Month: June 2018

One Month Remaining To The Arctic Melting Scam

Climate alarmists are facing a catastrophic meltdown in the next 30 days.

Arctic sea ice volume is the highest in fourteen years and is melting very slowly.  It is likely that 2018 will reach the highest volume in the DMI record during the first week in July, and in about a month volume melt rates will tail off sharply.

June melt rates have been very low in recent years, with four of the five lowest melt rates occurring in the last five years.

Spreadsheet    Data

But it is worse than it seems. Cold air is persisting over the Arctic, and forecast to remain until at least mid-July.

10-Day Temperature Outlook

Like all recent years, summer temperatures are running persistently below normal.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Thick ice covers the Arctic Basin, which will be very difficult to melt later in the season. This is likely to be reflected by high sea ice extent numbers later in the summer.

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180626.png (1337×1113)

It will be interesting to see how NSIDC and other Arctic propagandists attempt to cover this up, but the Arctic ice scam is a freight train headed for a cliff – with only about 30 days until they go off the edge.

This will of course be quite enjoyable for me, because I predicted it ten years ago in 2008 at the peak of the Arctic melting hysteria. Unlike climate scientists, I base my analysis on actual data and logical thinking.

North Pole could be ice free in 2008 | New Scientist

Star-News – Google News Archive Search

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

https://ift.tt/2tIhkP7

June 27, 2018 at 06:11AM

Hallucinations in High Places (More on the 1988 Hansen Climate Hearing)

Powerful people construct amazingly inaccurate narratives about their own lives.

via Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

https://ift.tt/2lGSPyd

June 27, 2018 at 06:07AM

In the Age of Trump and Putin, Europe Faces Hard Choices on Gas

Europe’s shrinking production of natural gas has made it an enticing target for exporters. It’s also left the region facing hard choices ahead at a time of growing political uncertainty.

Imports to the continent are poised to rise almost 20 percent by 2040 from 2016 levels, according to International Energy Agency. While Russia has long been the region’s top supplier, it’s now facing significant challenges from both the U.S. and Qatar, rivals with vast natural gas reserves.

For Europe, there’s both opportunity and risk. While competition can drop prices, geopolitics are becoming increasingly tricky in an age dominated by the strong headwinds coming from both U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

The result: “Things that jeopardize security of supply are going to be at the forefront” of Europe’s decisions on who to buy from moving forward, according to Breanne Dougherty, an New York-based analyst with Societe Generale SA.

European countries have fought with Russia over pricing, and been hit with key stoppages. A burgeoning trade war with the U.S. spurred by Trump’s tariff decisions is complicating that relationship. And Qatar is in the midst of an antitrust probe brought by the European Union.

Still, U.S. companies are getting ready to jump into the competition in a big way.

After Cheniere Energy Inc. began shipping gas two years ago from its Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana — the first to send shale output abroad — the U.S. became a net exporter of the fuel for the first time since the 1950s. This year, Dominion Energy Inc. opened the first export facility on the East Coast, providing a quicker route to European buyers.

Meanwhile, four more U.S. terminals may start up by the end of 2020, to make America the world’s third largest LNG supplier, behind Qatar and Australia.

But concerns about a potential trade war are not making things easy. After the Trump administration hiked tariffs on the continent’s steel and aluminum, the E.U. retaliated with duties on a range of U.S. products. Though natural gas isn’t directly affected, political friction could make it more difficult to ship U.S. supply overseas, according to Societe Generale.

“The U.S. influence on European policy makers isn’t particularly strong at the moment,’’ said Trevor Sikorski, head of natural gas and carbon research at Energy Aspects Ltd. in London.

Meanwhile, the European Union is investigating whether contract restrictions have prevented importers from reselling gas bought from Qatar Petroleum.

Europe has become an enticing target for gas exporters as the Netherlands winds down production from the Groningen field — the continent’s largest — to limit damage from drilling-induced earthquakes.

Many of the continent’s buyers, particularly in Eastern Europe, are eager for alternatives to Russian supply. Gas flow to Europe was disrupted twice, in 2006 and 2009, over a pricing dispute between Russia and Ukraine. Meanwhile, Lithuania and Poland have built terminals to import cargoes of liquefied natural gas from overseas, reducing their reliance on Russia.

