The mask has finally slipped to reveal that China will not be co-operating on climate policy. I am hardly surprised, as they only agreed to reduce their emissions ten years later than the West. Easy to renege on after the West has jumped first. How could we be so naïve?
Chinese Threat: Renounce Taiwan, or the Global Climate Gets It – Watts Up With That?
Here is the article to explain what is happening:
Yet another reason why CO2 emissions will not be controlled, no matter how many times the Western governments claim otherwise. But the people are well aware of what is going on, which is why they will not be prepared to make the huge sacrifice of paying massive energy and fuel bills for no tangible gain.
London, 4 August -- Official data released today reveals that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is in excellent health, with coral cover reaching record levels for the second consecutive year.
Aggregate GBR coral cover 1986–2022
The increase will be surprising to members of the public, who are regularly hit with scare stories about coral bleaching and false tales about a reef in long-term decline.
A new note, published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, explains that the data shows clearly how a handful of coral bleaching events that have affected the reef since 2016 have had very limited impact on overall coral cover.
Dr Peter Ridd says:
“In recent years, the media around the world has been reporting coral bleaching events in increasingly apocalyptic terms. This data proves that they are simply scaremongering.”
GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:
“This is just the latest example of empirical data making a mockery of the catastrophists. For how much longer do they think they can get away with it?”
Dr Ridd’s paper, entitled The Good News on Coral Reefs can be downloaded here (pdf)
Read this article to see what is going on:
British Gas to stop supplying energy to its biggest business customers - Energy Live News
Germany is experiencing similar problems, which is no consolation to us in the UK. Had the government had the courage to develop fracking we could now have a reliable supply of our own gas. We could have even done a deal with the fracking firms to supply at a fixed price for a fixed time, as has been done for the new nuclear power stations. But sadly no, we have instead put our eggs into wind turbines in a vain attempt to control the climate. Complete madness!
Here is a link to this recent debate on the UK Energy Bill:
Energy Bill [HL] - Hansard - UK Parliament
Of particular interest is the contribution by Lord Moylan. Here is a short exerpt:
"Net zero is not an energy strategy but a constraint on how we might achieve our energy strategy. Nobody seriously thinks that the UK’s commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 will have any significant effect on the heating of the planet, since we produce only 1% of global emissions. At best, it is setting an example to the world; its practical effect will be very small indeed. The core strategy for this Government has to remain abundant and affordable energy for the UK."
"One of the things the Bill does is encourage investment in wind power. Despite claims that the cost of wind power is constantly falling, that is simply not true. Although it has fallen from its early days, it is ceasing to fall; the fall is declining as a result of the maturity of the industry, as you would expect with any industry that matures. But even if the marginal cost of wind power can be brought down to something close to zero—in other words, that it is similar to nuclear power in that regard—none the less, the capital costs required would still require subsidies, in addition to the feed-in tariff, and these are very large indeed when it comes to offshore wind.
Moreover, despite providing in excess of 20% of our energy, there are many days when wind power falls close to zero, and much the same can be said of solar. This means that gas generation has to be available to take up the slack at those times."
It is good to see that there are still some politicians who are willing to speak the truth instead of simply repeating the usual mantra. I hope the next PM will take note.
It's important to remind ourselves of the fact that the whole global warming/climate change scare is based on data and just how flawed that data is. Read this report to refresh yourself:
UPDATE – BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors – Watts Up With That?
I know there are one or two people who won't believe anything that is written on Watt's Up With That, but that is simply prejudice. This report was undertaken for a PhD thesis and was reviewed as part of the process.
Here is an article I have only just come across on the BBC website:
COP26: The truth behind the new climate change denial - BBC News
It turned out to be a hatchet job, lumping all climate sceptics together with as many loony conspiracy theorists as possible, just as I suspected they would.
Here are a few of the arguments put forward:
1. Sceptics claim a grand solar minimum will reverse global warming. This claim is only made by a small number of people. It is certainly not the main argument used.
