed to deceive.
Here is a technical discussion.
I much appreciate the work you are doing monitoring and exposing the blatant manipulation of the climate record being perpetrated by BOM, however you are mistaken about what CMIP6 is.
” It is certainly based on a very complex simulation model (CMIP6).”
” In October 2018, I visited the Australian National University (ANU) to watch CMIP6 at work on the largest supercomputer in the Southern Hemisphere.”
CMIP is not A computer program. It is not A computer simulation. CMIP does not run anywhere.
CMIP stands for :Coupled Model Intercomparison Project . It is a framework for comparing the multitude of *different* climate models from groups around the world.
You seems to think it is one computer model. Although this is not key to what you are reporting about temperature manipulation it is an obvious error which will be used to discredit your reliability and dismiss your criticism of the data manipulation, which several honest Aussies have been exposing for years.
Since this is getting wide exposure on WUWT, I would suggest you correct the text.
Best regards, Greg Goodman.
Brendan Godwin says
I concur with these comments. Jennifer you have produced yet another excellent report exposing the fake and fraudulent IPCC.
“we humans have caused 1.06 °C of the claimed 1.07 °C rise in temperatures since 1850”
The IPCC cannot prove their climate change GHE theory. They cannot prove their claimed rise of 1.06 °C is caused by humans. All they have is a model, that is based on a whole lot of false assumptions.
The IPCC admit they cannot prove any of this.
IPCC AR4 WG1
Chapter. 1. Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
1.2 The Nature of Earth Science Page 95
1.3.3 Detection and Attribution Pages 102-103
“with no spare Earth with which to experiment, attribution of anthropogenic climate change”
And the introduction of confidence, likelihood & uncertainty levels:
1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties
Science does not work from probabilities, it works by proving and disproving.
In addition, the ongoing use of models that are based on false assumptions.
With this statement and their ongoing use of models, the IPCC admit they cannot prove their AGW theory.
Don Gaddes says
I don’t know if you received the work I sent you a few months ago Jennifer, It defined Solar-induced Orbital Dry Cycles, as outlined in Alex S. Gaddes’ work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (1990) This Dry Cycle Hierarchy appears to be caused by The reaction of Solar emission particles on water vapour in the upper atmosphere,(Metal/Steam Reaction) resulting in a decrease in precipitation and an increase in temperature, as the Dry Cycle travels around the planet from West to East at 15 degrees of longitude per 30 Day/Night Interval month. The periods between the Dry Cycles constitute a default Wet/Normal Period.
The calculations use Base 12 Maths and the constant of the Earth/Solar Year,(always 360 degrees.) Thus, there are 12 months of 30 day/night intervals each.
There are no leap years. The Seasons,(Angle of Obliquity) are also involved as a constant factor of four. The Hierarchy sequence repeats every 81 years,(12 X 6.75) There are NO decadal oscillations.
One of these Cycles has a duration of Two Years, with a terrestrial footprint of 16 months, (Regional Dry Cycle.)The other main protagonist has a duration of One Year, with a terrestrial footprint of 8 months, (Minor Dry Cycle.) These Cycles occur at 6 and three-quarter years,(81 months) apart, for a Regional Cycle and 2 and one quarter years apart, (27 months) for a Minor Cycle. (It should be noted that the 27 year Rotation Rate of the Sun, happens to be the Sunspot Latitude – thus the Ratio 1:27 is also a factor.
The orbital nature and sequence frequency of these Dry Cycles, means there is NO valid average temperature or precipitation data available to any BoM on the planet. This is why these official reported ‘averages’ are so varied – they are ‘fabricated’.
An updated version of ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (including a Dry Cycle forecast to 2065.) is available as a free pdf from firstname.lastname@example.org
“The BOM’s Blair Trewin, who is one of the 85 ‘drafting authors’ of the Summary for Policy Makers, in 2018 remodelled and published new values for each of the 112 weather stations used to calculate an Australian average over the period 1910 to 2016, so that the overall rate of warming increased by 23 %.”
Trewin has a lot to answer for
It is unfortunate that people like Trewin and the BoM cannot be litigated against, or at least it would be very difficult as was noted here:
Mike O'Ceirin says
We really need to concern ourselves with the fact that five major coal power stations will close by 2034. It represents 27% of our current electricity demand on the east coast. Currently we have 26% of renewables but the two major ones wind and solar are not at all stable and it is not likely they will ever be. I have written an article on this published on what’s up with that https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/12/energy-storage-an-estimate-using-actual-data/ the belief of the climate cult will do us more damage than anything climate change can do. Expect large blackouts soon!
Brendan Godwin says
It is unfortunate that people like Trewin and the BoM cannot be litigated against, or at least it would be very difficult as was noted here:
That was before the High Court before a single judge.
