Mysterious CO2 activity in New Zealand shows Phytoplankton at work
Tom Quirk both finds a mystery and solves it.
Emiliania huxleyi coccolithophore | Alison Taylor.
Carbon dioxide is a “well mixed gas” yet CO2 levels over New Zealand start rising there each year in March — a whole month before we see it CO2 start to rise over Tasmania. Air over Cape Grim in Tasmania will be blown by the prevailing wind over to New Zealand about five days later. So these two stations should be showing similar numbers throughout the year. Instead some process in NZ is pushing up CO2 early. Levels also peak earlier in New Zealand, and by September, in early spring, some process around NZ is pulling the CO2 out of the sky. Both NZ and Tasmania share large forested areas, so that wouldn’t explain the difference.
Quirk wondered if it had something do with phytoplankton, so he searched for satellite data that measures chlorophyll in the ocean and shows, voila, that there is major activity right around the Baring Head station at the same time as CO2 levels are falling. Indeed, the station is smack in the middle of a mass phytoplankton bloom.
He calculates that each year about one quarter of a ppm is removed by phytoplankton around Baring Head in NZ. Put into context, the total rise of CO2 each year is around six times that in NZ which makes the effect of plankton seem modest — but the bloom in NZ is but a tiny part of the global rises and falls of phytoplankton all around the world. So the most important question remains unanswered — just how much of the yearly rise and fall of CO2 globally is driven by plankton?
Previously Quirk found a huge 2.5Gt carbon spike in 1990 (which is 9Gt of CO2) — as if three extra China’s were suddenly emitting CO2 that year. The best explanation was that changes in wind patterns and ocean currents meant it was a bad year for phytoplankton. When phytoplankton struggle, they don’t draw down the usual CO2, hence the spike.
Another study (Martiny, 2013) found that phytoplankton might be drawing up twice as much carbon as modelers thought. While Guidi et al 2015 looked at viruses and discovered that only 10 out of 5,000 were predictive of CO2 levels and these were viruses that infected plankton.
Humans put out only 4% of global CO2, so in terms of whether humans can outcompete cyanobacteria et al, the answer appears to be “no”.
Scanning electron microscope image of Syracosphaera azureaplaneta.. | Jeremy Young.
What this means is 1/ that there is a lot we don’t know about the CO2 cycle, and 2/ there are very big players out there that have nothing to do with our airconditioners and cars. It means 3/ that there is another large force that can’t be managed with carbon taxes.
There are still mysteries: Quirk notes that something else was going on around Baring Head in the 70s and 80s when there was an even larger difference between the two stations. Perhaps this was due to ocean currents shifting? Until we understand the global carbon cycle why are we even pretending to control it?
— Jo
________________________________________________________________
A comparison of atmospheric CO2 measurements at Cape Grim and Baring Head
Guest Post by Tom Quirk
Cape Grim 41 S, 145 E and Baring Head 41 S, 175 E have provided long running measurements of atmospheric CO2 made by the CSIRO[1] and the Scripps Institute for Oceanography[2] (SIO). Cape Grim is on the north-west tip of Tasmania and some 2,500 km from Baring Head on the south-east tip of the North Island of New Zealand.
Seasonal Variations
Seasonal variations are easily extracted from the SIO data as monthly measurements and monthly seasonally adjusted values are provided. The CSIRO data is not as helpful but it is possible by smoothing the monthly measurements to get seasonally adjusted values. The difference on a monthly basis gives the seasonal variations.
The seasonal variations of atmospheric CO2 for Cape Grim agree with the observed seasonal variations at the South Pole 90 S but differ from the seasonal variations at Baring Head by of order one month. This can be seen in Figure 1 where the mid-year rise in CO2 comes at Baring Head before Cape Grim. The westerly winds in the “roaring forties” are 20 to 40 km per hour so CO2 at Cape Grim would arrive at Baring Head some 5 days later but this is not seen in the measurements.
Figure 1: Average seasonal variations for the South Pole, Baring Head and Cape Grim derived from Scripps and CSIRO monthly measurements from 1985 to 2015
There may be an explanation for this as Baring Head is surrounded by oceans that experience chlorophyll-blooms as phytoplankton numbers increase and remove CO2 from the ocean which then rebalances CO2 with the atmosphere through exchange. The phytoplankton bloom is shown in Figure 2 from a fascinating paper by Murphy et al using satellite measurements to detect the ocean surface changes in chlorophyll[3]
Figure 2: Location of Baring Head on a satellite image of chlorophyll-a concentrations around New Zealand (25°-55°S 155°E-170°W) in November 1997. . Extract from Murphy et al SeaWiFS NZ chlorophyll3
The variations in chlorophyll through the year are shown for 9 months in Figure 3 for September 1997 to August 1998. There are seasonal variations and regional variations around the North and South islands of New Zealand.
….
Figure 3: SeaWiFS monthly-composite images of chlorophyll-a concentrations around New Zealand (25°-55°S 155°E-170°W) between September 1997 and August 1998. Extract from Murphy et al SeaWiFS NZ chlorophyll3
The composite average chlorophyll-a concentrations for regions around New Zealand are shown in Figure 4. The regions are the Central Tasman Sea (CTS) and the subtropical water east of North Island (STE) to cover east and west of the North Island while the South Island is covered by Subtropical Front regions east (SFE) and west (SFW).
Figure 4: SeaWiFS monthly-composite average chlorophyll-a concentrations (thicker line with symbols) for regions around New Zealand. Thinner lines show the upper and lower quartiles of chlorophyll a concentration within each region. CTS = Central Tasman Sea; STE = subtropical water east of North Island; SFE = Subtropical Front region east of South Island; and SFW = Subtropical Front region west of South Island .Extract from Murphy et al SeaWiFS NZ chlorophyll3
There are chlorophyll concentration peaks in early and late months of the year. So if the phytoplankton are pulling CO2 from the oceans then this would also be seen in the atmospheric CO2. The test is to adjust the Baring Head seasonal values for the months of April to July to match the Cape Grim values and then look at the monthly differences as an indication of the seasonal effect of the phytoplankton. The adjustment is shown in Figure 5 with the alignment of values for May to July.
Figure 5: Average seasonal variations for Cape Grim and Baring Head after adjusting values to align from April to July for both locations from1985 to 2015.
The amount of CO2 removed by the phytoplankton is shown in Figure 6 as the difference of the Cape Grim monthly values from the adjusted Baring Head values. The maxima appear in September – November and in January – February reflecting the variations of chlorophyll concentrations seen in Figure 4. Phytoplankton are expected to bloom in spring and autumn and there is a strong spring CO2 effect but much less is seen in autumn. So for a year 0.28 +/- 0.5 ppm of CO2 is removed by phytoplankton.
Figure 6: Extra seasonal CO2 removed at Baring Head seen as a difference of seasonal variations for Cape Grim and Baring Head after adjusting values to align from April to July for both locations for 1985 to 2015
The probable explanation for the Cape Grim Baring Head seasonal variation differences is the strong local effects of phytoplankton in the oceans around New Zealand.
Annual atmospheric CO2 concentrations
The next issue is whether the local phytoplankton have modified the annual CO2 concentrations. This can be done by comparing differences for the annual atmospheric CO2 measurements at Cape Grim and Baring Head less the South Pole measurements. There is are differences as shown in Figure 7 of up to 1.2 ppm.
Figure 7: Differences for the annual atmospheric CO2 measurements of Cape Grim and Baring Head from the South Pole measurements.
There are substantial differences in annual CO2 values for the period 1978 to 1989 However there is no evidence that shows any changes in the seasonal variations from the years 1978 to 1989 to the years 1995 to 2015 (Figure 8).
….
Figure 8: Average seasonal variations Cape Grim (top) and Baring Head from 1978 to 1989 and 1995 to 2015.
So there are differences in the 1978 to 1989 period that are not driven by the source of the seasonal differences and may be from an ocean source given the latitude difference of 30 degrees…
But for the period 1995 to 2017 the mean differences from the South Pole measurements are 0.05 +/- 0.03 ppm for Cape Grim and -0.17 +/- 0.05 ppm for Baring Head. So the annual difference of Cape Grim from Baring Head is 0.22 +/- 0.06 ppm that is not significantly different to the seasonal value of 0.28 +/- 0.5 ppm.
So the presence of phytoplankton in the ocean near Baring Head may be the cause of the atmospheric CO2 concentration difference from Cape Grim. In addition there may be some Southern Ocean changes.
The conclusion from this analysis is that measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations are complicated by local modification and by longitudinal differences.
A further conclusion is that if changes in phytoplankton productivity impact atmospheric CO2 levels as seen at Baring Head, then the peaking of atmospheric CO2 during an El Nino is partly due to well-measured reductions in phytoplankton productivity[4]. This is not conventional wisdom.
[1] CSIRO source https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data
[2] Keeling C. D, Piper S. C., Bacastow R. B., Wahlen M Whorf., T. P., Heimann M., and Meijer H. A., Exchanges of atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 with the terrestrial biosphere and oceans from 1978 to 2000.I. Global aspects, SIO Reference Series, No. 01-06, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, 88 pages, 2001
[3] R. J. Murphy , M. H. Pinkerton , K. M. Richardson , J. M. Bradford‐Grieve & P. W. Boyd Phytoplankton distributions around New Zealand derived from SeaWiFS remotely‐sensed ocean colour data. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 2001, Vol. 35: 343-362 0028-8330/01/3502-0343
[4] Michael J. Behrenfeld, Robert T. O’Malley, David A. Siegel, Charles R. McClain, Jorge L. Sarmiento, Gene C. Feldman, Allen J. Milligan, Paul G. Falkowski, Ricardo M. Letelier & Emmanuel S. Boss. Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity, Nature Vol 444 (7 December 2006)
.png){kind=link}
Yep, the ‘science’ is settled.
162
Nah! Goes against the “when in doubt leave it out” tradition they have established
60
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Jo.
And thanks for putting the science resented there in context.
The key to good science is keeping an open mind.
‘Science” is NEVER settled.
Whether in climatology or physics or biology or whatever.
All we have are ‘best working hypotheses’.
Also thanks Jo for reminding us all
That humanity’s contribution of Co2
To the atmosphere each year
Is 4%.
And we are supposed to control
climate change by reducing that 4% !!!
What a bloody joke !