2. Global warming will make parts of the earth more habitable, and that cold kills more people than heat does. This argument is a valid one, depending on the degree of warming. But this nuanced argument is completely ignored by the BBC. Presumably because it would be much harder to refute.
3. Limiting fossil fuel use will inevitably stunt economic growth and increase the cost of living, hurting the poorest. The article then claims that renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels, while not mentioning that they suffer from unreliability and so need back up. It then claims that increases in extreme weather events will cause more harm to the poor. Something which is not supported by the data.
While no doubt there are some "loonies" who say global warming is a hoax, there are also clearly many people with impressive qualifications who still remain sceptical of the predictions of doom and destruction put out by the climate extremists. Look at the list of people on the Global Warming Policy Foundation Advisory Council : Who We Are - The Global Warming Policy Foundation (thegwpf.org)
The BBC has made a big mistake by not admitting any slight doubt to any of the predictions, nor even to allow a proper discussion of the policies being enacted to deal with it. Such a stance will drive reasonable people to find that it's the BBC and the government who are the extremists.
Here is a well-worded serious complaint made to the BBC by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It highlights a typical situation where a programme seems to be used to further a political agenda, instead of providing balanced information. It is unusual for a so-called public service broadcaster to be so one-sided not only on the science, but also on the political policy where balance is normally taken for granted.
Be careful what you wish for is the message to give to those green zealots who want to go back to simple "chemical free" farming. it might sound attractive to many of the public who have been fed a constant diet of how wonderful organic farming is. So, before you go out and glue yourself to some "evil" chemical works read this:
The following post contains an interesting video link showing how the ice cores were examined to reveal the past record of temperature. At the very least this shows that the past 10000 years have been warmer than the present - something that climate alarmists have tried to deny. Of course this does not mean that increased CO2 levels do not cause warming, but the unknown factor is how much of the current warming is cased by CO2 and how much is due to natural causes?
The control of CO2 emissions was always going to be very difficult in a democracy, as it involves people having to have restrictions placed on their rights and freedoms. It would require a lowering of the standard of living of the bulk of the population. For some time in the USA the government has relied un an unelected agency to bypass democracy and enforce some quite draconian regulations, but now this agency (EPA) has been stopped by the Supreme Court.
BOOM! Supreme Court ruling : EPA doesn’t have power to regulate carbon dioxide – Watts Up With That?
"Climate models are tuned, climate models are fudged Perhaps it is because of the complexity, or perhaps because of our relative lack of knowledge of the climate system, but when climate models are put together they rarely perform in a realistic manner, with too much or too little heat being retained by the virtual atmosphere. This results in the virtual temperatures rapidly drifting away from the observed ones. In order to address this problem, climate models are ‘tuned‘ – in other words some of the parameterisations are arbitrarily adjusted – so as to make the model warm at a more realistic rate. An example would be to adjust the way clouds are represented in the model. Clouds are one of the great areas of uncertainty in the climate system, so many of the possible parameterisations are plausible. Different combinations of input values could give a virtual global temperature record similar to the real one, but completely different estimates of future warming. Which climate future is the real one is, again, anyone’s guess, and is therefore possible to simply pick the one that gives a desired answer."
ukcp18-fact-sheet-sea-level-rise-and-storm-surge.pdf (metoffice.gov.uk)
Take a look at the screen grab of the factsheet below and there is the following: "UK tide gauge records show substantial year-to-year changes in coastal water levels (typically several centimetres). We recommend that coastal decision makers account for this variability in risk assessments, particularly for shorter-term planning horizons."
You can enlarge the above screen grab for easier reading, or go to the link. I have written to the Met Office to ask if they believe this to be correct and am waiting for a response.
Below is the record for Portsmouth, and while it is true to say that there is year to year variability of several centimetres, this is both up and down and, when it is averaged out, the actual rise is much lower (only around 2mm). So what point are they trying to make? Could it be to give the impression that sea level is rising by "several centimetres" a year?
Here is a recent article looking at the latest attempts to measure it using satellites: Sentinel-6: New International Sea Level Satellite – Watts Up With That?