One quarter of the judgement report was determining whether there was a legal cause of action and that was only barely accepted.
It depends on what sort of action you take and how you word your cause of action.
I found it preposterous that, just because they were a Crown authority, you are awarded a higher standard of scientific knowledge. I fail to see how that could hold up before a full bench.
These sorts of cases are difficult. You need to prove your science to a judge. Judges are lawyers, not scientists and are reluctant to hear these cases and prefer the Legislature to handle all of this. You would need to bring a large number of scientists into court to prove your case without overwhelming the judges.
Erl Happ says
Excellent article. The BOM stuffs around with the data to suit their own purposes. The UNIPCC is for believers. The lead authors are crusaders fir a cause.
If there were an instance where a large part of the planet did not warm for fifty years would this invalidate the greenhouse hypothesis? Would it be a case of one strike and you’re out?
Reanalysis data indicates that the average temperature for the entire Southern Hemisphere has not increased for fifty years in the months of December and January.
The increase in September, the month where the warming is most severe, is just 1°C. I would count that as beneficial because it represents an earlier start to spring growth.
Alan Lowey says
Jennifer, you talk so much common sense. The climate is of course cyclical as you point out but I’ve spotted a possible fundamentally error in glacial theory. There’s an alternative to the Milankovitch insolation theory. The Earth’s inclination orbit is also 100kyr with respect to the plane of the planets.
If one holds the belief that Newton/Einstein gravity theory could be fundamentally flawed, then it’s possible for there to be an extra strong gravitational interaction between the Sun’s exotic core and the exotic core of the Earth, when on the plane of the planets.
Extra tidal energy would push warm equatorial waters to higher latitudes, increasing precipitation. (I believe this is what’s happening today). This would fall as snow in the polar regions, accumulating into glaciers until the extra tidal energy dissipates. No ‘greenhouse gasses’ are needed to account for deglaciation with this radical hypothesis.
It would account for AR6 admitting tropical oceans aren’t warming as fast as expected (I suspect even cooling along the equator) and why the archaic temperature reading for Darwin needed to be ‘adjusted’ so that it appeared to be warming in step with the higher latitudes.
Paul Jenkinson says
I’m a simple layman Jennifer,but that was a terrific article.Is it really just for the money and security of tenure that these manipulations of data are so often done by climate “scientists”? Peer pressure? I know they refuse to debate the science with scientists like you.And when did we start worrying about hundredths of a degree? China doesn’t.
Ian G says
One more relevant quote to add to your list.
‘The future is certain. It’s the past that keeps changing.’
The CSIRO tells us that the SH is already a co2 NET SINK and the NH is the co2 NET SOURCE.
Here’s their Tassie Cape Grim link. See SEASONAL VARIATION.
An interesting recent comment from Roger Pielke Snr at Judith Curry’s blog and his link. He is referring to IPCC AR6 and he provides a link .
The period he refers to is 3.5 decades ( 1979 to 2014) and that would be an extra warming of 0.35 c warming ( at least ) over that time. Or perhaps another 1.0 c of make believe warming in the next 100 years?
So is Dr Pielke correct? Over to Dr Pielke Snr.
“Roger Pielke Sr | August 10, 2021 at 9:55 am | Reply
“we assess with medium confidence that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models continue to overestimate observed warming in the upper tropical troposphere over the 1979-2014 period by at least 0.1°C per decade, in part because of an overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period.”
“If SSTs are overestimated, global sfc air T would be overestimated by this amount”.
Thanks Greg. The CMIP6 was a project about running simulation models to generate output for the IPCC report all run on supercomputers, including the supercomputer (pictured) at the Australian National University. Perhaps I should change ‘run on a very complex simulation model’ to ‘run on a suite of very complex computer models’?
People seem to be unaware of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events during the last deglaciation. These were natural global warming events with temperature increases of several degrees Celsius each one occurring over the course of a few decades. Note: decades not centuries. So natural warmings in the past have been greater in extent and rate by an order of magnitude.
John Singer says
Bravo Jennifer. The BOM was accused of fudging previously (rightly so in my opinion) and they seem to have done it again.
However the use to which fudged data has been applied and its disastrous consequences for the Australian economy are no longer a matter of conjecture. To continue to fudge in the circumstances becomes more than economic vandalism and hints at a seditious attack on the Nation’s prosperity.
NSW Enviro minister Matt Kean thinks this bloke is a genius.
A nice summary by Eric Worrell of this unbelievable nonsense. Just more super toxic, UNRELIABLE, DILUTE energy that wrecks our landscapes NOW and subsurface every 20 years. THEN FOREVER.
And no change to temp or climate by 2050 or 2100. While China +developing countries continue to build 100s of Coal power stns for many decades into the future. DUH.
Recently Willis Eschenbach tried to find their Climate EMERGENCY and found ZIP.