130
It’s settled if you believe that the confidence in alarmism has any merit. The underlying ‘high confidence’ metric has an uncertainty of +/- 50% spanning a 4x range from about 0.4C (2.2 W/m^2 incremental surface emissions) all the way up to about 1.2C (8.8 W/m^2) per W/m^2 of forcing and this range hasn’t gotten any narrower since the mid 80’s. If anything, the RCP scenarios layered on top have further increased the uncertainty. Furthermore; the incremental effect on surface emissions from solar W/m^2 can be repeatably established to within a few percent of 1.62 W/m^2 of average surface emissions per W/m^2 of average total forcing corresponding to only about 0.3C per W/m^2. The planet can’t tell the difference between W/m^2, thus all must have the same average effect, including the next one.
30
Maybe they should build the plankton effect into their models, along with clouds and water vapour
211
And include maybe 50 unknowns.
160
Are those known unknowns or unknown unknowns?
130
A mix of both. 🙂
60
I don’t know.
60
Chicken! How about giving us a “projection”?
20
Models are useless when they ignore basic engineering science facts such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics ie CO2 in the cool atmosphere can not affect the temperature of a warmer earth surface. Back radiation is nonsense and unphysical. Seasonal warming of the ocean surface is due to the sun.
140
And while they are about it, factor in the CO2 from ALL known volcanoes both active and dormant — see https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html , and the termites — https://phys.org/news/2018-11-year-old-termite-mounds-brazil-visible.html and that’s a lot of methane/CO2, and the latest research on trees — https://www.quantamagazine.org/forests-emerge-as-a-major-overlooked-climate-factor-20181009/
As well as solar effects, which according to the iPeeSeeSeers are immaterial …
Distorting the Thermosphere — https://spaceweatherarchive.com/category/thermosphere/
Changing the shape of Walker cell — https://phys.org/news/2019-03-solar-variability-weakens-walker-cell.html and some investigations — https://phys.org/news/2019-04-natural-climate-overshadow-human-induced-walker.html ,
And solar decline initiating more noctilucent clouds over the poles — https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2019/05/31/huge-blue-cloud-circles-the-north-pole/
Only the sun and it’s variation will significantly warp and distort this planets atmosphere, ocean currents can’t, volcanoes can’t, and certainly CO2 can not.
70
Yep I have often thought that the confidence levels that the IPCC uses for their projections
or predictions eg very likely ,highly likely etc(and then assigning percentages to them )is just
like an insurance salesman trying to scare your average punter into buying a policy .The scale
of hubris that this organization shows has no bounds .So then they tell countries about
levels of emissions of CO2 they must control is actually more than hubris it’s plain BS.
Yes think about it prescribing measurements of emissions over carbon dioxide cycles and
budgets is really terrible policy .This is craziness-it’s like saying you don’t have accurate data or
numbers about something (because carbon dioxide cycles input and outputs aren’t
thoroughly understood as the above article shows) but you’re confident on giving advice and
policy direction on it.Where is the Due diligence in this ??? where is the Cost benefit analysis m
in all this ????? Well I’ll tell you seemingly none that’s right zip zero and Zilch.
Cheers Mike Reed
251
Its only because of this climate scam that anybody is that interested in CO2 levels except to feed the plants,and phytoplankton, which is necessary. Its all in the ocean which contain MOST of the CO2 a wee bit escapes or hides depending on the ocean temperatures ,or as seen here plankton numbers.
Next wonder of science please.
Good thing about this type of research is that it shows up the chicanery.
110
‘… the peaking of atmospheric CO2 during an El Nino is partly due to well-measured reductions in phytoplankton productivity.’
This is pretty amazing stuff, its time we went on the attack. Does the new Environment Minister know about this? I nominate Tom Quirk for my Blue Team.
190
Tom Quick for the Nobel prize in Climate Science !
90
Of course she does, she accepts the science.
sarc
70
The science minister accepts the science, but the environment minister is a climate change clean skin. When Susan Ley was health minister the doctors demanded she go to Paris for the IPCC talkfest, but she declined.
Lets see how she handles herself on Q&A.
110
E G I don’t watch Q & A
Q&A is just throwing meat to the
Ignorant.
The audiences are stacked !
120
I don’t watch it either, but we should get some feedback if the minister is outrageous.
70
Seems to me that there is a fair bit of “duty watch” goes on here so as to cover a wider field than everyone trying to watch everything
30
Its okay, we don’t have to watch, Susan Ley has decided not to attend.
The green/left are cracking jokes, reckon she can’t handle the heat.
My feeling is that she isn’t up to speed on her portfolio and is prudently taking the time. Has anyone told her that CO2 has no control over world temperature?
20
Figures 7 and 8 finally show the scientific evidence that oceans are net absorbers of CO2, evidence that even our now regular thread motivator should accept.
Given that Australia has perhaps the world’s longest coastline I question why this was never mentioned by our recently departed U.N. representative and ask why this was never used in our “Carbon Accounting”.
It would surely have covered the emissions of several HELE generating plants and saved us from the renewables catastrophe.
h/t Mr. F.
140
the net absorption by the oceans is unremarkable, what it implies is more remarkable though. With the oceans behaving in this way there must be an additional source of CO2. Radiocarbon measurements show that source is the burning of fossil fuels. The blooms of the phytoplankton show that around NZ like, on the west coast of South America there must be sources of nutrients which encourages such blooms. Typically this nutrient transport is related to upwellings from the deeper ocean.
111
That was discredited almost a decade ago. The ‘science’ of those radiocarbon measurements is flawed” https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
80
Bill – those sources you speak of (apart from gas) were always present. If you detect a change in the C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere, and you have identified the source, then vague ramblings of the ‘it just can not be so’ type do not cut it
look at these and then tell me what’s going on then (as you reject the science which is generally accepted)
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/isotopic_data/
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/iso-sio.html
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2014.html
17
‘which is generally accepted’ NO science should be generally accepted.
71
Gravity, germ theory, ballistics, conservation of momentum, thermodynamics… you don’t in general terms, accept these?
17
Only as far as measurements go. Remember Newtons laws are only non relativistic. And, yes ALL theories should be revised.
Ill mention one thing. ALL physical processes have to apply to ALL dimensions, that is from about 10^-26m to 10^26m. Think about that! Do you believe in quantum gravity?
41
what is your definition of ‘general’? You seem to not understand the normal definition
04
Peter Fitzroy,
Observations (e.g. gravity etc.) just are.
Scientific Theories as to why they are, are just incomplete human constructs (based on what we can perceive with our inadequate methods) for why they are.
Humans are not perfect and neither are our methods and theories. Our entire science methodology is based on our inadequacies of understanding and human error. That is not to say it is without merit, it is to understand that our scientific method is not complete or without errors but a continuing processes attempting to get closer to nature’s truth.
Our ‘science’ is more a catalog of approximations than a catalog of absolutes.
40
tom0mason – again, what is the definition of general that you are having trouble with?
04
theRealU,
Sure, you can challenge the accepted science. The hard bit is evidence, which you ain’t got, this is why you’re stuck here.
Think about that, do you believe in the scientific method ?.
23
Are you talking about the Real Science, or the Real Real Science or the IPCCCCC Unreal Science, or just Science?
It’s very confusing when people who very obviously aren’t science trained talk about the science or the accepted science on the basis of a belief in what some turkey pollie says.
KK
40
No what I was really doing was stirring PF :D. Of course there is well accepted hypotheses. But they are all only good as our observations of the universe.
20
Peter Fitzroy,
“again, what is the definition of general that you are having trouble with?”
Your absolutism!
Science is NOT about being absolutely correct for humans know nothing absolutely and understand even less. E.g. so much of science depends on time passing at an even rate but there is no evidence that it does or does not, it is just an assumption.
That your ‘definition of general’ appears to wish that observation and theory be muddled together.
For instance the idea that all the illogical sophistry and theory about CO2 and its rise is ‘known science’. It is NOT! Even the very name tagged on to CO2 (and water) — Greenhouse Gas — is utterly illogical, and only a muddled headed pseudoscientist would come out and insist on using such a nonsense phrase.
The idea that an illogical supposition about atmospheric CO2 properties and reasons for its rise is ‘known science’ is very contentious. It is an observation that recently atmospheric CO2 has risen, the reasons why (IMO) are obscured by so much assumption, supposition, and pseudoscience.
The scientific method gives us, both in general and in particular, an incomplete catalog of approximations and not a list of absolutes.
30
The long term decline in δ13C in atmospheric CO2 is due to the incremental CO2 having, on average, a lower 13C/12C ratio than the current atmospheric level (where the δ13C is around -8.5 per mil). The δ13C of CO2 from fossil fuel burning is estimated at -28 per mil, so directionally it is consistent with a decline in δ13C of atmospheric CO2. This value of δ13C is hardly distinguishable from CO2 from vegetation, at around -26 per mil. However, we can use the so-called Keeling plot (plot 1/CO2 vs δ13C) to estimate the δ13C of the incremental CO2. It is -13 per mil, i.e. nowhere close to the value expected if all the incremental CO2 was from fossil fuels and no other factors were influencing the 13C/12C ratio. This value of -13 per mil is not controversial in itself, as far as I know, but it is certainly not broadcast widely in the climate science literature. How often have you heard that the δ13C decline rate is consistent with an anthropogenic source? Directionally it is, but not in absolute terms.
Only two years ago, Ralph Keeling et al had to “introduce” an additional variable in order to achieve an acceptable match with the most recent atmospheric δ13C trend (2017 paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10361). Here is a quote from the abstract:
“Using updated records, we show that no plausible combination of sources and sinks of CO2 from fossil fuel, land, and oceans can explain the observed 13C-Suess effect unless an increase has occurred in the 13C/12C isotopic discrimination of land photosynthesis.”
This is not settled science.
130
That paper does not say that in the abstract. You are misquoting
05
This was a verbatim quote, now double-checked. You appear to have reading difficulties. I await your apology.
50
Here is the complete abstract:
Abstract
A decrease in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 has been documented by direct observations since 1978 and from ice core measurements since the industrial revolution. This decrease, known as the 13C-Suess effect, is driven primarily by the input of fossil fuel-derived CO2 but is also sensitive to land and ocean carbon cycling and uptake. Using updated records, we show that no plausible combination of sources and sinks of CO2 from fossil fuel, land, and oceans can explain the observed 13C-Suess effect unless an increase has occurred in the 13C/12C isotopic discrimination of land photosynthesis. A trend toward greater discrimination under higher CO2 levels is broadly consistent with tree ring studies over the past century, with field and chamber experiments, and with geological records of C3 plants at times of altered atmospheric CO2, but increasing discrimination has not previously been included in studies of long-term atmospheric 13C/12C measurements. We further show that the inferred discrimination increase of 0.014 ± 0.007‰ ppm−1 is largely explained by photorespiratory and mesophyll effects. This result implies that, at the global scale, land plants have regulated their stomatal conductance so as to allow the CO2 partial pressure within stomatal cavities and their intrinsic water use efficiency to increase in nearly constant proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
70
Radio carbon dating has been useful in helping monitor the turnover rate of CO2.
