What do we do about Climate Change

The Hill Should Check Their Data, Weather is Not Getting Worse
ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS JULY 20, 2023

The Hill recently posted an article about climate change, “There is no ‘new normal’: absent drastic action, the climate will only get worse,” claiming that without “drastic action,” weather extremes will continue to escalate because of the use of fossil fuels. This is false. Many of the examples the author, Andrew Pershing, uses in the post are erroneous at best. Weather is not getting more extreme, not even in the form of flooding or heat waves. . . .

 

"Free" renewable energy is expensive.
Big Blow to UK’s Green Dreams as Costs Skyrocket
Charles Rotter
The race to net zero is leading us into a financial quicksand, sucking in vast resources for a future that will never materialize as envisaged. . . .

 

How very odd it is, or perhaps not, that Charles conveniently ignores the cost of doing nothing about climate change.............https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/flood-uk

 

The Swedish investors shut it down.
In any case, "the cost of doing nothing" is zero.

 

Nothing costs nothing and the evidence that net zero will prevent climate change is essentially zero.

 

There is no single panacea, but one low-tech approach that captures carbon emissions, provides shade and cooling, prevents soil erosion, and is aesthetically desirable:​

PLANT MORE TREES
​

A recent study published in the journal Science sought to provide answers by estimating the global potential of restoring forested lands as a possible strategy for mitigating climate change...

The international research team, led by Jean-Francois Bastin of ETH-Zurich in Switzerland, used direct measurements of forest cover around the world to create a model for estimating Earth’s forest restoration potential. They found Earth’s ecosystems could support another 900 million hectares (2.2 billion acres) of forests, 25 percent more forested area than we have now. By planting more than a half trillion trees, the authors say, we could capture about 205 gigatons of carbon (a gigaton is 1 billion metric tons), reducing atmospheric carbon by about 25 percent. That’s enough to negate about 20 years of human-produced carbon emissions at the current rate, or about half of all carbon emitted by humans since 1960...

there are many factors to consider and that planting trees will never be a substitute for decreasing fossil fuel emissions.

“I feel there’s a strong possibility a significant portion of these lands can be reforested to their original forest cover,” said Saatchi, an expert in global forest carbon stocks and dynamics. “It’s definitely not a solution by itself to addressing current climate change. To do that, we need to reduce human emissions of greenhouse gases. But it could still have some partial impact on our ability to reduce climate change.”...

While deforestation has occurred throughout human history, the practice has increased dramatically in the past 50 years. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, about 7.3 million hectares (18 million acres) of forest are lost every year, and roughly half of Earth’s tropical forests have already been cleared. In the continental United States, an estimate from the University of Michigan found that 90 percent of indigenous forests have been removed since 1600...

“We know business as usual will be disastrous,” he said. “We’ve already identified some solutions for reducing carbon emissions in parts of our society, such as in transportation and agriculture, and we’re working on ways to transform our energy consumption. So why not restore our ecosystem as well? Half of what comes out of car tailpipes stays in the atmosphere; the rest gets absorbed by the ecosystem. That’s a huge absorptive capability that must be saved.

“Maybe we’ll find we don’t need to plant a billion hectares of trees,” he continued. “Perhaps we can restore existing, degraded ecosystems to their natural state, especially in the tropics, and invest in maintaining their diversity and services. But I believe a global reforestation effort can have a gradual climate mitigation impact. What happens to Earth 100 years from now depends on the choices we make today.”

[https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/...s-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/#SnippetTab]
​

Recent Years Show Why Houston Is Likely America's Rainfall Flooding Capital​

"What was once farm or wetlands is now pavement and suburbia. Thus, there is less barren land to suck up the rain now, and that further exacerbates flooding."
[https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/2021-09-13-houston-rainfall-flooding-reputation]
​

My other suggestion is significantly reducing carbon emissions and dirty fuel consumption by carpooling at all NASCAR performances. They are all following the same route at the same time with the same destination, and have common interests conducive to sprightly conversation during the trip.

