Tag: climategate

Scientists Were Wrong: Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought

New research shows plants absorb 31% more CO2 than previously estimated, raising the global GPP to 157 petagrams per year. Using carbonyl sulfide as a proxy for photosynthesis, this study highlights tropical rainforests’ critical role as carbon sinks and stresses the importance of accurate photosynthesis modeling for climate predictions.

A new assessment by scientists reveals that plants worldwide are absorbing about 31% more carbon dioxide than previously believed. Published in the journal Nature, this research is expected to enhance Earth system models used to forecast climate trends and underscores the critical role of natural carbon sequestration in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

The amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere via photosynthesis from land plants is known as Terrestrial Gross Primary Production, or GPP. It represents the largest carbon exchange between land and atmosphere on the planet. GPP is typically cited in petagrams of carbon per year. One petagram equals 1 billion metric tons, which is roughly the amount of CO2 emitted each year from 238 million gas-powered passenger vehicles.

Keep reading

Fear plus ignorance equals climate change

Weather is inherently mysterious.  Multiple forces, such as wind, clouds, seasonal and day-night cycles, and air pressure are constantly interacting and causing continuous chaos.  In the aftermath of two particularly destructive hurricanes, the fear-mongers are bloviating to the max over the catastrophic effects on the climate caused by human existence. 

And yet there is no discernible trend toward either more storms or more intense hurricanes compiled over more than beyond the last century.  (This chart by NOAA was especially easy to find.)  Thus far, the decade of the 1940s saw the most seriously intense storms.  Being historical data, this brings to mind a modification of Santayana’s famous adage: when people are ignorant of their history, they make it really easy for demagogues to lie to them about it.

Rather than human consumption of fossil fuels, two other factors are mostly relevant when it comes to the damage wrought by hurricanes: the path they take and the development of infrastructure within that path.  Out on the open sea, a hurricane may damage a few ships, but when one goes over a population center…well, you know, it just happened.

What determines the path is largely chaotic.  Go figure.  There’s this weird thing called the jet stream, which is sort of the result of the Earth’s continuous rotation within a tenuous atmospheric envelope.  Becoming known to American aviators during World War 2, the particular details of the jet stream were kept as a military secret well into the mid-twentieth century.  Ocean currents and surface temperatures are also involved.  Early forecasts of hurricane paths are typically all over the map.  As the time frame compresses, they tend to become more accurate, but not always.

Then there’s the “atypically” warm weather that sometimes happens in early autumn.  We just had some of that, along with offshore winds and seriously elevated fire danger.  In the olden days, this was called “Indian summer.”  Back in 1919, Victor Herbert even wrote a song by that name.  Maybe I’m just a cynic, but I’m expecting the fear-mongers to start pandering to the general public’s pervasive ignorance of earth science to cause panic over yet another routine weather event.

Keep reading

Frequent Flyer Tax

The core reason that the establishment is suddenly interested in climate change comes down to one main factor – money. More specifically, the establishment is hunting down YOUR money through taxation. A second motivator is limiting our freedom of movement by demonizing fossil fuels and limiting our ability to travel. The European Union is now seeking to punish those who fly more than once per year with a frequent flyer tax.

The EU has already implemented an aviation tax, but the new proposal is designed to punish the pesky “rich,” but per usual, everyone will suffer. “A frequent flying levy would be a fair aviation measure, reducing excessive flights for wealthy passengers, while raising revenues – including to expand and provide affordable railways and public transport,” the Stay Grounded network told Euro News.

The new levy would target everyone flying from the European Economic Area (EEA) and the UK. The standard aviation tax would apply for the first two flights taken per year, but an additional 50 euro surcharge would be applied to medium-haul flights while long-haul, first-class, and business flights would cost an additional 100 euros. Then they are adding an additional 100 euro fee after the fifth flight on top of the initial surcharge. People will be expected to pay an additional 200 euros for their seventh flight and 400 euros for the ninth.

Keep reading

WaPo’s Favorite Environmental Group Uses ‘Political’ Research To Link Climate Change to Natural Disasters. It’s Also Bankrolled by WaPo Owner Jeff Bezos.