Following the early atomic testing C14 was the poster boy that provided so much insight into the issue but a little known event at Lucas Heights in Sydney has provided confirmation of the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere as being about 7 years.
It was found that the C12/C13 ratio you speak of has an inverse correlation @95% certainty with C14 and the newly discovered c15.
KK
40
I often wonder what archeologists will make of buried burnt out Teslas …
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-02/tesla-spontaneously-combusts-while-plugged-supercharger
“Firefighters were so concerned about the vehicle reigniting that they lifted the vehicle up with a crane and submerged it into a pool of water, which is usually the worst possible idea when dealing with a chemical fire:
“Moments later, the fire was extinguished by the fire department by immersing the car in a container with water. To ensure that the fire does not flare up again, the Tesla, or what remains of it, remained in the water for the rest of the night.”
20
Anything with that amount of energy storage will have a potential for trouble.
Wait till one of those grid storage units goes up in smoke! nuclear event?
20
My apologies.
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/06/weekend-unthreaded-262/#comment-2144286
Also for the item about C15.
Lucas Heights was.never involved in the C15 programme, for obvious reasons.
KK
00
Does anyone think that the International Phytoplankton League is going to meet to discuss protocols for the maintenance of year-round blooming to keep the carbon dioxide levels low and save the planet?
130
Creating new ocean carbon sinks is a novel approach, a lot of money to be made in carbon credits.
90
One of the possibilities that the IPL could explore in its inaugural meeting, obviously, avoid Paris, is the potential for accelerating the growth by harvesting.
Teams armed with sickles should be able to harvest mature plants to increase sequestration rates.
As a bonus, harvested material could be dried and used to replace dirty coal in power generation.
True BioFuel.
All material thus used would be effectively Carbon Neutral™.
A win win situation.
KK
50
Are you suggesting Plaktacide or they should just Krill themselves?
150
🙂
I’d settle for Carbon Neutrality from whatever source.
KK
50
True then and true now. Likely true for a very long time as well. For all of us!
Since it is clear that they don’t know what they don’t know, why then do we tend to believe they actually know what they say they know? Personally, I need a lot more than their word and their claim that 97% of their fellow travelers believe their word on the matter.
100
“97% of their fellow travelers”
I like that; subtle yet to the point, I’ll have to remember that quote for future discussions.
50
Maybe time to revive a modified version of that old mess-room chant
“Who called the
cookclimate scientist a bastard?”“Who called the bastard a
cookclimate scientist?”30
This bodes well for successful geoengineering by spreading chelated iron in our oceans.
50
Back in 2009 some geoengineers were spreading iron into the ocean to see what they could see. The usual paid pollution, trying to ape nature and doing it badly.
Came the 2009 El Nino spring in the southern hemisphere and the powerful westerlies picked up countless tonnes of new red silt from Australia’s interior and sent it to the Pacific ocean. For free. That’s right: little Nino feeds up the oceans for his sister Nina. (The oceans also like lots of iron-rich glacial melt.)
We don’t know if the geoengineers even noticed. Probably not. And the slave media reported the silt as disaster, pushing the usual buttons, dropping the usual hints about erosion and climate change.
The geoengineers are a particularly comical but malevolent branch of the comical but malevolent climatariat.
170
A few days ago we saw a report of a scientific study that concluded that the oceans are becoming more acidic because of the millions of tonnes of CO2 going in every year, with predictions of dire consequences for sealife.
I can’t remember the link but this is probably similar. Apologies if someone has already provided this link.
https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification
No doubt we see another scientific study soon that says the increasing acidity is killing the phytoplankton that reduce CO2 in the oceans.
60
“No doubt we see another scientific study soon that says the increasing acidity is killing the phytoplankton that reduce CO2 in the oceans.”
It seems the real science has beaten the fraudsters to it.
As announced here at 1 min 10 secs into the video the entire Southern ocean is getting greener.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmJftgctuME
For those who don’t like videos here is the link to the paper.
“Geophysical Research Letters banner
Research Letter
Is the Southern Ocean getting greener?
Carlos E. Del Castillo Sergio Signorini Erdem M. Karaköylü Sara Rivero‐Calle
First published: 30 May 2019 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083163
60
Ooops it seems i used the “F” word.
How about?
“No doubt we see another scientific study soon that says the increasing acidity is killing the phytoplankton that reduce CO2 in the oceans.”
It seems the real science has beaten them to it.
As announced here at 1 min 10 secs into the video the entire Southern ocean is getting greener.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmJftgctuME
For those who don’t like videos here is the link to the paper.
“Geophysical Research Letters banner
Research Letter
Is the Southern Ocean getting greener?
Carlos E. Del Castillo Sergio Signorini Erdem M. Karaköylü Sara Rivero‐Calle
First published: 30 May 2019 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083163
60
My little theory is that the CO2 estimates of Earnst Georg Beck will be the only CO2 data that works well with what will happen, that this rate of change is dictated by the sea surface effective solar UV modulation of the C.L.A.W. hypothesis, that this in-turn is related to the Brückner-Egeson-Lockyer cycle by the suns gamma radiation control of UV absorbing ozone at an Evans notch delay from the 22 year solar magnetic cycle, that these cycles at related harmonic rates trace back to a step change ringing described by these harmonics that began at the Younger Dryas, that the counter rotation of wind via diamagnetic oxygen and water accoring to Flemming’s had rules at distances away from the poles is varied through the sunspot cycle by ozone GEC conductivity and finally that the negative climate sensitivity of CO2 and negative feedback of water vapour by cloud albedo are actually the damping that calms both the long term ringing and reduces diurnal range and with it extreme weather that occurs on the cooling slope of the longer cycles.
CO2 is the cure not the problem. We need more. Simple really.
“180 Years of Atmospheric Co2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830507780682147
The counter rotation at the poles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMPIjT6z8LA
Solar gamma radiation.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/gamma-ray-data-reveal-surprises-about-the-sun-20190501
60
Wow!!!
So much packed into so small a space.
But just sifting some of the effects identified puts solar and ionization type items up there to be assessed along with the energy turnover in the much ignored water cycle.
No Model of the atmosphere can be even started until Every One Of These Obvious Effects Is Quantified.
Several of the effects mentioned are decadal but if the IPCCCCC was fair dinkum about modeling they would start with Earth’s 24 hour cycle.
One thing for sure, Human Origin CO2 is absolutely irrelevant and can be consigned to the “black box”.
Too hard?
KK
70
Kinky Keith
That you put effort to comprehend that is appreciated.
“Several of the effects mentioned are decadal but if the IPCCCCC was fair dinkum about modeling they would start with Earth’s 24 hour cycle.”
Yes, so many details can be easily calculated from short period rates of change. By averaging all sorts of things over long periods and ignoring or attempting to remove unknown cycles, mirages become clearer than reality. Especially when different periods of random confusion are multiplied by each other.
20
Siliggy, you may also be interested in this report by Nicholas R. Bates, that says
[my insert about aragonite]
From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328793063_Seawater_Carbonate_Chemistry_Distributions_Across_the_Eastern_South_Pacific_Ocean_Sampled_as_Part_of_the_GEOTRACES_Project_and_Changes_in_Marine_Carbonate_Chemistry_Over_the_Past_20_Years
60
Thanks tom0mason. That is close to something i was just reading up on so will devour it.
40
Is the increase in CO2 threatening the GBR? When JCU get involved its highly suspect.
‘Dr Bourne said one of many growing threats to the GBR and reefs around the world is macroalgae (seaweed).’
40
GREENISTS ARE PLAYING A HUGE GLOBAL JOKE ON US
I did not know that humanity’s total annual contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is just 4%. But now I do. I have been thinking about that fact. Where does the rest come from ?
it comes from volcanoes and sub sea vents in the seas. It comes from animals breathing out CO2 every minute they are alive. It also comes from the plants on the planet when there is no light and they cannot photosynthesise.
And we here in Australia contribute just beggarly 0.00004% of that 4% human global total. ( One per cent of the global total 4% = 0.00004% )
And Greenists want us to believe that we can ‘control’
global climate change by reducing our contribution of CO2 here in Australia ?
Surely this is a huge joke being played on naive and ignorant Australians.
And that includes our elected politicians.
160
Bugger, I always get my decimals & percentages mixed up.
That should be 0.004%
Too man zeros !
40
Better than too les zeros.
60
Bill
It is still wrong. It should be 0.04%
50
Thanks Clyde !
I always get decimals & percentages confused. !
Grrrrr!
50
Yes Clyde,
Working from about 400 parts per million for all CO2.
400 of 1,000,000
is
0.400 of 1,000
or
0.04 of 100 or 0.04%.
So CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
But, human origin CO2 is only about 4% of all CO2 in the air, so human origin CO2 is about 4/100 >< 0.04% or 0.0016% of the atmosphere.
To confuse things even more, 98% of available CO2 is dissolved in the oceans where it is engaged in attaching itself to calcium in the silt washed into the oceans after surface erosion.
Messy, no wonder the warmers don't bother with the science, it's too complicated.
🙂
KK
160
“Messy, no wonder the warmers don’t bother with the science” – too constipated… then splat!
Haven’t read the words yet, just got misty-eyed looking at those sexy – if somewhat bent – islands which make up this barely-above sea level (ie. drowned) continent named Zealandia.
I enjoy my job: today I spoke with a crusty old sea-dog, and a retired doctor who runs a vineyard, both of whom are den!ers of the settled séance. They know cycles, ebbs and flows, ups and downs, good years and bad – the winemaker has 35 years’ worth of temperature records for his micro-climate slopes and apart from minor fluctuations, no change, flat as. He wishes it was 2 or 3 degrees warmer but hey, ya takes da good wit da bad.
Forget the advertised as-seen-on-TV 97%… it’s only 0.0016%. Oh, and by the way, it’s COLD!
130
And as I have said in earlier posts, that is only a few molecules!
41
And what about Australia Koeth ?
We produce just 1% th global total.
Which means it is……. ????
Over to you Kieth !
30
Bill
1% of 0.0016 % is
0.000016%..
So Australia accounts for that amount of the human total in the atmosphere.
Are we Insignificant?
51
Absolutely !
Thanks Keith.
🙂
40
Finally a definition of “3/5ths of 5/8th of sfa”
40
CO2 is just 0.04 of the atmosphere, Man’s CO2 is 3% IIRC of that because of the massive increases in the developing world Australia is about 1.2% of that. That makes Australia’s just 0.000000144 of the atmosphere or 0.000014%. Put another way Australia in the last 200 years we added just 0.144 ppm. So if Australia didn’t exist we’d barely make a decimal place difference to CO2.