He shows the actual DATA over a very long time and like Dr John Christy’s talk at the GWPF , the DATA screams out to us.
OH and Shellenberger, Koonin, Lomborg, Asten, Lindzen, Happer etc have all drawn the same obvious conclusion.
Here’s Dr Christy’s talk at the GWPF and like Willis he also draws the very obvious conclusion.
And their so called HOT SPOT is also a will of the wisp. See his lecture and heaps of graphs at the link as he puts their so called climate change EXISTENTIAL THREAT, APOCALYPSE, EMERGENCY, CRISIS etc to the test.
Here’s the latest NATURE study of Antarctica and no warming since 1950, at least . And the BAS study found cooling at the Ant peninsula for the last 20 years. Here’s the abstract and the link.
“The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. In this paper, we investigate whether the high orography of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) has helped delay warming over the continent. To that end, we contrast the Antarctic climate response to CO2-doubling with present-day orography to the response with a flattened AIS. To corroborate our findings, we perform this exercise with two different climate models. We find that, with a flattened AIS, CO2-doubling induces more latent heat transport toward the Antarctic continent, greater moisture convergence over the continent and, as a result, more surface-amplified condensational heating. Greater moisture convergence over the continent is made possible by flattening of moist isentropic surfaces, which decreases humidity gradients along the trajectories on which extratropical poleward moisture transport predominantly occurs, thereby enabling more moisture to reach the pole. Furthermore, the polar meridional cell disappears when the AIS is flattened, permitting greater CO2-forced warm temperature advection toward the Antarctic continent. Our results suggest that the high elevation of the present AIS plays a significant role in decreasing the susceptibility of the Antarctic continent to CO2-forced warming.”
Antarctica and Greenland contain about 99% of our planet’s ice and Willis has also observed that “Greenland is WAY COOL” today. Compared to the early Holocene. See below for the link.
So if Greenland is way cool and Antarctica hasn’t warmed since 1950 there seems to be BIG PROBLEMS for their so called climate emergency BS and FRA-D.
And the AMO will soon change to the COOL phase and up to the mid 1990s Greenland had some COOLING and no temp trend for DECADES. See the Vinther et al Greenland observational record for the last 200 years. And UK’s alarmists Dr Jones and Dr Briffa were part of this very long study Vinther study.
And here Dr Rosling shows the remarkable increase in HEALTH and WEALTH for humans over the last 200 years or 1810 to 2010.
In 1810 every country was POOR and SICK, with a life exp under 40 and yet after the Industrial REV started in the UK our health, wealth etc has soared.
His BBC 5 minute video uses 120,000 DATA points to show this incredible increase.
In 2021 our life exp has increased to 73 and even Africa is much healthier and wealthier since 1970 and life exp has increased from about 46 in 1970 to 63 today.
And the 53 countries of Africa have increased their population from 363 mil in 1970 to 1368 mil today or an increase of 1 billion people in just 50 years. And today there are a higher percentage of people living an URBAN lifestyle.
So where is their climate emergency? This BBC Rosling video takes just 5 minutes of your time.
And in 1970 the global pop was 3.7 billion and today is 7.8 billion or an increase of 4.1 billion in just 50 years.
Great article Jennifer and kudos to you and many other true scientists who have devoted their lives to study the varied aspects of climate.
One of my concerns is the extent of brainwashing successfully perpetrated on eager, but very impressionable young people by those who should know better. I refer in particular as an example, to an earnest 15yr-old girl acting as spokesperson for those at a recent school climate strike rally, that “we” (ourselves) “have done the research” and apparently then considered themselves fully informed.
IMHO, those who are terrorising young children world-wide with unfounded doomsday predictions should be charged with child abuse.
Here Dr Judith Curry tries to explain Climate change in 5 minutes.
She was the only panelist who was a Climate scientist and I’m sure she did as well as could be expected with so little time.
I think their RCP 8.5 is total nonsense and we should have more fossil fuel energy ASAP. What’s worked so well in the last couple of hundred years is a modern miracle and we have never been safer from extreme weather events than we are today. JUST LOOK UP THE DATA and EVIDENCE. Kudos to Willis ,Lomborg, Koonin, Shellenberger, Pielke Jnr, Curry, Happer, Lindzen, McKitrick etc.
Here’s the first few paragraphs from Dr Curry’s presentation……..
Posted on July 11, 2021 by curryja | 588 Comments
by Judith Curry
“How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes?
Last week I served on a panel for a summer school in Canada for engineering students. They are working on the energy transition, and their Professor wanted them to be exposed to the debate surrounding all this, and to think critically. I was the only climate scientist on the panel, the others were involved in renewable energy. Each panelist was given 5 minutes to make their main points. The essay below is what i came up with. 5 minutes is longer than an elevator speech, but it is still pretty short
Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’
Its warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.