There are two related measures of sea level, the absolute sea level, which is the increase in the sea level in an absolute reference frame, and relative sea level, which is the increase in sea level recorded by tide gauges. The first measure is a rather abstract computation, far from being reliable, and is preferred by activists and politicians for no scientific reason.
For local and global problems it is better to use local tide gauge data. Proper coastal management should be based on proved measurements of sea level. Tide gauges provide the most reliable measurements, and best data to assess the rate of change. We show as the naïve averaging of all the tide gauges included in the PSMSL surveys show “relative” rates of rise about +1.04 mm/year (570 tide gauges of any length). If we consider only 100 tide gauges with more than 80 years of recording the rise is only +0.25 mm/year.
This naïve averaging has been stable and shows that the sea levels are slowly rising but not accelerating. We also show as the additional information provided by GPS and satellite altimetry is of very little help. Computations of “absolute” sea levels suffer from inaccuracies with errors larger than the estimated trends.
The GPS is more reliable than satellite altimetry, but the accuracy of the estimation of the vertical velocity at GPS domes is still well above ±1 mm/year and the relative motion of tide gauges vs. GPS domes is mostly unassessed. The satellite altimetry returns a noisy signal so that a +3.2 mm/year trend is only achieved by arbitrary “corrections”.
We conclude that if the sea levels are only oscillating about constant trends everywhere as suggested by the tide gauges, then the effects of climate change are negligible, and the local patterns may be used for local coastal planning without any need of purely speculative global trends based on emission scenarios.
Ocean and coastal management should acknowledge all these facts. As the relative rates of rises are stable worldwide, coastal protection should be introduced only where the rate of rise of sea levels as determined from historical data show a tangible short term threat.
As the first signs the sea levels will rise catastrophically within few years are nowhere to be seen, people should start really thinking about the warnings not to demolish everything for a case nobody knows will indeed happen.
For further reading on this topic, try this link:
The surprising news from scientists about rising sea levels! – Watts Up With That?
And: SeaLevel.info links to additional resources
The latest update from the Met Office is discussed here: UK Sea Level Rise Speeding Up–Claim Met Office: Data Proves Otherwise | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
and here: The Met Office’s Sea Level Trick | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
On the subject of getting to net zero CO2 emissions by 2050
My Lords, noble Lords may recall the debate we had in February 2020 on Absolute Zero, the report produced by the Cambridge University engineering department and other universities in this country. It had almost the universal approval of this House. The central thesis of that report was that we cannot rely on
“new or breakthrough technologies … they won’t be operating at scale within thirty years.”
We have to rely on existing technologies and reducing demand. But the IEA road map assumes that what it calls “technologies under development” but not yet in the market will provide almost half the emissions savings by 2050. The main innovation opportunities it identifies to produce these savings are what it calls
“advanced batteries, hydrogen electrolysers, and direct air capture and storage.”
I simply ask noble Lords participating in this debate or reading it in Hansard whether that is remotely credible. Clearly, the practical people in the Cambridge University engineering department do not believe it is. I am prepared to believe that the occasional pig might fly, but the IEA report assumes a whole farmyard of pigs will take to the air. That seems a little unlikely.
It is worth looking at how rapidly—or not—new technologies have been deployed in our pursuit of reducing carbon emissions over the last couple of decades. After 20 years of effort, low-carbon technologies provide just 21% of this country’s total primary energy. That is little more than double the 9.4% that they provided in 2000, almost all of which was from old-fashioned bioenergy. It is that which has produced most of the savings in the subsequent 20 years; it provides 8.8% of our energy now.
The somewhat newer but scarcely novel technologies that have contributed to our progress over that period are wind and solar. Wind has been around since the Middle Ages and solar has been around for quite a long time. Although they have developed over the last 20 years, together they provide just 4.7% of our primary energy in this country. That has taken 20 years to come about.