Then if course our healthy bio system here in Australia just loves to suck down CO2 and since photosynthesis is up over 11% since 1990 we aren’t actually adding anything , we’ve reached net zero in about 2010 and are currently net negative about 1.5GT per annum.
80
Bob, any science links for that info about the biology here in Australia ?
30
Let’s Sell those credits!
30
The politicians need to be told this.
00
Bill in Oz June 2, 2019 at 12:05 pm
GREENISTS ARE PLAYING A HUGE GLOBAL JOKE ON US
Of course they are!
For if the idea that levels of atmospheric CO2 were dangerous to the planet, then China and India would not be allowed to burn so much ‘fossil’ fuels. The very fact that they are allowed to shows what a lie it is. It is all just about money, power, and politics. There is NOTHING environmental or equitable about letting these two nations continue to increase their CO2 venting, and not allowing all other nations to do the same.
Thankfully the phytoplankton, like terrestrial plants, just get on with what they are good at. And they are good at converting the energy from sunlight with CO2, water, and a few minerals into complex chemical bonds of hydrocarbons. From solar energy to complex chemical bonds that are needed to sustain life on this planet.
20
The whole climate change business reminds me of advertising, such as if you use XXX margarine you will reduce your cholesterol levels in 14 days, or clinical studies have shown that if you use such and such face cream you will reduce wrinkles within two weeks. You all know the ones. With climate change it’s, scientific studies show that if you reduce CO2 emissions by stopping coal produced CO2 you will to stop climate change, except it’s not “if you” it’s “you have to.” But with advertising there are penalties for false claims.
90
The only penalty for making false claims in climate science is million dollar grants for more alarmist rubbish science .
20
The rate of increase of global CO2 levels is too closely correlated to the SH SST to be an actual physical phenomenon that was measured precisely. They are supposedly measuring global CO2 levels to 0.1 ppm ( in order to see such a good correlation) independently in many places and getting the same correlation despite the localised noise. Its a joke.
# the correlation is the difference between values for the same month in consecutive years, Tn+12 – Tn with t,n+8, and the HadSST SH after scaling by a factor of 3 to get the same line if best fit through each. The correlation being how similar the deviation from the linear trend is rather the the same line of best fit.
50
Interesting point.
20
I would agree with the ‘measured precisely’ bit.
Like all papers and research there are ALWAYS assumptions, many of which will turn out to be wrong.
40
Why does Cape Grim move in lockstep with the Antarctic measurement and not similar to the Baring Head. That image of phytoplankton blooms shows a concentration right across the Bight. Surely, should there be a difference from Grim to Antarctica?
60
Its not a question, Jonesy. You are making a statement….
Surely, there SHOULD be a difference from Grim to Antarctica!
…that’s better 😉
50
Don’t these phytoplankton realize they need to get with the UN program? Stop ameliorating human CO2 emissions at once!
90
30 May: Phys.org: Swapping water for CO2 could make fracking greener and more effective
by Cell Press
Scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and China University of Petroleum (Beijing) have demonstrated that CO2 may make a better hydraulic fracturing (fracking) fluid than water. Their research, published May 30 in the journal Joule, could help pave the way for a more eco-friendly form of fracking that would double as a mechanism for storing captured atmospheric CO2…
While the researchers believe this hydraulic fracturing technology will be scalable, its large-scale development is currently limited by CO2 availability. The cost of CO2 captured from emission sources is still prohibitively expensive to make CO2 an industry-wide fracking fluid replacement…
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-swapping-co2-fracking-greener-effective.html
50
Well why bother to capture CO2 anyway, stupid idea. Just save the expense altogether! You only need to capture it, if you belive it causes harm to the environment. You CANT capture it anyway as nature will oppose anything you try.
90
The most common chemical formulas for chalk are CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) and CaO (calcium oxide) …
… and the worldwide rate of chalk formation is?
Websearch ‘chalk cliffs’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_of_Dover
Contains a photo of sequestered Carbon Dioxide which has been raised above sea level.
‘About 70 million years ago Great Britain and much of Europe was submerged under a great sea. The sea bottom was covered with white mud formed from fragments of coccoliths, the skeletons of tiny algae that floated in the surface waters and sank to the bottom during the Cretaceous period and …’
websearch ‘chalk chemical composition’
https://www.reference.com/science/chemical-composition-chalk-77236e4f4cdea582
Chalk is calcium carbonate and has the same chemical composition as limestone, marble, ground calcium carbonate and precipitated calcium carbonate. Chalk, like the other types of calcium carbonate, is in the form of calcite, which is a crystal.
Chalk derives from shells of coccoliths or algae. When these marine organisms die, their shells build up deposits that are mined to make chalk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccolith
They sink through the water column to form an important part of the deep-sea sediments (depending on the water depth).
80
It’s always “surprising” to discover how “surprised” climate warmists are that plant fertilizer is “eaten” by plants and the more plant fertilizer the more plants eat. Simply astounding?
60
If the X Axis was temperature ?
10
“Previously Quirk found a huge 2.5Gt carbon spike in 1990 (which is 9Gt of CO2) — as if three extra China’s were suddenly emitting CO2 that year. The best explanation was that changes in wind patterns and ocean currents meant it was a bad year for phytoplankton. When phytoplankton struggle, they don’t draw down the usual CO2, hence the spike.”
That seems oddly related to this but the timing is wrong unless the shift in wind patterns and ocean currents also caused the Pinatubo eruption.
“ABSTRACT
The dynamics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is analyzed and it is shown that the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 had a noticeable effect on these dynamics. The growth rate slowed down. Moreover, analyzing the year-on-year CO2 growth data, we can see an an-thropogenic footprint, possibly due to the burning of fossil fuels.”
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=87807
20
“Another study (Martiny, 2013) found that phytoplankton might be drawing up twice as much carbon as modelers thought. While Guidi et al 2015 looked at viruses and discovered that only 10 out of 5,000 were predictive of CO2 levels and these were viruses that infected plankton.”
If that is true then will we see a shift in the C12/13 ratio that defies the “Fossil fuels” did it all theories because Henry’s law and exchange rates are different for isotopes. Also does plankton get selective and have a preference for C12,C13 or C14?
“For example, the same ratio calculated for 16O2 and 18O16O shows that the 16O will react about 15% faster than the 18O16O molecule.
The greater translational velocities of lighter molecules also allows them to break through a liquid surface more readily and hence evaporate more quickly than a heavy molecule of the same composition. Thus water vapor above the ocean typically has d18O around –13 per mil, whereas at equilibrium the vapor should only be about 9 per mil lighter than the liquid.”
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes03/656%2003Lecture27.pdf
“C12 and C13 are stable isotopes of carbon- they both occur naturally in the environment and do not undergo any natural physical transformations over time. However, because of a small difference in their molecular weights due to the “extra” neutron in the C13 isotope, these two isotopes are processed quite differently in the environment.”
https://wyrdscience.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/isotopes/
40
I have not got a reference to hand right now, but my understanding is that phytoplankton discriminate against 13C in the same way that terrestrial plants do, i.e. during photosynthesis they preferentially remove 12C. The impact of discrimination at various boundaries according to NOAA can be found here: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html (bottom of page).
20
Thanks Jim Ross. Saved.
10
Forget phytoplankton!
Their ABC headline: Counting my carbs: What I learnt on my year-long low-carbon diet:
Plastic really is fantastic
I love War on Waste, so this was a shock. Plastic packaging saves carbon.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-02/what-i-learned-about-carbon-emissions-on-a-low-carbon-diet/11129746
31
“Three Examples That Prove the Media and Politicians Have No Clue What They Are Doing in Climate Science Inconvenient Truths: Opinion by Chris Martz and Daniel Lai”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/02/three-examples-that-prove-the-media-and-politicians-have-no-clue-what-they-are-doing-in-climate-science-inconvenient-truths-opinion-by-chris-martz-and-daniel-lai/
40
31 May: E&E News: Trump was briefed on plan to review climate science
by Scott Waldman
A White House initiative to scrutinize climate science appears to be making headway.
Will Happer, the senior director for emerging technologies at the National Security Council, met with President Trump earlier this month to brief him on the plan, according to two sources. The initiative is expected to highlight uncertainties in climate research and downplay the threat of global warming to national security…
Steve Koonin, a former Obama administration Energy Department official and a physicist at New York University, is closely involved in the planning. Both he and Happer were involved in former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s plan to conduct a “red team, blue team” review of climate science. Pruitt got the idea for that effort, which was eventually shut down by former White House chief of staff John Kelly, from a Wall Street Journal op-ed written by Koonin.
Last month, Koonin spoke to students at Purdue University in Indiana and essentially outlined his reasons for why he wants to conduct an “update” of the National Climate Assessment.
“There’s a real disconnect between what’s in the reports and in the scientific literature and what you hear in the political, in the popular and in the media coverage of climate science,” he said, according to video of the event. “There are natural influences that are also operative, and you better have those under control if you’re going to attribute what you see to human influences.”
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060435901
10
O/T Time to jump ship if you haven’t already!
“Daily Beast Says Facebook Helped Them Dox Trump Supporter”
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/02/daily-beast-says-facebook-helped-them-dox-trump-supporter/
20
Burnt Cable award goes to…….drum roll….Tassie & Victoriastan for thier unrelenting reliance of unreliables…..
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/company-news/hydro-tasmania-confirms-basslink-outage-due-to-fault-at-a-converter-station/ar-AAChsZV?ocid=mailsignout
“”He said the outage is having both a physical and financial impact on both the Victorian and Tasmanian energy systems.
“Unable to trade during the outage, Mr White said Hydro Tasmania could possibly be losing thousand of dollars with each hour that passes.
“Basslink are in legal dispute with both Hydro Tasmania and the State Government over who is to blame for the six-month outage that stopped electricity imports and exports in Tasmania.
40
Wait.
The Southern Ocean may be less of a carbon sink than we thought.
The water surrounding Antarctica may be belching more CO2 than it takes in …
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/southern-ocean-antarctica-absorbs-less-carbon-expected
10
They thought the Southern Ocean soaked up half the human induced CO2, now they have changed their minds. I like the autonomous sail boards.