​

 

A belief belied by various weather disasters around the globe caused by climate change.

 

You mean like the ones that have happened since the dawn of time?

 

Along those lines, you might be interested in...https://drawdown.org/

 

No, and that's the point.

 

The data proves otherwise.

Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective
https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/a...ng-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/

 

What's different?

 

The hysteria?

 

There has been no increase in extreme weather.

 

Not impressed.

Wrong, CNN, Attribution Groups Prove Nothing About Extreme Weather and Climate Change
Alarmist messengers/claims June 22, 20230
A recent article on CNN relies on the opinion of climate attribution groups, claiming that these groups are able to calculate exactly how much...

Statistician Dr. William Briggs does the best job of describing the flaws of attribution science’s methodology, in a paper compiled by the Global Warming Policy Foundation:

All attribution studies work around the same basic theme. . . . A model of the climate as it does not exist, but which is claimed to represent what the climate would look like had mankind not ‘interfered’ with it, is run many times. The outputs from these runs is examined for some ‘bad’ or ‘extreme’ event, such as higher temperatures or increased numbers of hurricanes making landfall, or rainfall exceeding some amount. The frequency with which these bad events occur in the model is noted. Next, a model of the climate as it is said to now exist is run many times. This model represents global warming. The frequencies from the same bad events in the model are again noted. The frequencies between the models are then compared. If the model of the current climate has a greater frequency of the bad event than the imaginary (called ‘counterfactual’) climate, the event is said to be caused by global warming, in whole or in part.

Attribution that claims to put a percentage likelihood or a percentage of intensity to weather events are not science, as Dr. William Briggs explained, they cannot be checked against existing data. . . .

On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)
12 years ago
Anthony Watts
Guest post by Bill Gray Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University (AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member) June 2011 I am very disappointed at the downward path the…

Members quitting the American Meteorological Society over stance on climate
10 years ago
Anthony Watts
This can’t be good: In last 24 hrs, correspondence w 3 multi decade members of The American Meteorological Society, we all quit due to AMS position on #climate — Tim…

How the American Meteorological Society Justified Publishing Half Truths
10 years ago
Anthony Watts
Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism Background: In 2000,…

 

How does the Las Vagas odds on the Earth getting incinerated compare to the climate hysterical odds of incineration?

 

Until China and India do something, it won’t matter what we do. And we all know how much China cares about human rights or the environment. But they’re sure happy to watch other nations spend billions trying, and weakening themselves and their economies.

 

The Chinese are not on board.
China Rebuffs John Kerry–Xi Tells Him, It’s Business as Usual for China
Guest Blogger
In short, China has told John Kerry to get lost. . . .

 

TIPPING POINTS
WaPo’s ‘Journalism’ Has Tipped Toward a B.S. Point
July 21, 2023

 

The alarmists fear the science.
Report: Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr. John Clauser — who recently declared climate science a ‘pseudoscience’ — has his IMF talk abruptly canceled
Guest Blogger
…the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the…

According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

 

More alarmist tub-thumping.
Record Breaking Heatwave in Europe?
Guest Blogger
But I have found no evidence that the heatwave was in any way unprecedented, never mind the inferno suggested. . . .

 

Energy Giant Vattenfall Puts Gigantic Offshore Wind Project On Ice, “Threatening UK Climate Targets”
By P Gosselin on 23. July 2023

Share this...
As Europe adventurously moves to wean itself off fossil fuels, more and more plans are being made to fill the electricity supply gap with wind energy.

But one major UK wind project illustrates how they are economically risky as the economy teeters.

Symbol photo. Image: P. Gosselin

Blackout News here reports that Swedish energy giant Vattenfall “has halted a gigantic offshore wind project, one that would supply electricity to 1.5 million households if built.

Blackout News calls the decision to halt the 1.4 gigawatt capacity Norfolk Boreas “surprising”.