The IEA also makes heroic assumptions about deploying existing technologies. For example, it says that, from 2025, throughout the world, including this country, no new gas boilers should be installed. I ask participants in the debate whether they believe that should be the case. Should we ban the introduction of new gas boilers from 2025? Presumably they are to be replaced by either heat pumps or direct electricity. We know the problems with heat pumps. They are available and I wanted to install one in my flat, but I was advised by my architect and builder that, unless I was insane, I should not do so. If they are not yet available or cheap, and the costs of insulation and changing radiators are not viable, we will have to do it by direct electricity. Electricity costs four times as much as gas to provide the same amount of therms. Is that what supporters of this report want to see? If not, where are they going to conjure up heat for our households from, once they are no longer allowed to replace their gas boilers?
The IEA also says there should be no new oil or gas fields developed from now. The approach that we and most countries have adopted, in trying to move towards net zero, has been the sensible one of reducing demand, not supply: phasing out demand for fossil fuels by providing alternatives, not forbidding the supply of fossil fuels. That is the sensible thing to do. If, in spelling out how we are going to reduce demand, oil companies none the less go ahead and develop fields that subsequently prove surplus to requirements, they will be left with stranded assets. That is their fault; I am not going to shed any tears for them. If, on the contrary, we stop them developing enough oil and gas to meet our schedule of reduced demand, there will be a shortage. We are seeing it now as a result of the war in Ukraine. Oil has gone up by 60% to 70% and gas has gone up by 130% of what it was before Covid. That is hard and tough for consumers, but it makes wonderful profits for suppliers. Is that what those who advocate this approach of cutting back on supply, rather than on demand, want?
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked us to spell out our credentials. I spell out mine. I studied science at Cambridge. Of course, I do not deny the science of global warming; it is about as robust as any science I know, although it is not as alarming as some would have us believe. There is double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere; the direct effect is to raise the temperature of the world by 1% and then knock-on effects will significantly increase that. I accept that.
Likewise, the noble Baroness asked whether we had any vested interests. I twice worked for an oil company and, long before that, studied energy and was an energy analyst in the City. I used to upset the oil companies by advocating that we, in this country, stopped giving them free assets in the North Sea. I published something
called North Sea Giveaway that prompted the Government of the day—this was before I was in Parliament—to introduce auctions to siphon off some of the profits the oil companies were making. That may be why none of them has ever asked me to go on its board.The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asserted that there is no benefit from developing new fields, or supplies of oil and gas, in the North Sea or, by extension, shale gas on land. There is; there is a direct reduction in the amount of emissions you would have for a given consumption of gas and oil. Instead of having to liquefy the gas in Qatar, ship it across the ocean and regasify it here, with the creation of emissions at those three stages, you would provide it locally, with reduced emissions. If people are sincere about wanting to reduce emissions, rather than simply wanting to punish oil companies and stop them going about their business, they would welcome domestic production for those reasons.
I hope that the House looks at this report with a critical eye and finds either that my analysis of it is incorrect and that it is full of realistic proposals, rather than flying pigs—if so, I hope someone will tell me what they are—or that it looks at a better solution to reach net zero by 2050 than what is laid out in this report.
You can read the whole debate here: Global Energy Sector - Hansard - UK Parliament
Below is an interesting link which looks at a range of factors which contribute to the highly complex subject of sea level. The fear of a large rise is one of the most powerful threats made by the climate change lobby, but is it credible that sea level could rise by 1 meter or more by 2100?
Traditionally, sea level was measured by taking the average of tide gauge readings, however, since 1992 it is done by satellite. All the discussion is about an increase in the mean or average height of the sea, but only fractional increases. They were talking about millimeter increases when that type of precision wasn’t possible with tide gauges and even the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellites claim,
“Measured sea levels with unprecedented accuracy to better than 5 cm.”