So what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.
Specifically with regards to climate science. The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty. Climate model predictions of alarming impacts for the 21st century are driven by an emissions scenario, RCP8.5, that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect scenarios of natural climate variability, which dominate regional climate variability on interannual to multidecadal time scales. And finally, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century; if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond”.
More proof of our modern miracle today and the production of food using modern methods and less than 5% of wealthy countries’ populations are required to be farmers + workers in our modern world.
Still in some very poor countries 66% of the population are required to grow enough food for them to survive.But this is changing very rapidly, even though many more people survive in today’s world.
See the first graph at Our World in Data link and how we feed billions of more people today and with a very low percentage of our populations required for our farm workforce.
I don’t know how anyone could not understand this data and the obvious connection to a very reasonable GLOBAL climate. Just look at the graph over the last 100 or 200 years.
Alan Lowey says
Jennifer, I’m a believer in natural climate cycles but there’s a problem in identifying the driving mechanism. You say:
“Taking this longer perspective, considering the sun rather than carbon dioxide as a driver of climate change, and inputting real observations rather than remodelled/adjusted temperature values, we find recurrent cycles greater than 1.07 degrees Celsius during the last 2000 years.”
The mainstream response to this would be that the sun is *not* driving current climate change because both the total irradiance & galactic cosmic rays (due to change in solar wind) are both going in the wrong direction. They would produce global cooling rather than global warming.
Another good interview of Prof Koonin by Alan Jones about their so called CAGW or Biden’s so called EXISTENTIAL THREAT.
He worked with the Obama administration , but today is trying to bring some commonsense to the debate.
The data supports his claims but the extremist L W MSM seems to have an entirely different agenda.
Erl Happ says
Re Alan Lowey. “Extra tidal energy would push warm equatorial waters to higher latitudes, increasing precipitation. ”
Equally, the long term decline in surface pressure in high latitudes, especially evident in the Southern Hemisphere, with an increase in surface pressure in mid and low latitudes represents an enhanced sink that draws moist air of equatorial origin, especially abundant in the Congo, the Amazon and the Maritime continent.
visual representation here: https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/06/14/1300Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/anim=off/overlay=total_precipitable_water/equirectangular/loc=95.583,-57.834
Pressure appears to vary on centennial time scales likely tied in part to ionization phenomena from GCR and the flux in short term ionizing radiation from the sun and the variations in the strength of the interplanetary magnetic field that impact the eastward momentum of the atmospheric flow in high latitudes.
More anti-science from the latest IPCC AR6 report and thanks again to Steve McIntyre for quickly exposing their latest hockey stick graph.
Just chuck out the data you don’t like and leave in the data that supports your cause. What a load of BS and fra-d, but then again this HS team have had a lot of experience with this type of creation science.
Will these con merchants ever wake up?
Another recent post from Lomborg comparing extreme heat and cold deaths around the world and just supports the mega 73 million study from the Lancet in 2015.
One fact he mentions is that heat deaths in the USA have decreased by 50% since 1960, although temps have increased since that date.
If you’re a wealthy country you can easily ADAPT to changing temps using the best science and technology. Of course changing to the TOXIC, UNRELIABLE S&W lunacy would be a disaster and quickly reverse those beneficial trends.
Here is the 2015 Lancet study of extreme and moderate cold deaths around the world and ditto for heat deaths as well.
Paradoxically MODERATE cold deaths ( NOT extreme cold) is the biggest killer as is the case in Australia.
But Lomborg is correct that a warming world does save many lives today. I’ve never found anyone that understands this whether they are tertiary educated or not.
And Dr Hans Rosling was always amused that the tertiary educated were among the most ignorant of his audiences when he lectured around the world on global health. Big surprise NOT. See FIG 2 at the link.
Don Gaddes says
Hi Alan – I draw your attention to my previous post. Alex S. Gaddes identified the Solar-induced orbital Dry Cycle Hierarchy in the early 1970’s and informed the BoM in 1979.
Of course, by then ENSO had been exported to the Southern Hemisphere from the University of East Anglia. Base 10 Maths had taken over – and the ‘decadal oscillation’ became fashionable.
Subsequent observations confirm these longitudinal Cycles. They move around the planet from West to East at a rate of 15 degrees longitude/30 day/night intervals(month)
They decay at a rate of 30 degrees from the West per 30 day/night intervals (month)
The 2021 update of Alex S. Gaddes’ work, ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’, (with Dry Cycle forecasts to 2065) is available as a free pdf from email@example.com
Jo Nova has taken up the latest AR6 hockey stick warming fiasco and these con merchants must be the greatest cherry pickers of all time.
I hope this helps to drive a stake through the heart of their dubious AR6 report and the sooner the better.