World Weather Attribution was founded in 2014 to produce research linking extreme weather events to climate change. That research is then funneled to mainstream media outlets, giving them what the group calls the “larger global warming context” as they cover natural disasters.

The group found a friend in Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who in 2022 announced a $10 million grant to WWA and two other organizations to “scale effective communication on the links between climate change and extreme weather.” The Bezos Earth Fund said the money would provide the WWA an outlet to “reach the most important audience segments via trusted messengers.”

One such messenger is Bezos’s newspaper, the Washington Post, which has cited WWA research in more than 70 stories over the past three years, a Washington Free Beacon review found. It does so uncritically, publishing the group’s non-peer-reviewed findings to suggest that climate change is to blame for recent natural disasters, including Hurricane Milton. Nonpartisan experts in the field, however, are not so sure of WWA’s methods, portraying the group’s flashy studies as rushed, partisan, and “incomplete.”

Bezos’s funding for the group, paired with the Washington Post‘s favorable coverage of its research, raises questions about the newspaper’s declared independence from its billionaire owner. The Post’s stories citing WWA do not acknowledge that Bezos—who purchased the paper in 2013, one year before the group’s founding—also bankrolls WWA.

“The motivation is entirely political,” Ryan Maue, the former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said of the climate group. “I’m not sure what the scientific community’s opinion on it is, but my guess is that it has gotten along this far because of its political weight and the media attention that it is given, meaning you don’t want to be on the wrong side of this.”

Maue particularly criticized WWA’s methodology, which consists of determining the probability of a recent extreme weather event, comparing it with the probability of a similar event that occurred decades ago, and attributing the difference to climate change. That leads to flashy findings—but not necessarily accurate ones, according to Maue, who argued that the WWA values speed over accuracy and, as such, produces “incomplete” research.

“What they are able to put out is the headline that climate change made Hurricane Helene worse and then count on the scientific illiteracy of the corporate media in order to produce headlines that become, you know, more and more outlandish, making claims that obviously are not supported by the science,” he told the Free Beacon.

Keep reading

The earth is not warming and oceans are NOT boiling – so that would make UN Secretary General, Guterres, A LIAR

From the Weekly Climate Realism Show here:

Climate Alarmist Education – The Climate Realism Show #131 (youtube.com)

Reference is made to a Climate Depot article.

‘No change in the warming rate’ – New climate study finds no warming surge since the 1970s – ‘A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet’ – Climate Depot .

commenting on “New research published in Nature Communications Earth & Environment has found limited evidence for a significant warming surge since the 1970s.”

Here is the referenced article in Nature:

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (nature.com)

From the results section of the paper:

“Can we detect a warming surge yet?

Continuous and discontinuous models were fitted to all annual GMST series (see Methods). Model fits and timings of any found changepoints are listed in Table 1 and illustrated in Fig. 1.

For the continuous model, a single changepoint is detected near 1970 in all datasets (Fig. 1a). Similarly, we find one changepoint in all datasets for the discontinuous models (Fig. 1b).

While the timings detected are slightly earlier for the discontinuous models, both cases do not indicate any changes in trend after the 1970s. “

So, no change in trend of mean global surface temperatures for the last 53 years – more than half a century. Note, changes in climate need to be reviewed over rolling 35-year periods. That is the metric for measuring climate change – not a few years, 35 years.

Keep reading

Scientists Find No Change in Global Warming Rate Since 1970 Despite “Hottest Year Ever” in 2023

A sensational science paper has blown holes in alarmist claims that global temperatures are surging. Just published results in Nature show “limited evidence” for a warming surge. “In most surface temperature time series, no change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s is detected despite the breaking record temperatures observed in 2023,” the paper says. Written by an international group of mathematicians and scientists, it is unlikely to be acknowledged in the mainstream media where general hysteria reigns over the anomalous 2023 experience. As we have seen, constant misinformation is published to scare the general public and this is exemplified by climate comedy-turn Jim ‘jail the deniers’ Dale forecasting almost daily Armageddon and exhorting people to “join up the dots”.