It’s important to note that this estimate is with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. This is important because the IPCC claim, “For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observations with satellite altimetry as 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr-1.” But what are they actually measuring? It is the average variation of sea level relative to an imaginary line called the reference ellipsoid. Potential for error exists in determining the ellipsoid, the height of the satellite, in the actual measurements, and in the changes going on in the ocean and on the land. Frankly, it is useless to even talk about millimeter changes. There are so many inputs, and so many adjustments that the final results claimed are unjustified. As Carl Wunsch said,
“It remains possible that the data base is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming–as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”
He adds,
“Useful estimation of the global averages is extremely difficult given the realities of space/time sampling and model approximations. Systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change: published values and error bars should be used very cautiously.”
Claims don’t fit the reality.
Everything was done by the IPCC to attribute the increase to global warming especially through increased sea temperature. They claimed that about 25 percent of sea level rise of the last 50 years was due to thermal expansion with that rising to 50 percent for the last decade. As with everything they do, the IPCC start with the assumption that their estimates of global warming are accurate and therefore their extrapolation of perceived trend going forward of increased sea level is also accurate. The arrogance of attributing 50 percent of the increased sea level to thermal expansion is done with a computer model that eliminates almost all the variables that cause temperature change, and the result is then applied to computer models that leave out most of the causes of sea level change.
This article is also well worth reading: Why We Must “Quit Worrying About Uncertainty in Sea Level Projections” – Watts Up With That?
The graph below shows some of the alarming projections which are being taken seriously by officials who are then using them to frighten the public. Here is a report including all the scary scenarios: Nearly 200,000 homes and businesses in England at risk of being lost to sea level rise by 2050s | Daily Mail Online
On the other hand, why are Al Gore and Barack Obama buying beachfront properties for millions of dollars if they really believe these projections? Or why are they building new airports in the Maldives? - New airport opens in the Maldives | TTR Weekly
Meanwhile back in the real world below are several graphs of sea level rise around the UK as measured by tide gauges. There is no sign, so far, of any dramatic rise. [you can click on the image to enlarge it]
Take a look at the bias towards climate alarm from the BBC. Exaggeration and lies used to promote a one-sided propaganda campaign.
Institutional Alarmism: The BBC’s Disastrous Climate Complaints (netzerowatch.com)
Sometimes it's useful to take a step back and look at the bigger picture in order to fully appreciate the scale of what it means to get to net zero CO2 emissions. We are constantly being told that we must all do our bit towards this great goal in order to save the planet. To find all the big statistics on this, one place to look is <a href=Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 – Analysis - IEA>here</a> on the International Energy Agency (IEA) website. This organisation is, of course, committed to phasing out fossil fuels, even though it was founded to ensure security of oil supplies to member nations in times of crisis.
Here is an interesting statistic for 2020:
306.32 Mt of CO2 was produced by the UK for energy. The whole world produced 40 Gt of CO2. So using those figures we can calculate the % of world energy related emissions from the UK. (Energy includes that used for electricity, heating, transport, industry.)
306.32x10^6x100 divided by 40x 10^9 = 0.77%
So we can see that our emissions have fallen well below the 1% of world emissions which is often quoted. However 306.32 Mt is still a very large amount, when you consider that all the simple ways of reducing it have already been implemented.
An example of a scheme to reduce emissions is the new waste strategy being proposed by the New Forest District Council. The proposed changes are calculated to save 1037 tonnes of CO2 per annum, which to many people would sound impressive. But, set against the UK annual emissions, it can be calculated as:
1037x100 divided by 306320000%, which is 0.0003%
This puts the true scale of the reductions required to reach zero. Of course net zero means that some emissions will still be allowed, but these figures do not even include emissions due to agriculture
Take a look at the press release below by all these local government mayors. What extraordinary hubris by these people to claim that they can achieve net zero, some in as little as 8 years time. I just wonder what they actually mean by net zero. Of course they know it won't happen and they have the excuse right there where they say they "need to be backed by new powers and more resources". They don't say how much "more resources" they need, but it's a certainty that it will be far more than any government will give them. All sound and fury signifying nothing. Take a look at the list of net zero dates given for each council - all complete guesswork.