“Vattenfall’s decision to halt work on the wind farm has significant financial consequences,” reports Blackout News. It means a 537 million dollar loss. “Vattenfall’s strategy reorientation threatens UK climate targets.”

According to sources, experts are warning of “sharply increased project costs, inflation and rising interest rates” and the project developers are calling for “targeted support”.

The UK government aims to increase its offshore wind capacity from 14GW to 50 GW, so Vattenfall’s move is a major blow to the UK’s energy future.

German electricity prices to high for industry
Uncertainty has also hit the German automobile sector, in large part due to sky-high energy prices. In another Blackout News report here, VW head Oliver Blume thinks building a large new battery factory in Germany is more difficult because of the high electricity prices, which are far above the 7 cents per kilowatt-hour the VW head says is needed.

“The production of battery cells is energy-intensive, Blume stressed. Price guarantees and the level of electricity prices are therefore very important. Regulatory processing and subsidies also play a role in the choice of location,” writes Blackout News

“I have experienced these aspects very positively in North America,” Blume told the two German newspapers.

Under the bottom line, the German government isn’t really deindustrializing, but rather is forcing German companies to move its industry out of the country using hostile policy. Germany faces a state of permanent economic recession.

 

Deglaciation of northwestern Greenland during Marine Isotope Stage 11

Editor’s summary
Measurements made on subglacial sediment from the Camp Century ice core in northwestern Greenland show that the location was ice free during the interglacial that occurred around 400,000 years ago. Christ et al. used luminescence dating and cosmogenic nuclide data to show that the sediment was deposited under ice-free conditions after having been exposed at the surface to sunlight fewer than 16,000 years earlier. The absence of ice at that location means that the Greenland Ice Sheet must have contributed more than 1.4 meters of sea-level equivalent to the high sea-level stand, when the average global air temperature was similar to what we will soon experience because of human-caused climate warming. —H. Jesse Smith
Abstract
Past interglacial climates with smaller ice sheets offer analogs for ice sheet response to future warming and contributions to sea level rise; however, well-dated geologic records from formerly ice-free areas are rare. Here we report that subglacial sediment from the Camp Century ice core preserves direct evidence that northwestern Greenland was ice free during the Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11 interglacial. Luminescence dating shows that sediment just beneath the ice sheet was deposited by flowing water in an ice-free environment 416 ± 38 thousand years ago. Provenance analyses and cosmogenic nuclide data and calculations suggest the sediment was reworked from local materials and exposed at the surface <16 thousand years before deposition. Ice sheet modeling indicates that ice-free conditions at Camp Century require at least 1.4 meters of sea level equivalent contribution from the Greenland Ice Sheet.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade4248

When Greenland Was Green: Ancient Soil From Beneath A Mile Of Ice Offers Warnings For The Future

About 400,000 years ago, large parts of Greenland were ice-free. Scrubby tundra basked in the Sun’s rays on the island’s northwest highlands. Evidence suggests that a forest of spruce trees, buzzing with insects, covered the southern part of Greenland. Global sea level was much higher then, between 20 and 40 feet above today’s levels. Around the world, land that today is home to hundreds of millions of people was under water.

Scientists have known for awhile that the Greenland ice sheet had mostly disappeared at some point in the past million years, but not precisely when.

In a new study in the journal Science, we determined the date, using frozen soil extracted during the Cold War from beneath a nearly mile-thick section of the Greenland ice sheet.

The timing — about 416,000 years ago, with largely ice-free conditions lasting for as much as 14,000 years — is important. At that time, Earth and its early humans were going through one of the longest interglacial periods since ice sheets first covered the high latitudes 2.5 million years ago.

The length, magnitude and effects of that natural warming can help us understand the Earth that modern humans are now creating for the future.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/...-a-mile-of-ice-offers-warnings-for-the-future

Admittedly, these actual scientists don't have their own blog but please don't hold that against them, Jack.

 

What do we do about Climate Change
Adapt. We don't control climate. The planet does.

 

Not sure what point you're making here. The research results are neither in dispute nor alarming.