In science, one swallow does not make a summer and in climate science it is impossible to show a trend by picking on short periods or individual weather events. This paper is an excellent piece of climate science work since it takes the long statistical view and challenges the two-a penny clickbait alarmists looking for a headline on the BBC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a biased body but it understands the importance of long-term climate trends by stating, much to the chagrin of Net Zero-promoting activists, that it can find little or no human involvement in most extreme weather events either in the past or in the likely immediate future. But these findings, along with the paper on the warming trend, are inconvenient to those promoting the unproven claim that humans control the climate thermostat by utilising hydrocarbons.

The paper is highly technical and mathematically-inclined readers can study the full workings out in the open access publication. It notes that global temperature datasets fluctuate due to short-term variability and this often creates the appearance of surges and slowdowns in warming. It is important to consider random noise caused by natural variation when investigating the recent pauses in temperature and the more recent “alleged warming acceleration”, it adds. In fact there have been a number of plausible explanations given for the recent spike, with attention focused on the massive Hunga Tonga submarine volcano adding 13% extra water vapour to the stratosphere, a strong El Niño and even the reduction in atmospheric particulates caused by recent changes in shipping vessel fuel. Several “changepoints” were used by the mathematicians and it was found that “a warming surge could not be reliably detected any time after 1970”.

Keep reading

‘Anti-Energy Lawfare’: Millions in Dark Money Fueling Local Climate Lawsuits Across the Country, Congressional Investigation Finds

California law firm Sher Edling received more than $3 million in unreported dark money to push high-profile climate litigation on behalf of dozens of Democratic-led cities and states, according to a Monday congressional report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sher Edling, the Senate Commerce Committee and House Oversight Committee report found, received $2.9 million last year from the Collective Action Fund for Accountability, a shadowy group managed by the New Venture Fund. Because the contributions were made in 2023, the New Venture Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based dark money organization, isn’t required to disclose them until it files its next annual 990 form with the IRS in mid-November. Sher Edling also received a previously unreported check worth $235,000 in 2022 from the Tides Foundation, a grantmaking organization that wired a staggering $667 million to dozens of progressive causes in 2022, its most recent tax filings show.

The newly uncovered funds shed light on how powerful progressive interests continue to work hand in hand with Democrats to punish oil and gas companies. Sher Edling was founded in 2016 to take up risky first-of-their-kind lawsuits against the oil and gas industry, accusing the industry of causing global warming and arguing it is financially responsible for extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornadoes.

Most of Sher Edling’s cases are working their way through state courts, even as the oil industry has pushed for them to be litigated in federal courts. If successful, the suits could force oil companies to pay billions of dollars in climate damages to local and state governments. Sher Edling would receive a large portion of that settlement money, according to its legal services contracts.

As 501(c)(3) nonprofits, the New Venture Fund and Tides Foundation aren’t legally required to disclose their donors. Together, the two groups received $1.3 billion in contributions and grants from anonymous donors in 2022 alone. As a result, it’s largely unclear who exactly employed the organizations to send grant money to Sher Edling.

Since it was founded in 2016, Sher Edling has agreed to represent dozens of states and cities in climate-related cases, including Delaware, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York City, Chicago, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Baltimore, and Honolulu. In the cases, Democratic prosecutors have argued the oil and gas industry is responsible for global warming and that it has deceived consumers about the downstream impacts of their petroleum products for decades.

Critics have blasted the litigation, labeling it a backdoor effort to bankrupt oil and gas companies and peg the industry for local emissions. Still, activists say the lawsuits are a critical part of the broader effort to curb reliance on fossil fuels and boost green energy.

Keep reading

Media Uses Hurricane Helene To Promote “Global Warming” Agenda

Even as the death toll from Hurricane Helene continues to rise, pundits in the mainstream media are rushing to use the disaster as an excuse to promote their narrative that “global warming” is real.

As reported by Just The News, a number of prominent anchors, commentators, and other television personalities have used the occasion of the hurricane to spread lies about so-called “global warming,” also referred to as “climate change.”

“We are living in an era of extreme weather that requires new language,” said CBS News’ Major Garrett.