Great commentary from Jo and full marks again to the wonderful Steve McIntyre.
I’m still waiting for Shellenberger ( new AR6 reviewer) to take a stand on this and if not why not? I only hope that Bolt, Dean, GWPF, Lomborg, Christy, Spencer, Koonin, Pielke Jnr+ Snr, etc start to make a noise as well.
Since his first effort Steve McIntyre has now pursued the Asian trees sector with more of his forensic abilities.
And even more , clear evidence that these dubious, fantasy world hockey sticks are distorting the real data of planet Earth.
Could anyone forget the Pages 2019 Asian tree ring chronologies? And built on 2013, 2017.
Steve tried to replicate their HS and instead found a down tick.
And of course their selected trees are a very small number, so perhaps more BS to add to this mystery?
No doubt about it these people are world champs at cherry picking THEIR data.
But AGAIN, are they Scientists??
Ross McKitrick and Dr Christy look again at the extreme model’s warming bias in AR5 and now AR6. Why wasn’t this fantasy removed for AR6 and why can’t they just use the actual OBSERVATIONS of warming before we waste further trillions of $ on this nonsense? And all for a 100% guaranteed ZERO return.
Here’s their conclusion and the link.
“I get it that modeling the climate is incredibly difficult, and no one faults the scientific community for finding it a tough problem to solve. But we are all living with the consequences of climate modelers stubbornly using generation after generation of models that exhibit too much surface and tropospheric warming, in addition to running grossly exaggerated forcing scenarios (e.g. RCP8.5). Back in 2005 in the first report of the then-new US Climate Change Science Program, Karl et al. pointed to the exaggerated warming in the tropical troposphere as a “potentially serious inconsistency.” But rather than fixing it since then, modelers have made it worse. Mitchell et al. note that in addition to the wrong warming trends themselves, the biases have broader implications because “atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature gradients.” In other words when the models get the tropical troposphere wrong, it drives potential errors in many other features of the model atmosphere. Even if the original problem was confined to excess warming in the tropical mid-troposphere, it has now expanded into a more pervasive warm bias throughout the global troposphere.
If the discrepancies in the troposphere were evenly split across models between excess warming and cooling we could chalk it up to noise and uncertainty. But that is not the case: it’s all excess warming. CMIP5 models warmed too much over the sea surface and too much in the tropical troposphere. Now the CMIP6 models warm too much throughout the global lower- and mid-troposphere. That’s bias, not uncertainty, and until the modeling community finds a way to fix it, the economics and policy making communities are justified in assuming future warming projections are overstated, potentially by a great deal depending on the model”.
Erl Happ says
Neville, this statement defies reality “atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature gradients.”
Atmospheric circulation is driven by pressure differentials. Pressure differentials are driven by the exchange of mass between high and other latitudes per agency of polar cyclones in the Antarctic trough first and foremost with elaborations due to variations on that theme by the Aleutian and Icelandic lows primarily in Northern Hemisphere winter.
Low surface pressure in high latitudes is due to fewer molecules in the atmospheric column due to heating by ozone above a tropopause that is 2-3000 metres below that in a high pressure cell. This contrast in tropopause height is very likely the origin of Jet streams.
Without an understanding of the reasons why surface pressure has fallen in high latitudes models are a waste of time.
CNN and the rest of the LW MSM in the US hate FOX News with a vengeance.
If only McIntyre, Christy, McKitrick, Curry, etc could get some air time there this could still blow up and become a festering sore for their AR6 report.
The seeds of doubt need to be planted early in the public’s mind. I’m sure Andrew Bolt and Rowan Dean will take this up soon, but I could be wrong and Sky News coverage would be great but not the same seismic shift as FOX News coverage.
Atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass takes on the L W loonies and their dopey claims of climate change attribution over the US Pacific N West.
Again he just refers to this recent hot weather and natural variability.
Atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass has written a very good essay on the Global warming religion and here are his main points and the link.
“An apocalyptic future looms before us, but it has little to do with increasing greenhouse gases.
A future with catastrophically burning forests, of media providing increasingly apocalyptic warnings, of polluted coastal areas and poisoned shorelines, weakened democracy, attenuated and undermined science, omnipresent fear of the future, increasing power blackouts, and decreased equity in society.
But we do not have to have this future.
But to do so will require that we honor diversity of viewpoint and refrain from demonizing folks with different ideas or political backgrounds. That we stop politicizing science and use the best science to guide our adaptation and mitigation activities. That we stop pushing a false apocalyptic vision to encourage the “unanointed” to do the right thing. That we support technological research and considering the value of nuclear power as part of the energy mix. And that the media, such as KNKX and the Seattle Times, move from advocacy to providing coverage that is both factually correct and representative of the diversity of ideas in the real world.