30
wanted to find Qld MP Shayne Neumann’s overnight quotes on Adani. clicked to view all of a group of stories at top of google results. got only one result (see The Australian below) on the topic, plus four tweets dated 31 May (unelated to Neumann) by Sarah Hanson-Young, Larissa Waters, Christine Milne and ABC’s Allyson Horn.
top result (also unrelated to Neumann) was:
The Conversation – 4h ago – Explaining Adani: why would a billionaire persist with a mine that will probably lose money? by John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland; Disclosure statement: John Quiggin is a long-standing critic of the Carmichael mine project and has worked with a number of NGOs opposed to the project, including Farmers for Climate Action.
second place, behind paywall:
The Australian: Labor’s Shayne Neumann backs Adani, says party must get behind coal mining – 2 Jun 2019
Labor frontbencher Shayne Neumann says he would be happy for more coal mining, including the $2 billion Adani Carmichael coalmine, to take place in Queensland if it generates jobs…
not showing in the results is what I was looking for, and finally found – Adani: key factor in Qld election outvomr:
VIDEO: 15min: 3 Jun: Sky News: Labor can’t ‘be against mining in Queensland’ and still ‘think it can win seats’
Labor frontbencher Shayne Neumann says the Adani Carmichael coal mine ‘is good’ if it beefs up jobs in Queensland, provided it also stacks up against environmental concerns.
The member for Blair says, ‘I’m happy for more mining generally to take place’. Mr Neumann has told Sky News ‘you can’t be against mining in Queensland and think you can win seats’ across the state. His remarks come ahead of Labor leader Anthony Albanese’s shadow cabinet reshuffle announcement, which Sky News Political Editor David Speers says will include Mr Neumann in a role ‘aimed at helping the party rebuild in the Sunshine State’.
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6043625958001
paraphrasing above:
Neumann says we can’t just give away 20 seats to the LNP and win government. Queenslanders are pro-mining as well as pro-environment.
Speers: does that extend to more coal mining a good thing?
Neumann: Qld Govt has approved a number of mining projects during the time Adani has been considered. you can’t be against mining in Qld and think you can win seats in Qld.
outlines the economic benefits to the State. royalties underpin the Qld budget and they will in the budget announced very shortly. it’s a very decrentralised State and you have to listen to the voices of regional Qld. Queenslanders are no less environmentally-concerned than any other State. on to Labor’s CAGW policies.
—
now Labor want to be seen as the jobs overseers:
LNP blasts hypocritical ‘Carmichael crew’ in jobs fight
Townsville Bulletin – 3 Jun 2019
A band of regional MPs including those from Townsville have been ridiculed by the LNP for creating the “Carmichael crew”, a group dedicated to holding Adani to account on regional jobs…
State Labor MPs Coralee O’Rourke (Mundingburra), Scott Stewart (Townsville) and Aaron Harper (Thuringowa), are half of the six-member group, which includes Julieanne Gilbert (Mackay), Barry O’Rourke (Rockhampton) and Brittany Lauga (Keppel). An email sent out on Friday from the Mackay electorate office states the group… Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington slammed the six MPs as “gutless” and “spineless”…”after federal Labor’s annihilation at the election have some of these spineless regional Labor MPs crawled out from underneath their rocks.”…
10
Pat, Neumann was the shadow minister for immigration from 2013-2019
He was an open borders fanatic
That can be established very quickly by checking out his MP’s Facebook page.
There are regular posts about the evils of the Government’s Turnback policy and Off shore detention policy.
Or at least there were when I last looked.
And he lost a huge number of votes as a result.
Blair is no longer a safe labor seat.
So he’s seeking a way to restore his own safety margin in the next election.
backing Adani, after the election los, is his way of doing this
20
OT but over at the far left ABC comes this bit of comedy about the futility of Adani, the best bit as near the end of this sook session .
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-03/adani-carmichael-mine-will-lose-money-so-why-invest-in-coal/11172602
10
the power of one (climate protester), according to The Times and Climate Home:
behind paywall:
2 Jun: UK Times: China’s solitary climate change striker skips school to save the planet
by Amy Hawkins, Beijing
China’s southern city of Guilin is known for its stunning natural beauty, with dramatic limestone mountains jutting out from the idyllic River Li.
Now the city’s lush environment is home to China’s first lone strike against climate change.
Instead of going to school, Howey Ou, 16, has been protesting outside the Guilin people’s government building since last Sunday, inspired by Greta Thunberg, the Swedish schoolgirl who sparked a global youth movement in defence of the environment.
“For a long time, I have been scared about this catastrophic situation caused by humans,” Howey told The Sunday Times last week.
She travels 12 miles from her home each morning, rain or shine, to sit outside the building with placards proclaiming: “Climate crisis: school strike” and “We are faced with the greatest survival crisis in the history of mankind…”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c2c6c2ca-849c-11e9-9c90-e3a0a98b2f12
23 May: ClimateChangeNews: Until Russia allows us to rise together, I will strike for the climate alone
Unapproved protests of more than one person are illegal, so Arshak Makichyan has picketed solo in Pushkin Square for months to call for climate action
By Arshak Makichyan
If you want to protest in Russia, it easier to move to another country. But Russia is a part of our planet and we need to change all countries, not only the “good” ones…
We cannot be ruled by fear. But fear came first. I was a 24-year-old student when I read about Greta Thunberg on Greenpeace International. I could not even imagine doing something like that in Russia…
So, like Greta, I decided to make my stand alone, every Friday in Pushkin Square in the middle of the capital…
And don’t forget, here oil companies and mass media are mostly ***state owned. That’s why “our” mass media are completely silent about global warming. Like when the UK declared an ecological emergency, they said nothing, about the Fridays for Future protests of more than one million people around the world, they said nothing…
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/05/23/russia-allows-us-rise-together-i-will-strike-climate-alone/
***if only our state-owned media would follow suit.
30
behind paywall – lol:
2 Jun: UK Times: HSBC invests in cycling with cuts to staff parking
HSBC is swapping spaces for bike racks to persuade workers to drive less, and to discover why Britons still refuse to pedal
by Nicholas Hellen, Social Affairs Editor
Pinching someone’s parking spot can be unwise, but Britain’s biggest bank has told staff their treasured perk must be sacrificed to help convert the country to a nation of cyclists.
HSBC UK is replacing 90% of the 700 staff car parking spaces in its two new regional centres, and installing bike racks and changing rooms instead. The move is part of an eight-year programme worth between £80m and £100m, in which the bank’s 34,000 workforce will act as guinea pigs for a giant experiment to get Britons on their bikes.
The bank aims to solve a riddle that has defeated ministers. It wants to discover why so many people will not ride a bike even when they know it is good for them…
HSBC is seeking to enlist 1,280 staff to volunteer for a formal academic study to work out what is putting off potential cyclists…
Announcing the Cycle Nation Project this weekend, Ian Stuart, chief executive of HSBC UK, said: “Nobody gets a car parking space [at our Birmingham HQ] unless they have a disability. It won’t suit everyone and I understand that.” He added: “I am not a fanatical cyclist. I don’t own Lycra.”…
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4525e684-848d-11e9-9c90-e3a0a98b2f12
20
Britain is usually cold and miserable….that is the main reason people dont ride….
That and treating people like bike-riding peasants isnt going to work…
30
behind paywall:
2 Jun: UK Times: Mankind isn’t doomed, just facing a challenge
Painting humanity as the architects of climate destruction is a cheap shot
by Gillian Bowditch
What will you be doing in 10 years? Forget any notion of Caribbean cruises. You will, like the rest of us, be grubbing round the barren wasteland that is Scotland, seeking some nourishing insect to feed your parched, hollow-eyed children, while fending off desperate neighbours whose home have been swallowed by the expanding, polluted oceans.
Welcome to Scotland 2030. It’s not my vision, but that of Francesca Osowska, the head of Scottish Natural Heritage, an agency more usually associated with rescuing bats, repairing footpaths and conserving beavers.
Osowska told the Royal Society of Edinburgh last week: “Imagine an apocalypse: polluted waters; drained and eroding peatlands; coastal towns and villages deserted in the wake of rising sea level and coastal erosion; massive areas of forestry afflicted by disease; a dearth of people in rural areas; and no birdsong.”
It rather makes you wonder why her agency is spending roughly £50m a year employing 700 souls – not to mention £1m on outside consultants – promoting outdoor learning in deprived areas, developing cycle routes, and creating the Scottish biodiversity route map.
Wouldn’t it be better to build us all bunkers?…
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/65f6cee2-84aa-11e9-bfd1-5bcc3def9896
01
Times already did a straight piece, it seems:
Climate apocalypse will be here by 2030, Scots warned
The Times – 29 May 2019
Francesca Osowska, head of Scottish Natural Heritage, will paint a grim picture of the future and make a plea for action at a lecture…
Scotland faces climate ‘apocalypse’ without action to cut emissions
The Guardian – 31 May 2019
Francesca Osowska, chief executive of Scottish Natural Heritage, said the world had barely a decade to shift to a low carbon economy…
MSPs at Holyrood are resisting proposals for mandatory 20mph zones in urban areas and taxing workplace parking to help cut transport emissions…
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/31/scotland-apocalypse-action-cut-emissions
Climate ‘apocalypse’ to leave Scotland with abandoned villages, doomed forests and no birdsong within decade
Warming world and commercial pressures putting country at risk of severe degradation, Scottish Natural Heritage warns
The Independent – 30 May 2019
Outlining the apocalyptic scenario the country could face within the next decade, Francesca Osowska, head of Scottish Natural Heritage…
One-fifth of all Scots farmland ‘should be returned to wilderness’
International-HeraldScotland – 29 May 2019
Osowska: “Well-structured regulations, incentives and subsidies are needed. And these have to operate at landscape and sea-scape scales.
“And we can act now through stopping the use of plastic straws and cups, and drastically reduce our food waste.”…
Wikipedia: Scottish Natural Heritage: Executive non-departmental public body of the Scottish Government.
Bloomberg: Ms. Francesca Osowska has been Director of Housing, Regeneration and the Commonwealth Games at Scottish Government since January 5, 2011. Ms. Osowska’s first job was in the Civil Service as an economist in 1993, where she took up a post in the employment department, based in Sheffield. Her stints in London and Brussels, preceded a move to Edinburgh in 1997 and a role as a Government Economist with the Scottish Office…
She was educated in Cumbria and at Cambridge University, where she obtained an MA in Economics, followed by an MA in European Economics from the College of Europe in Bruges.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=224865353&privcapId=224644125&previousCapId=677583&previousTitle=IMI%252520PLC
20
There is a far simpler explanation. As is evident from the rapid removal of C14 from the atmosphere, the huge reservoir of CO2 in the sea, 50x that in the sky is in rapid equilibrium with the CO2 in the air. Henry’s law. Physical chemistry. Oxygen is in rapid exchange too or fish would drown. Remember also that phytoplankton get their essential CO2 from the water. It’s all about the oceans and the sun. We land creatures on the 25% of notionally habitable dirt hardly matter, even with our cars and hamburgers.