He went on to falsely claim that the world has seen an increase in the number of every kind of natural disaster, despite this having been debunked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

CNN’s Angela Fritz declared that Hurricane Helene was caused by “fossil fuel pollution,” claiming with no evidence that “the atmosphere, warmed by more than a century of fossil fuel pollution, is hotter now than it was in pre-industrial times.”

However, studies have shown that carbon dioxide emissions are created by just about every single process in existence that provides basic necessities to the population, including the shipping of materials and products, ranging from food to clothing.

Fritz went on to further claim that “More than 90% of warming around the globe over the past 50 years has taken place in the oceans, and it’s making storms more likely to undergo these rapid intensification cycles.”

But this claim has also been disproven, with Dr. Matt Wielicky, former assistant professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama, explaining how two consecutive similar tropical storms that impacted North Carolina in 1916 were even worse than Helene despite lower carbon emission levels overall.

“The 1916 event occurred even though atmospheric CO2 levels were approximately 120 ppm lower than they are today,” Wielicki confirmed.

“Blaming the fossil fuel industry for all weather-related disasters overlooks the complexity of natural climate variability and the role of poor urban planning in flood-prone regions.”

The subject of global warming was brought up at the vice presidential debate on Tuesday night, with CBS News’ moderators blaming global warming for the hurricane.

After both candidates gave their answers on the statement, the moderators falsely claimed that the “scientific consensus” is that global warming is real, even though there is no such consensus.

Keep reading

Plain truth: Carbon credits are worthless

The first thing people have to know is there is absolutely zero scientific evidence  that CO2, cars, oil, coal, natural gas, methane, or anything else that is being blamed for the climate has any direct relationship with temperatures, sea levels, or storm activity. 

Temperatures have risen and fallen the last 160 years, just as they have for billions of years, while we have used all of these products. 

Droughts come and go today, as they have throughout history.  The reason there are so many deserts is long droughts throughout history. 

Floods and storms come and go, as they always have.  The Earth is 70% covered by water because of huge periods of precipitation, unaffected by humans.

So, essentially, reducing carbon is a government policy created in search of a solution when the problem hasn’t been identified. 

Carbon credits were created as a means for billionaires, governments, and companies to pretend they were doing something to control the climate and to offset their huge carbon footprint.  The market has moved around billions of dollars as a fictional solution.  It is essentially fraud. 

When a billionaire like Bloomberg or Bill Gates purchases carbon credits or plants trees, it does nothing to reduce the carbon emitted by their jets and mansions.  The carbon is exactly the same. 

When GM, Ford, and Chrysler purchase credits from Tesla to pretend they comply with government emission rules, it does not reduce the carbon from big trucks, but it makes Musk richer. 

Even though it is obvious that carbon credits are worthless, the WSJ, economists, bureaucrats, and other green pushers are still pretending they do something. 

Keep reading

IPCC Misled On Climate Data: New Report Shows Humans Not Behind Rising Temps

Data in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that Earth’s warming trend over the past two decades may not be attributable to human-related activity. [emphasis, links added]

Experts analyzing the report point to changes in the planet’s albedo — the fraction of the Sun’s energy reflected by Earth — as the factor driving the rise in global temperatures.

Albedo fluctuations have caused Earth to reflect less solar energy and absorb more, leading to the warming trend frequently cited by activists, advocates, and policymakers focused on addressing climate change.

As global leaders increasingly pursue aggressive policies to mitigate climate change, data suggesting human activity is not the primary driver could reshape public policy worldwide.

In a recent interview with SCNR, Ned Nikolov, Ph.D., a scientist specializing in climate, cosmology, and astrophysics, expressed concerns about the integrity of IPCC reports, accusing the panel of manipulating climate data.

Nikolov’s research, based on satellite data from NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project, reveals the IPCC misrepresented trends in solar and long-wave radiation by inverting the data.

He argues that instead of accurately depicting that the Earth is absorbing more solar energy due to reduced cloud cover — an observation supported by NASA — the IPCC altered the data to show the opposite, suggesting less absorbed solar energy.

Nikolov argues that this data inversion is no accident and suggests that the IPCC may have deliberately falsified this data to fit the widely accepted narrative of man-made climate change.

The IPCC did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Keep reading