I am convinced that global warming is a technical problem that will be solved with technical innovation. And that using it as a wedge issue to promote political and ideological goals will not only fail, but undermines our society in profound ways”.
Steve McIntyre examines the underlying data (hidden from first view) in the AR6 Hockeystick. he does his usual competent job. He summarises the AR6 conclusions for a spectacularly alarming increase in temperatures from 1850-2020 as:
>”The PAGES2019 is not a “random” selection of proxies, but winnowed through ex post criteria.” [https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/]
Set after proxy set, inconvenient data is just discarded for Hockeystick2 or even with just patches of inconvenience within a single proxy discarded. I’ve spent some time reading through his critiques and I still can’t find holes in it. Ex post criteria is a wonderful technique for those with no accountability because it cannot fail.
Geoffrey Williams says
Thanks Jen for a well informed and convincing critique of the IPCC / AR6 report.
I am no expert but I think I can recognize a scam and a fraud when I see one. This latest report is both of these and more. Nothing they are telling us has changed in 30+ years. Fear and alarm is what it is all about and I cannot fathom why more people are unable to see this. Thanks again for a great article revealing the untruths in this AR6 document.
Interesting comment from Steve McIntyre about some of the data for their PAGES 2019 or 2017 etc studies.
It seems nobody knows how or by who the record was created or detrended.
Unbelievable but true. See Steve’s comment below.
“Posted Aug 17, 2021 at 9:05 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Nick MxKay of PAGES2019 provided cordial response on Twitter to inquiry on provenance of Mushkin chronology. He didn’t know. He wrote
“The metadata for that site point to https://ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/15330, which has the raw data for that site, I believe. I don’t know the details of how the record was created or detrended, nor who did that work, although I assume it was one of the authors listed on that site.,,,
Improving the traceability and reproducibility of datasets like this is one of our goals, but as you can see, this hasn’t always been done well, especially in years past. ”
It is obviously disquieting that supposedly extensive quality control of PAGES2K did not include determination of who calculated chronologies and how they were calculated for 20^ of data in PAGES2019 and more like 33% of PAGES2017″
Is the IPCC AR6 report statistically flawed and have so much of the previous 20 years of IPCC reports suffered from the same problems. Here’s a new essay by Ross McKitrick and an early part of the essay.
“The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed
Posted on August 18, 2021 by curryja | 1 Comment
by Ross McKitrick
“One day after the IPCC released the AR6 I published a paper in Climate Dynamics showing that their “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology on which they have long relied for attributing climate change to greenhouse gases is seriously flawed and its results are unreliable and largely meaningless. Some of the errors would be obvious to anyone trained in regression analysis, and the fact that they went unnoticed for 20 years despite the method being so heavily used does not reflect well on climatology as an empirical discipline.
My paper is a critique of “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting” by Myles Allen and Simon Tett, which was published in Climate Dynamics in 1999 and to which I refer as AT99. Their attribution methodology was instantly embraced and promoted by the IPCC in the 2001 Third Assessment Report (coincident with their embrace and promotion of the Mann hockey stick). The IPCC promotion continues today: see AR6 Section 3.2.1. It has been used in dozens and possibly hundreds of studies over the years”.
Here’s a reminder of co2 emissions (1970 to 2018) since 1970, or 1990.
Note China and other DEVELOPING countries’ emissions have soared for over 20 years and USA+ EU co2 emissions COMBINED are now LOWER than 1990 and no higher than 1970.
That’s 51 years ago. Again I haven’t met anyone who understands this data and the religious believers can get very hostile if you press the point. THINK about it.
BTW this is the TOTAL of all Human emissions of co2 since 1970 and ends in 2018.
Noel Degrassi says
You have done it again J. You are the queen of climate truthers.
The IPCC should get you to do the modelling or at least spread the word about the Rutherglen incident.
DON’T FORGET that even the KERRY DONKEY understands the FUTILITY of their so called NET ZERO.
EVEN IF the USA and CHINA went to NET ZERO it WOULD NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.
And the Royal Society + the US NAS report tell us it wouldn’t make any difference for climate or temp if EVERY COUNTRY changed to NET ZERO today. FOR A THOUSAND YEARS.
SEE the Zickfeld study and even maths guru Nic Lewis partly agrees with the Zickfeld study.
And the very LW Conversation also agrees that it wouldn’t make any difference. WAKE UP and of course their definitely is NO CLIMATE CRISIS at all. DUH?
So why waste endless trillions $ for the rest of the century and beyond for NOTHING?
Guy Coste says
Please excuse a lay man’s remark.
China does invest in all kinds of things that might be labelled climate this or (not) that but i guess that the real priority is defense. All strategic sea lanes are controlled by actual or potential enemies. Energy independance is therefore an absolute necesity. Costs what it may.