As can be seen from the C14 graph, the biosphere is relatively inert. Not detectable in the decay of C14. It is going back to the 1900 levels, about 2% under the levels of the last 20,000 years. No noticeable dilution from fossil CO2 which has no C14.
So without the phytonplankton or the forests and jungles, the fact is that if the sea surface warms CO2 goes up. This happens once a year an as the Pacific covers half the planet, you expect CO2 to follow the seasons as it does. Also if the increase in surface temperature is constant, CO2 growth is contants with relatively small seasons osciallations. Exactly as we see.
The lags are interesting. As the C14 ‘bomb’ graph shows, there is a 2 year lag across the equator. You get similar lags from left to right was well as CO2 is blown to the right and the world spins to the left.
So simple physical chemistry, the sun and the seasons (again the sun) explain everything. All CO2 can be fitted simply with the 25 year De Vries solar intensity cycle combined with induced Pacific Decadal oscillation.
You don’t even need the biosphere to explain CO2 levels but it is true, half the world’s O2 comes from the oceans which also means half the world’s consumption of CO2 by plants, not the jungles of Brazil or the endless forests of Siberia.
Rising sea surface temperatures mean rising atmospheric CO2. Simple. To draw the reverse conclusion is simply opportunistic made up science.
50
Sorry, I meant to write all temperatures of the last 2500 years can be fitted nicely with two wave forms as explained by Dr. Weiss in his remarkable lecture. Fourier transforms showed this without prejudice. So there is no puzzle, except why so many scientists go along with the endlessly silly predictions of CO2 driven warming let alone man controlled CO2 levels. We are insignificant and that’s fine but some people really want to climb Mt Everest, to prove something. One person was enough.
50
The other great silliness is ocean acidification, when no ocean is acid. So you heat water and CO2 comes out but in the new science, CO2 goes up and heats the water and CO2 goes in. The only thing wrong with this theory is everything. Try heating beer or lemonade or champagne to make it absorb CO2 and become fizzier and more acidic.
70
TdeF, thanks for that pearl of common sense wisdom !
20
Yes excellent comment
20
You make some good points TdF, but I would disagree slightly with one of them. We do not see the same delay that is observed for 14C (which comes from a “localised” source) when looking at variations in the 13C/12C ratio (expressed as δ13C). Delays of a few months at a maximum. I think this is important because it points to an equilibrium process that is occuring essentially simultaneously either side of the equator which, in turn, supports the view that it is driven by something large and more extensively distributed than other possible sources, i.e. the oceans.
10
Jim, I am concerned at this novel C13/C12 ratio science. Chemically C12 and C13 are absolutely identical. C13 is 1% against 99% for C12. CO2 made from C13 at a weight of (13+32=) 45 is supposedly sufficiently heavier than CO2 made from C12 (12+32=44) to make a difference in photosynthesis. However I remain skeptical that the uptake of C13 as CO2 is consistently less than C12 in all cases. This really hard to explain and this would have to be universally true. Worse you must be dealing with a very small difference and that makes the conclusions difficult with large relative errors. It might be like cold fusion. So I remain very skeptical that the story of reliable differential uptake is true and consistent across the entire biosphere, which is a necessary condition. If some plant (say phytoplankton) have a preference for the heavier C13, it all changes.
Why do they bother? C14 is a trillionth of C12. Radioactive as well it is easily measured by instruments in an absolute way and not dependent totally on the alleged differential absorption by all plant life from phytoplankton to oak trees. Simply old fossil fuels have no C14. Zero. The perfect tracer.
So putting a date on things with C14 is an absolute. Easy. Putting dates on a tiny difference between C13 and C12 uptake biologically is a risky enterprise where the truth will probably be lost in the error bars. Plus you have to prove it is true and consistent across all significant plant life on the planet, an impossible task.
I am offended that this is called the “Suess effect” in Wikipedia. It’s as if someone is determined to muddy the waters, destroy the credibility of radio carbon dating. Professor Suess would be very upset.
20
In this video (posted before, he says (atmospheric) C14 is only due to the atomic testing from the 1950s onwards and has declined according to Ed Berry’s equation. which they proved.
I cant imagine how C13 would be filtered by the plankton, at such tiny levels.
20
The C14 is entirely due to cosmic rays acting on nitrogen in the stratosphere and higher. With a half life of 5740 years, it has taken millions of years to be stable but it has been stable for perhaps 100,000 years. That is how radio carbon dating works. When CO2 is taken up by plants and the plant dies, it stops being replaced and it decays predictably. As C12 does not decay but C14 does, we can get the date of old plants and thus animal life with amazing precision from the C14/C12 ratio.
Yes, the additional C14 has come from atom bomb atmospheric blasts around 1965 and it has vanished from the bisophere in a perfect e-kt graph, indiciating one and only one massive sink, a sink so big nothing comes back. Not in 55 years. Only the ocean qualifies in size. It totally disproves teh Bern concept of biosphere CO2 equilibrium.
Consider that it is nearly all gone after 55 years, an instant of time in 5740 years. Where did it go? It’s radioactive, so we would see it. It’s gone.
What that means is that it has been swapped out by the mass of modern CO2 in the oceans in constant equilibrium.
Now as for the decline. It is not to zero. It is to the base level of 1900, half of what it was suddenly in 1965. Up to 1960 the C14 levels proved conclusively that fossil fuel CO2 was less than 2% of all CO2. Soon it will be again.
As for the idea that plankton is picky on which CO2 molecule it likes, weight 44 vs weight 45, someone is kidding. The chemistry is identical and the tiny nucleus is not involved in the chemistry. It might be now considered old science but I remain very skeptical that any plant or plankton has the ability to pick and choose CO2 molecules based on 2% weight difference in a gas.
20
Great video. Thanks.
I completely agree with Ed Berry but what is very new for me in this video is that as surface temperature goes up, the C13/C12 goes down. This is not complex plant activity. This is good old evaporation!
I do not believe the weight of C12 and C13 as CO2 (45 vs 44) would make any difference in chemical reactions, say in a fluid where weight doesn’t matter because everything is weightless in solution. However their discovery that C13 drop was coincident with higher temperatures works for me. In fact I would expect it to be anticyclic with temperature.
A C13 based CO2 molecule is heavier than the common C12 one. Evaporation occurs because some molecules move faster than others. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules, 1/2 MV^2. Mass and velocity. So the lighter mass C12 molecule would have a higher velocity at the same temperature and it is statistically more likely to reach ‘escape velocity’. Higher temperatures, less C13 escapes than C12. Now that fits the observation.
As I said, thanks. It all fits now and C13/C12 ratios have a place in proving that massive man made CO2 growth in the 20th century is a lie. The IPCC trade on authority, not truth.
So forget photosynthesis. As proved again by the tenacious and studious Murray Selby, the C13/C12 ratio is anticyclic with temperature. So in simple physical chemistry it confirms the source of the new CO2 is evaporation from the ocean surface. The IPCC argue the exact opposite and they are wrong.
00
Third para….did you mean lighter weight C12 molecule TdeF? Or is my tired brain getting itself muddled?
10
Lighter mass 🙁
10
Yep. Sorry. It will be fixed.
10
Good pickup and clearly you understand it. I am actually pleased to understand what they are talking about and have a rational explanation for it. The idea that C12 and C13 are so different in solution or biochemistry or that plants can somehow filter CO2 molecules seems ridiculous. However to be different in escape velocity makes a lot of sense and fits, but it took Murry Selby’s discovery to make it obvious. He found the effect without any plants involved, just surface temperature. It shows what tenacious analysis can achieve. One day he might be recognized for his great work and courage.
10
TdF,
I had already written this before your latest comment so I’ll go ahead here and maybe comment further below.
So, you have changed your view regarding the potential value of the 13C/12C ratio data. This is good. I liked the video too, but he was of course wrong to ascribe the isotope data to satellites. It is from direct physical sampling. He also states that the “humans burn 12C carbon, as that is what is associated with crude oil and methane burned in natural gas”. This is a bizarre statement, as both crude oil and methane contain 13C as well as 12C. Presumably he meant that it has a lower 13C/12C content (relatively more 12C) than the atmosphere.
I am afraid that it is too simplistic to say that “as surface temperature goes up, the C13/C12 goes down”. There at least 4 different causes of variation in atmospheric CO2: there are the daily and annual (seasonal) variations, plus of course the long term trend and variations in that trend linked to ENSO. Luckily the 13C/12C ratio changes provide us with some key information, the first of which is that as the temperature rises each day, the 13C/12C ratio increases. This is photosynthesis in action (preferential removal of 12C) or, if you prefer, 12C escaping. The same thing happens with the seasonal data. The long term trend is what we are really interested in, however, and it is the 13C/12C data that allows us to distinguish the daily/annual variations from the trend. In this case, the 13C/12C ratio is decreasing over time and actually decreases faster during El Niño.
As I said way up thread “It [the δ13C of the incremental CO2] is -13 per mil, i.e. nowhere close to the value expected if all the incremental CO2 was from fossil fuels and no other factors were influencing the 13C/12C ratio.”
00
TdF,
It’s hardly novel science. There are uncertainties, of course, and there are variations in 13C discrimination, such as between C3 and C4 plants, but the daily and annual variations in δ13C are clearly linked (inversely) to variations in levels of atmospheric CO2, which are in turn largely driven by the processes of photosynthesis and respiration (terrestrial and marine). Indeed, it is these measuremnts that demonstrate the point I made earlier, that the incremental atmospheric CO2 cannot simply be explained by the “it’s all due to fossil fuels” argument.
Why bother? Simple really. Any hypothesis, which is no more than a possible explanatory model after all, must be consistent with all observations. I am not attacking your hypothesis – far from it – but I am pointing out other information that may (or may not) support it.
20
” which are in turn largely driven by the processes of photosynthesis and respiration”
I cannot agree. That is my point. Over a very long time Earth has changed from a CO2 rich planet to a CO2 poor planet. Greedy vegetation and phytoplankton. The only limits to their growth are sunlight, CO2 and water. Of these, the greatest need is CO2 which is in very short supply.
CO2 levels in the ocean are amazing. The ocean itself is 3.4km deep. it covers 75% of the planet and weight 340 x as much as the atmosphere. No suprise then that there is more gas in the water than in the air. That’s how life evolved and almost all large life breathes the output of plants, O2 and metabolized hydrated CO2, carbohydrates.
So if the sea surface temperature goes up, CO2 goes up. Really simple and obvious. However we are being asked to believe the opposite, that CO2 goes into the ocean and that it is CO2 which produces the warming.