Full story

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2K9OmCJ

June 27, 2018 at 04:31AM

The Climate Conference That Launched Global Warming Scare: Remembering Toronto ‘88

With the Greenhouse scare turning thirty this month, we remember the conference that launched it onto the global stage as the flagship cause of the Sustainable Development movement.

Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war. —Changing Atmosphere Conference Statement, Toronto, 30 June, 1988.

Before Paris there was Kyoto, but before Kyoto there was Toronto. Most climate activists today would be too young to recall where it all began thirty years ago this month. It was at the Changing Atmosphere conference, Toronto, 27-30 June 1988, that ‘greenhouse’ warming exploded onto the global stage, with demands for an immediate policy response. So successful was this event that the ‘Toronto Target’ remained the benchmark for any government response to the climate emergency until the ‘protocol’ finally agreed in Kyoto, 1997.

The Guardian, 28 June 1988

A report from the opening of the Toronto conference in The Guardian, 28 June 1988

In the old days before the warming scare, convention deemed that local weather observations could not pronounce on local climate until the ledgers ran down a continuous 30 years. And perhaps this could be our measure of global climate scares. Compare the cooling scare: launched in 1972, it was all over by the end of the decade. That was pretty much when the build-up to the warming scare began. But this one stuck around. It grew and prospered while the promised signs of catastrophe remained ever deferred.

If some sceptics are now sounding its death knells, then we do well to remember their premature ringing many times before. This horseman may be riding for an apocalyptic fall, but ride on he does; and with tremendous institutional inertia in the science, the science funding and energy policy. That this scare continues to evolve is all too evident when we consider that there has never been a greater impact on energy policy for major economic players like Germany, Britain and Australia. And this impact is in direct opposition to what would be our agreed economic, political and security interests if there were no scare. Make no mistake, this is a major social phenomenon, the full power of which we are only coming to appreciate as it arises stronger from every successive blow to its credibility.

The first summer of the warmers

The opening weeks of the summer of 1988 was when greenhouse warming arrived as a geo-political phenomenon. In the USA, the foundation event is usually seen to be NASA scientist James Hansen’s congressional testimony on 23 June, where he called for immediate action based on a 99% statistical certainty that the warming is already happening now. Hansen’s performance was a well-orchestrated part of the Dukakis presidential campaign. But Dukakis was defeated. And so perhaps more important was the responding commitment to greenhouse action by the presidential victor, George Bush (senior). Late in his campaign, Bush famously suggested that he would combat the greenhouse effect with the ‘White House Effect’.

Once elected, Bush proved an enthusiast for climate action, although a treaty would have to wait; he agreed with that other conservative enthusiast, Margaret Thatcher, that treaty talks should only commence after completion of an assessment by an UN intergovernmental panel, the IPCC. The British and US diplomats had to fight hard against the impatience for immediate action that arose like a thunderous tide in the wake of Toronto.

Before Toronto, while enthusiasm for global environmentalism was peaking, greenhouse warming was no leading concern. Air pollution had long been on the campaign agenda and the Toronto conference was called to address those pollutants of global consequence. It was only during the conference that greenhouse came to the fore.

The majority of the folks invited to Toronto were scientists, only a handful of whom had raised concerns previously. The environmental NGOs also sent delegations, but it would be some time before greenhouse warming was raised high on the agenda for any of them.

What first brought media interest to this Canadian conference was the strong ministerial representation among the delegations from 46 countries. The 29 government ministers included the two Prime Ministers who opened the conference: Canada’s Brian Mulroney and Norway’s Gro Brundtland. Brundtland had been returned to power after completion of the UN Sustainable Development report that bears her name.

McMillan Brundtland Mulroney Toronto 1988

Canada’s Minister for the Environment Tom McMillan (left) with the two prime ministers who opened the Toronto conference, Gro Brundtland (Norway) and Brian Mulroney (Canada).

The Brundtland Commission submitted its report to the UN General Assembly with much fanfare in 1987. Our Common Future, as it was titled, included calls to shift towards Sustainable Development on all its complex and varied fronts. The Canadian government’s special interest was air pollution, and so it organised their ‘Changing Atmosphere’ conference in a collaboration with the UN Environment Programme to specifically address the management of the atmosphere as a global ‘common’. At the time, Brundtland and others were calling for a general ‘law of the air’.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2tI24S1

June 27, 2018 at 04:31AM