Huge overcapacity (tens of GW) in wind and solar (plus coal) in the northen and western parts of the country also means that industry can migrate away från the vulnerable and overcrowded coast to near deserts… that are being reclaimed through reforestation.
The nice part of it is that it also helps eradicate poverty.
What could benefits China if the conflict with the “West” gets worse would already now benefits lots of places.
Had Lebanon invested in biogas, vind and solar when there was a lot of cash around the country would not be collapsing now.
Cuba could also be a lot less dependent on imported oil and imported food had the country’s leaders been a bit smarter decades ago.
There is another point.
The solar and wind capacity helps save water when it is scarce.
I live in Sweden. Decades ago happened a serie of dry winters and the dams finaly got low. Electricity got rationned.
It won’t happen again because solar and wind capacity now bear a significant portion of the load. What Sweden exports now (a lot) is it’s safety margin.
East Africa and Brazil both experience now what Scandinavia went through in the seventies. Hydro is great… when it rains/snows.
And don’t forget that one also needs cool (preferably cold) water to run a nuclear power plant. When the Rhine or the Rhône is dry and warm you have to shut down a number of reactors (or coal fired plants) … and that usualy happens when air conditionning is most demanding on the grid. Ask Iran just now.
Climate this or that is very far from the only factor that matters when it comes to enrgy system choices.
Ken Stewart has been checking historical temp data for decades and his latest data are from Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.
Many graphs from his last 3 essays and he also finds no climate crisis today, but he still wonders about the next full glaciation.
Certainly billions of people will die if the temp dropped to levels experienced between the end of the Eemian inter-glacial and the start of our current Holocene.
Anyone NOT understand how billions could NOT survive for 90,000 years with very low temps and ongoing crop failures?
And over 60% of Nth America under 3+ kilometres of ice.
And Ken reminds us that co2 FOLLOWS temp in the ice core records, see Petit et al. And sometimes the LAG can be thousands of years. THINK about it.
Willis once again shows the BS and FRA-D behind their so called Green Steel lunacy.
More wasted trillions of $ for a SFA return on their so called GREEN INVESTMENT.
And of course ZIP change on temp or climate. Will these idiots, politicians, MSM and so called scientists ever WAKE UP?
ENSO looks to be negative until Feb 2022 and probably a moderate la nina. Should mean more rain for Eastern OZ.
And IOD looks to be negative until mid Nov this year. this should mean more rainfall south of the line drawn from Broome to Wollongong.
More idiocy about how to lower the temp and fix the climate. GM has had to recall their Chevy Bolt disaster and fix the batteries at a cost of 1.8 billion $. And ditto for the Tesla TOXIC disasters as well.
These Lithium Ion batteries burst into flames in garages while charging in family homes or on the freeway and require 100,000s of litres to douse the entire TOXIC mess, EVENTUALLY.
And little kids live brutal short lives in the Congo Cesspits making a few $ a day so that wealthy loonies around the world can drive their TOXIC EVs.
Brendan Godwin says
There’s not enough Lithium in all the mines in the world to make very car in the world an EV. That is just to make them all the first time. Then of course after 10 years all those batteries are dead and need replacing with nothing to replace them.
Of course once you’ve tried to do that there is no Lithium for all your portable drills, tools, vacuum cleaners etc.
Interesting death stats for Australia from the ABS for year 2020. This could change but some interesting data to try and understand. This is from 1st JAN 2020 to 29th DEC.
Here’s some of their summary and 2020 0.2% below the baseline average and winter deaths lower than normal and summer deaths higher than normal. Deaths from normal flu + pneumonia were down by 36% and some heart disease deaths down by 10.7% and 7.8%.
Cancer, diabetes and dementia deaths were higher than normal.
2020 in review
Numbers of deaths throughout 2020 by month are shown in the table below. This table provides counts of deaths for all of 2020 (rather than only to 29 December), for deaths that were registered by 28 February 2021. Some deaths that occurred in 2020 may not have been registered and reported as yet.
Key points relating to 2020 deaths include:
141,116 doctor certified deaths occurred between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020 and were registered by 28 February 2021. This equates to an average of 385.6 deaths per day, in line with the baseline average of 385.8.
The seasonality of deaths in 2020 was less pronounced, with numbers of deaths being higher than historical averages in summer and lower in winter. There were also substantial differences in numbers of deaths for some causes when compared to historical averages.
Deaths due to respiratory disease were 16.2% lower than historical averages. Decreases were recorded in both chronic and acute respiratory diseases.
Influenza and pneumonia deaths were 36.0% lower than the historical average with this result heavily influenced by a particularly mild flu season.
Deaths due to ischaemic heart disease and cerebrovascular diseases were below average for every month of 2020, and were 10.7% and 7.8% below average for the year respectively.