As for old science, that does not make it good science. As explained I believe the whole C12/C13 is so prone to experimental error on such a marginal and even unlikely chemical differential that it is dubious and even if it were true. it is a second degree measure. We are talking about a 2% difference in weight being significant chemically? Unlikely.
Besides, C14 is a first order measure directly of what we want, fossil fuel vs modern CO2. Just proposing that C13/C12 ratios cast doubt on absolute C14 measurements is not good enough. I would go with the direct measure every time. Extremely sensitive plant physiology and biochemistry is not an issue then. You can directly measure fossil fuel CO2. It’s quite amazing.
10
Jim, please read the comments above. We now have a very simple basis for differentiation of C12 and C13 and it is nothign to do with plants. Just evaporation, my word for the escape of masses of CO2 from the ocean. It would be prejudiced against C13 and even more prejudiced with higher temperature. What was established was that there was a difference. What I have never read was a reasonably good explanation which fitted with known science.
00
The escape velocity issue is well known and is in fact reflected in the estimated 13C/12C ratio for any CO2 flux from the ocean to the atmosphere. The δ13C for any flux is given as -9.5 per mil by NOAA , much lower (more 12C) than in situ values of around zero or even slightly positive. This is also much closer to the value for all incremental atmospheric CO2 (of whatever source) of -13 per mil compared to fossil fuels of -28 per mil.
As I noted above, higher temperatures lead to higher 13C/12C ratio on a daily/seasonal basis but if the incremental CO2 is from the oceans it would lead to a lower 13C/12C ratio (which of course is what we see in the longer term trend).
00
Chiefio asks how fast an acre of forest might be able to pull the CO2 out of an acre of air and does the calculations …
‘A fast forest species like Poplar or Eucalyptus can completely deplete about twice as much volume of air as sits above that forest (all the way to space) and a fertile pond growing pond scum could completely deplete 20 X the volume of air as sits above it, in one year.’ Chiefio https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/of-trees-volcanos-and-pond-scum/
10
brave!
31 May: Guardian: Labour would force firms to fight climate crisis or lose contracts
Exclusive: Companies bidding for public sector contracts must ‘put people and planet before profit’
by Fiona Harvey
PIC STUDENT CLIMATE PROTEST: Labour was instrumental in having parliament declare a climate emergency
Companies bidding for public sector contracts will be forced to take radical steps to tackle the climate crisis under new regulations being proposed by the Labour party, addressing energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and waste.
If elected, the party would force suppliers to “put people and planet before profit”, with the threat of losing contracts if they do not, in a stark redrawing of priorities for contract bidders.
The government buys goods and services worth about £284bn from the private sector every year, making it one of the biggest single customers for many private sector companies. The proposed changes would force companies to take a much greater role in combating the climate emergency, and have a knock-on effect across the business sector as they would be more likely to replicate those standards in other non-public sector work.
If it was elected, Labour would also ensure the public sector bodies that deliver goods and services, including the NHS, would have to adhere to higher green standards. Shadow ministers have already pledged to “insource” more goods and services to the public sector, rather than favouring private companies.
Standards on trade union recognition, late payments and tax compliance would also be updated and enforced…READ ON, INCLUDES THE FAILURE OF A SIMILAR PLAN BY TONY BLAIR IN 2006.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/31/labour-businesses-public-sector-contracts-climate-emergency
50
Nuts!
30
Secret Farage helpers
20
UK Labor got 12% of the vote in the EU elections 10 days ago
Now that’s huge level of support for Labor
And it’s program !
The UK Labor party has been taken over by inner city tertiary educated idiots.
Just like here in Oz.
Stuff ’em !
Said by a former member of the ALP in Victoria
For 17 years.
30
It’s just a jump to he left.
Let’s do the time warp again.
H/t Mao’s Cultural Revolushun
40
Neslen usually advocates for the UN’s CAGW rubbish. doesn’t he see any irony in this piece?
3 Jun: Guardian: Science institute that advised EU and UN ‘actually industry lobby group’
International Life Sciences Institute used by corporate backers to counter public health policies, says study
by Arthur Neslen
The Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) describes its mission as “pursuing objectivity, clarity and reproducibility” to “benefit the public good”.
But researchers from the University of Cambridge, Bocconi University in Milan, and the US Right to Know campaign assessed over 17,000 pages of documents under US freedom of information laws to present evidence of influence-peddling…
The study, published on Monday in the journal Globalization and Health, found that when ILSI’s regional offices failed to promote industry-friendly messaging, they were subjected to sanctions…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/03/science-institute-that-advised-eu-and-un-actually-industry-lobby-group
20
2 Jun: AP: California snowpack 202% of average for this time of year
The amount of snow blanketing the Sierra Nevada is even larger than the 2017 snowpack that pulled the state out of a five-year drought, California water officials said.
As of Thursday, the snowpack measured 202% of average after a barrage of storms throughout winter and spring, according to the Department of Water Resources….
At this time last year, the snowpack measured 6% of average — making this year 33 times bigger than 2018, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
In 2017, the snowpack measured 190% of average.
The snowpack supplies about 30 percent of state water needs.
In the Tahoe Basin, Squaw Valley ski resort has seen so much snow it plans to keep its slopes open until least July 5. In May alone, Squaw recorded 37 inches (94 centimeters)…
This year’s April 1 reading put the snowpack at 176% of average, making it the fifth-largest on that date, with records going back to 1950, the Chronicle said.
https://www.apnews.com/4bb748a1c13d4dd1ab0ee3e0cebcf8e5?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=APWestRegion
30
Ha! Ha! Global warming and they are skiing in July! The same in Spain on their Sierra Nevadas in Andalusia, a very good season extended. The snow season in Victoria has started already with good falls. All thanks to Global Warming. As Donald Trump said, where is it when you need it?
10
can’t see a link to the letter. what a joke:
3 Jun: BBC: PM to challenge Trump’s approach on climate
Theresa May will raise the issue of climate change with Donald Trump during his upcoming visit to the UK, Downing Street has told BBC News.
The confirmation coincides with UK climate researchers asking the prime minister to “robustly challenge” President Trump on the topic.
In a letter to Mrs May, 250 academics say the president’s “reckless approach is a threat to the whole world”.
In 2018, the president accused climate experts of having a “political agenda”…
The academics’ letter was organised by Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE)…
The letter was signed by academics and policy analysts from 35 universities and research institutes across the UK…
The experts add that they believe honouring the US president with a state visit is “incompatible” with Britain’s leadership on climate change.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48473658
read all:
3 Jun: Townhall: Will Climate Change Drive a Million Species Extinct?
by Vijay Jayaraj
(Vijay Jayaraj M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England, Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in Bangalore, India)
An assessment report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) says so…
The mainstream media reacted with the credence a devout religious person would give to a sacred text…
But the claim was foolish. Why?
Like the periodic assessment reports on climate change from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the report’s primary objective seems to be to blame humans for creating chaos.
Reality suggests otherwise…
The IPCC’s assessment reports rely, for their claims about future warming, on computer climate models. But the models predict far more warming than actually observed. That means we can’t rely on them to predict future temperature. And that means we can’t rely on them to predict future species extinction driven by future temperature…
My master’s degree focused on ecological responses to climate change. After completing it, I researched the impact of climate change on global marine life at some of the world’s leading research institutes.
In all my studies, I found hardly any evidence to support the IPBES’s outlandish claims about species extinction driven by human-induced global warming…
https://townhall.com/columnists/vijayjayaraj/2019/06/03/will-climate-change-drive-a-million-species-extinct-n2547174
20
no-one is linking to the letter, but it will mostly be the same mob as last time:
reminder:
2018: LSE: UK Prime Minister Responds to Concerns About President Trump’s Climate Change Policy
135 members of the UK’s climate change research community, including 15 UCL researchers, wrote to the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May ahead of the July 2018 visit of President Trump.
In the letter to Theresa May (***LINK)
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/domains/environment/news/response-to-trump-climate-change-letter
indeed – those named below are signatories on the 2018 letter:
Theresa May must take President Trump to task over climate change, scientists say
iNews – 3 Jun 2019
But the country is in danger of losing its credibility on climate change if it does not take this opportunity to lobby President Trump to change his actions, said the academics, which include
Professor Chris Rapley, the leading climate scientist best known for staging a series of performances about climate change, involving himself, at the Royal Court Theatre in London…
Other signatories to the letter include University College London Professor Hugh Montgomery, a former guest on Desert Island Discs who discovered the first fitness gene and one of the world’s top climate scientists, Emeritus Professor Joanna Haigh, of Imperial College London…
Guardian: Press Association: Hundreds of climate ***crisis experts have urged Theresa May to confront Donald Trump over his approach to the issue during his state visit this week…
2 Jun: CNN: UK and Trump miles apart on climate change
***By Mark Lynas
(Editor’s Note: Mark Lynas is a writer on climate change, and visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University)
During the previous month, protesters from Extinction Rebellion took over strategic points in central London blah blah…
As part of the global climate school strike movement, the UK has now seen several day-long protests by tens of thousands of schoolchildren, who argue ***convincingly that their futures are imperiled by the world’s dithering in the face of the climate emergency…
“Embarrassing for almost everyone”…
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/02/opinions/trump-uk-climate-change-backlash-intl/index.html
10
the CAGW godfather speaks:
Vatican calls for ‘drastic measures’ to combat climate change
The Australian – 1 hour ago
The Vatican has called for “drastic measures to combat climate change, claiming the world was facing “the last chance to save all those countries and many millions of vulnerable people who live in coastal regions’’. The message, issued to mark the fourth anniversary of Pope Francis’s radical green encyclical Laudato Si (Praise Be), says limiting global…
21
One of the Vaticans most devotedly Catholic countries is the Phillipines where 90% of the people are Catholic.
And 70% live in dire poverty like hardly any of us know.
( And yes I know having lived there a while in a dire poor barrio.)
But Catholic Philippines is powering up with coal.
Brought from Indonesia Borneo by barge
To feed all the new coal fired power stations they are building
To provide cheap power to all the poor.
Duterte is the president and he has been telling Pope Frank & the Vatican
To bug*er off for a long time.
– Well before he was elected in 2016.
He will joyfully do so again when he gets this papal missive.
20
ridiculous:
3 Jun: SMH: Time to flick climate emergency switch: a plea to our new Parliament
By Ian Dunlop
(Ian Dunlop is a former oil, gas and coal industry executive. He was chairman of the Australian Coal Association and CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. He is co-author of the report What Lies Beneath: the understatement of existential climate risk, published by the Breakthrough Centre for Climate Restoration, and a member of the Club of Rome’s Climate Emergency Plan)
A year ago, there was little discussion of climate change as an existential threat, or the corresponding need for emergency action.