07 Jun 2022 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham has joined other metro mayors and leaders from across the UK to ask for greater powers and funding so they can lead the country to net zero carbon in a way that’s fair for everyone. | ||||||||||||||||||||
At the Decarbonisation Summit event at the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester on 7 June 2022, eight English metro mayors – including Mr Burnham -and the leader of Glasgow City Council, released the following joint statement:
Issued on behalf of:
|
Read this report: Advanced Ultra-Supercritical Technology | GE Steam Power
When you look at the latest technology you can see why so many new coal plants are being built across the world. Whether the UK or Europe, or even the Western world choose to deprive themselves of cheap reliable energy, it will not stop India, China and many developing nations in Africa continuing to use coal. While we choose expensive less reliable electricity, they will choose coal.
Here is an interesting article which argues that it does:
Here is a link to an interesting test: The Global Warming Test (geocraft.com) See if you can equal my score of 10. It is on a very interesting website - well worth reading.
Here's a new invention to collect the methane which cows emit when they belch: Climate madness: British startup releases masks for cows (freewestmedia.com) When you look at the cost of it, I can't see many farmers using it unless forced to do so, and if that were to happen it would drive up the cost of milk and beef. So what are the chances of this being a common sight in our fields?
Funny that there has been no mention of this on our TV news bulletins or even on the weather forecasts. Here is a link: Weather Books Rewritten Across South America As Antarctic Blast Intensifies; + Australia Smashed By Heavy Snows And All-Time Record-Breaking Lows - Electroverse
Omission of any reporting of this should make us all suspicious, particularly when they so prominently feature anything to do with excessive hot or dry weather, floods or hurricanes. Of course none of these extreme weather events is evidence of any climate change, as such extremes always have occurred and always will. However the news is a means of pushing a particular message, that we face a "climate emergency". Anything which reminds us that it is simply variable weather is not helpful to such propaganda and so is left out.
Have look and see the large numbers of qualified people signing this.
World Climate Declaration - Clintel
When you look at the mainstream TV broadcasts you could easily believe that no serious scientists disagree with the hypothesis that CO2 is causing a climate "emergency".
The writer of this piece explains why he thinks so.
The green agenda’s role in global inflation - The Conservative Woman
The author, Ben Pile, has a video at the link where he goes into more detail. There is no doubt that a number of very rich people seem to have funded much of the pressure groups working to get fossil fuels banned. Their activities have resulted in the price of fossil fuels to rise, quite apart from the Ukraine war. On top of that the Bank of England has printed money to deal with the Covid crisis causing inflation.
Ben Pile asserts that there is a deliberate attempt by government to raise the price of fossil fuels. If so, I doubt that they would have wanted to go this far, but the trouble with tinkering with the economy is that things can get out of control and now that seems to have happened.
If the government does not get the price of fuel and energy to an affordable level they will be in deep trouble. Renewable energy is certainly not the answer, as it is both expensive and unreliable, so they must face the fact that unless they can build nuclear power stations fast (which they can't), they will have to make fossil fuels affordable, or face defeat in the next election.
Has anyone told Mr Putin?
Here is the latest report: Climate Change: MPs say building demolitions must be reduced - BBC News
What will they come up with next? I wonder if this conflicts with the government's policy to build hundreds of thousands of new houses all over the country?
Is it any wonder that people are confused about global warming when the BBC puts out false information? See here: Insiders say Justin Rowlatt is more 'campaigner' than reporter | Daily Mail Online
Last week, it was reported that the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) had upheld complaints about two claims made in the BBC's Panorama programme on November 3 last year by reporter Justin Rowlatt.
First, it wasn't true that the death toll from natural disasters is rising. In fact, the opposite is true.
According to ourworldindata.com, the number of deaths globally from natural disasters has tumbled each decade for the past century, apart from a small blip in the 2000s, from an average of 524,000 a year in the 1920s to just 45,000 in the 2010s — despite a booming global population.
The ECU also ruled that Rowlatt's claim that southern Madagascar was 'on the brink of the world's first climate-induced famine' was incorrect, as other factors were involved.
Yes, the good news is that "the warming trend of the last 40 years is weakening”, says German expert.
No Tricks Zone, 11 May 2022