Deaths due to cancer, dementia and diabetes were above historical averages by 4.0%, 7.3% and 9.1% respectively. Numbers of dementia deaths did not reach the usual peak during the winter months but higher counts of deaths between January and April contributed to the increase overall for 2020. Diabetes deaths were above average for most of the year and particularly high in April with 33.7% more deaths than average.
Another very clear and accurate video from Prager Uni and Mark Mills is very tidy and explains the fantasy of the TOXIC S&W disasters.
And this takes just 5.5 minutes of your time and you won’t be disappointed and everyone will learn something new. And below is a transcript of Mark Mill’s video.
Have you ever heard of “unobtanium”?
It’s the magical energy mineral found on the planet Pandora in the movie, Avatar. It’s a fantasy in a science fiction script. But environmentalists think they’ve found it here on earth in the form of wind and solar power.
They think all the energy we need can be supplied by building enough wind and solar farms; and enough batteries.
The simple truth is that we can’t. Nor should we want to—not if our goal is to be good stewards of the planet.
To understand why, consider some simple physics realities that aren’t being talked about.
All sources of energy have limits that can’t be exceeded. The maximum rate at which the sun’s photons can be converted to electrons is about 33%. Our best solar technology is at 26% efficiency. For wind, the maximum capture is 60%. Our best machines are at 45%.
So, we’re pretty close to wind and solar limits. Despite PR claims about big gains coming, there just aren’t any possible. And wind and solar only work when the wind blows and the sun shines. But we need energy all the time. The solution we’re told is to use batteries. Again, physics and chemistry make this very hard to do.
Consider the world’s biggest battery factory, the one Tesla built in Nevada. It would take 500 years for that factory to make enough batteries to store just one day’s worth of America’s electricity needs. This helps explain why wind and solar currently still supply less than 3% of the world’s energy, after 20 years and billions of dollars in subsidies.
Putting aside the economics, if your motive is to protect the environment, you might want to rethink wind, solar, and batteries because, like all machines, they’re built from nonrenewable materials.
Consider some sobering numbers:
A single electric-car battery weighs about half a ton. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving, and processing more than 250 tons of earth somewhere on the planet.
Building a single 100 Megawatt wind farm, which can power 75,000 homes requires some 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades. To get the same power from solar, the amount of cement, steel, and glass needed is 150% greater.
Then there are the other minerals needed, including elements known as rare earth metals. With current plans, the world will need an incredible 200 to 2,000 percent increase in mining for elements such as cobalt, lithium, and dysprosium, to name just a few.
Where’s all this stuff going to come from? Massive new mining operations. Almost none of it in America, some imported from places hostile to America, and some in places we all want to protect.
Australia’s Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global “gold” rush for energy materials will take miners into “…remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven’t yet been disturbed.”
And who is doing the mining? Let’s just say that they’re not all going to be union workers with union protections.
Amnesty International paints a disturbing picture: “The… marketing of state-of-the-art technologies are a stark contrast to the children carrying bags of rocks.”
And then the mining itself requires massive amounts of conventional energy, as do the energy-intensive industrial processes needed to refine the materials and then build the wind, solar, and battery hardware.
Then there’s the waste. Wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries have a relatively short life; about twenty years. Conventional energy machines, like gas turbines, last twice as long.
With current plans, the International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that by 2050, the disposal of worn-out solar panels will constitute over double the tonnage of all of today’s global plastic waste. Worn-out wind turbines and batteries will add millions of tons more waste. It will be a whole new environmental challenge.
Before we launch history’s biggest increase in mining, dig up millions of acres in pristine areas, encourage childhood labor, and create epic waste problems, we might want to reconsider our almost inexhaustible supply of hydrocarbons—the fuels that make our marvelous modern world possible.
And technology is making it easier to acquire and cleaner to use them every day.
The following comparisons are typical—and instructive:
It costs about the same to drill one oil well as it does to build one giant wind turbine. And while that turbine generates the energy equivalent of about one barrel of oil per hour, the oil rig produces 10 barrels per hour. It costs less than 50 cents to store a barrel of oil or its equivalent in natural gas. But you need $200 worth of batteries to hold the energy contained in one oil barrel.
Next time someone tells you that wind, solar and batteries are the magical solution for all our energy needs ask them if they have an idea of the cost… to the environment.
“Unobtanium” works fine in the movies. But we don’t live in movies. We live in the real world.
I’m Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, for Prager University.
The Heartland Institute checks out the UN’s CODE Red warnings for our climate in the latest IPCC AR 6 report.
Of course there is no EXISTENTIAL THREAT or CODE RED or APOCALYPSE or anything to be concerned about now or in the foreseeable future.
The video is a little over 30 minutes but is well worth your time as they sort out more of the climate porn and so much of the extremist’s BS and fra-d.
Just working my way through your blog
keep up the good work