Today, in the face of rapidly accelerating climate impacts, “existential threat” and “climate emergency” are common currency globally, existential meaning the potential to destroy humanity as we know it…
PIC: CHIMNEYS/’SMOKE’: A coal reckoning? Yallourn Power Station in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria.Credit:AAP
But Australia still has its head in the sand. We are among the most exposed to this threat, yet we return a government that has been incapable of delivering any credible climate or energy policy…
As international climate impact specialist Stefan Ramstorf tweeted: “A country so vulnerable to drought and wildfire, to floods and tropical storms and sheer heat, voting for coal: that’s turkeys voting for Christmas.”…
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/time-to-flick-climate-emergency-switch-a-plea-to-our-new-parliament-20190530-p51so6.html
30
I know who the turkey is…..
20
Ian Dunlop is a former oil, gas and coal industry executive .. this shows quite well that the oil industry isnt necessarily on the ‘anti’ side, as they can and ARE making a killing out of ‘crimate change’. So much for all of us being ‘paid’ by BIG OIL.
40
if u think UK Labour’s plans are bad, try this Tory outrage. the public should be on the streets protesting this, not so-called CAGW:
3 Jun: Guardian: Pensions must do right thing on climate change, says minister
Call for support for schemes moving people’s money from fossil fuels into renewables
PIC: CHIMNEYS/’SMOKE’
by Rupert Jones
Pension schemes should be supported for moving people’s money out of fossil fuels and into renewables because the financial risks from the climate crisis are “too important to ignore”, a government minister will say on Monday.
The pensions minister, Guy Opperman, is due to tell a conference that pension and investment managers must “do the right thing” and take their environmental and social responsibilities seriously to help combat the climate emergency.
In April, the Guardian revealed that parliament’s pension fund trustees were to reconsider the rules of their investments to take account of the risks posed by the climate emergency.
Meanwhile, rules taking effect in October will require UK pension fund trustees to set out how they take account of “financially material considerations, including … climate change”…
Ministers have previously stated that it was government policy not to direct the investment decisions or strategies of pension scheme trustees.
However, Opperman is due to tell an Association of British Insurers conference on long-term saving: “The financial risks from climate change are too important to ignore.”…
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/jun/03/pensions-must-do-right-thing-on-climate-change-says-minister
10
I posted the following article on jo’s thread below, comment #53:
22 May: UK Times: Pensions should be harnessed to fight the climate emergency
by ***Guy Opperman
We have all watched Blue Planet, heard from campaigners of all ages, signed up to recycling and support efforts to limit CO2, and yet almost everyone agrees we are still facing a “climate emergency”. ETC…
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/05/midweek-unthreaded-71/
10
Yep…thats like trying to a match out in petrol…can be done but are you really going to be dumb enough to try?
Also a good way to destroy peoples pensions.
I was always worried about Australia and its forced pension savings…at some stage they will be raided to fund either another stupid war or a “climate emergency”.
On that day, we would become a banana republic. How would it be any different that some tin pot dictator fleeing the collapsed country with tonnes of stolen gold?
30
Pat, that silly bloody bugger in the Conservative party
Will get his fat bum kicked well & truely by British pensioners if ever tries on that bull sh*t.
The voters of the UK have just said what they think of the Conservative party 10 days ago.
The Conservatives . got 11% of the vote in the EU elections.
They already face wipe out by the Brexit Party.
Trying this sort of policy rubbish will kill the Conservative party for a long time.
40
AND..
https://www.iceagenow.info/11-of-11-coastal-antarctic-stations-show-zero-warming-over-past-decades/
NO WARMING at the POLES
‘Data from the Japan operated Syowa station and the Australia Casey stations both show no trend since 1961’
40
…. and I’ll put this up for the graphics.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/05/31/10-of-10-coastal-antarctic-stations-show-no-warming-over-past-decades-failed-scientists-need-to-resign/
40
Also the Antarctic Sea Ice Region is cooling in summer.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/05/27/remote-sensing-data-indicate-a-2-44oc-summer-cooling-for-antarctica-sea-ice-regions-during-1982-2015/
I like the stuff on the mummified creatures, to know where they lived during the MWP.
30
And the sea ice increase too! over the last 40 years.
20
Theres NO temperatures over 0C AT ALL in the entire Antarctic continent. According to Zhou et al 2019 sea ice temperatures 1982-2015.
So NO ice can melt!
20
At the moment sea ice isn’t looking to flash.
https://sunshinehours.net/category/global-sea-ice-extent/#jp-carousel-16858
10
READ ALL, NO MATTER THE SPIN:
3 Jun: SMH: National electricity market becoming riskier as stresses mount: report
By Peter Hannam
Australia’s main electricity grid is “facing an escalation of risk” as operational challenges increase and policymakers struggle to develop a coherent strategy to climate change, a new report has found.
While it was “natural” for increased uncertainty as the National Electricity Market shifts away from coal-fired power, the growing number of suppliers and their wider geographical spread add to the longer-term industry threats, the study by Global-Roam and Greenview Strategic Consulting (LINK) found.
“The NEM is becoming riskier, partly naturally with the transitional change [from coal] and partly because of how it’s not been managed so well,” Paul McArdle, managing director of Global-Roam, said…
The report found electricity suppliers were increasingly reliant on weather that was inherently beyond their control – not just in terms of the greater share of wind and solar energy in the market but also the more extreme events they had to endure…
https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/national-electricity-market-becoming-riskier-as-stresses-mount-report-20190530-p51svo.html
00
Nuke the silly buggers with nuclear power !
We have uranium ore and export it to others
Generating nuclear power all across the world.
But we here in Australia treat it as if is poison.
Never to be used in Australia.
Where is the government with balls
That will demolish the Greenists
On this issue ?
30
“Given the uncertainties over the scientific basis of global warming, and the certainties about the huge costs of measures designed to fight it, there is no compelling reason to jeopardize our prosperity with more government interventions.
The People’s Party of Canada’s platform for the October 2019 general election is being progressively unveiled. Today, we invite you to read our policy proposal on global warming and the environment.
https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/global_warming_and_environment_rejecting_alarmism_and_focusing_on_concrete_improvements?utm_campaign=ppc020619_en&utm_medium=email&utm_source=maximebernier ”
Via http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/06/03/june-3-2019-reader-tips/#comment-1212163
50
Maybe one of our politicians will out-bid?
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/06/03/june-3-2019-reader-tips/#comment-1212164
20
SHUT UP ALL OF YOU… The Science is SETTLED. Got It!!
01
Ship of fools take 3 , research ship studying climate change has been forced to abandon mission because of unprecedented ice .
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/06/13/delingpole-ship-of-fools-iii-global-warming-study-cancelled-because-of-unprecedented-ice/?fbclid=IwAR3l7UhGnNQF2WZx4n_wiF5fDxtiCq948BxRY2fbk019nZddZJASGtTLuAE
10
Effect of phytoplankton and all vegetation on annual co2 fluctuations has long been known. Nice little research project presented here. Would be a stretch imo to take this small of a sample to make conclusions on global co2 levels. Interesting how many people commenting jump to global warming when text says nothing about this.
00
Could someone point me to a place where Climate Change is defined and how it is created by Global Warming.
Then if there is no Global Warming, let alone man made Global Warming, what causes Climate Change?
31
Tom Quirk,
Your observation of a time delay at a similar latitude is excellent and important. By such exceptions to the expected, new tools can sometimes be developed to solve otherwise intractable problems.
In this case it set me thinking whether such a lag, even if much less pronounced, could be found either side of Panama at similar latitudes but separated by thin land. Narrows the explanations.
Sadly, I have just had 40+ days in hospital and am in no condition to do thinking work. Maybe others can follow up. Geoff
40
Or perhaps it is not a time delay? Perhaps if the major source of CO2 is ocean temperature producing outgassing of CO2, areas have different CO2 levels anyway and the area being discussed is really huge. The bomb curve was significant in tracking C14 and it did establish a north to south time of 2 years. Without tracing the origin of CO2 in such a way, we have little hope.
Still in tracking C14 West to East we could measure the rate of transfer of CO2. It’s about comparing laboratories with good aerial C14 records.
21
all behind paywall:
2 Jun: WSJ Editorial: Exxon and Chevron shareholders vote to stay in business.
Climate-change activists are relentless, and in recent years they’ve been trying to take over corporate boardrooms. So it was good to see shareholders last week overwhelmingly vote down resolutions forcing Chevron and Exxon Mobil to hurt their business.
The New York State Common Retirement Fund and the Church of England endowment fund pushed a shareholder resolution that would have forced Exxon to set aggressive targets for emissions reductions based on the Paris Climate Accord. In 2017 activists bullied Exxon into publishing reports on how climate change could affect its business. But this time Exxon fought back and blocked the proxy resolution with support from the Securities and Exchange Commission.”…
https://www.wsj.com/articles/corporate-climate-coups-averted-11559510064
2 Jun: UK Telegraph: We’ve had quite enough of the law-breaking environmental fanatics of Extinction Rebellion
By Tom Welsh
There is no point in beating about the bush. The Extinction Rebellion eco “protesters”, who are reportedly planning to shut down Heathrow airport for a day in mid-June and then for another 10 days in July, if their ludicrous demands aren’t met, are threatening what amounts to economic terrorism. They plan to fly drones above the airport if Heathrow’s third runway project is not scrapped. It is blackmail, pure and simple: if the result is that planes are grounded, as at Gatwick last year, thousands of people will have their holidays ruined and the economic cost will run into the millions; if they are not, their crime could become mass murder.
No one sane can support such “activism”. Whatever your…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/02/had-quite-enough-law-breaking-environmental-fanatics-extinction/
3 Jun: UK Times: Green campaigners won’t save the planet, but capitalism may well do
by Mark Littlewood (director, Institute of Economic Affairs)
The Greens are on the march across the Continent. Environmentalist parties won more seats than ever in the European parliamentary elections last month, commanding a block of nearly 10 per cent of all MEPs. In Germany, the Green Party has emerged as the principal electoral force on the left and now leads outright in the national opinion polls. Their British equivalents recently made impressive progress in both municipal and European elections. No serious discussion of the forces of the progressive left in the UK can be conducted without fully acknowledging that the Greens would be a big participant.
Away from the polls, environmentalism has spawned a serious and growing activist movement. The Extinction Rebellion protesters irritated many Londoners by causing disruption in the capital and…
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/green-campaigners-wont-save-the-planet-but-capitalism-may-well-do-chfs9vnj7
10
This is not published work but a journalist’s report. That is not science but untrained analysis. I welcome this being submitted for peer review.
00