Month: July 2020

Anger As Boris Johnson’s ‘New Deal’ Lacks Net Zero Commitment

Boris Johnson has angered green campaigners after a £5bn infrastructure spending boost lacked new measures to achieve his legal duty of [ net zero carbon emissions.

Vowing to “build back better” as the UK emerges from the coronavirus pandemic, the prime minister will announce cash for hospital maintenance, court upgrades, high street rescues and – controversially – road upgrades.

But he had been urged to seize the moment to ensure the UK is not “locked further into the climate crisis” – with the commitment of net zero emissions by 2050 in deep trouble.

Instead, the only fresh environmental measure is a hint of a future £40m to boost local conservation projects that would recruit new “conservation rangers”.

“The prime minister won’t build back greener by investing in roads, which will only lock us further into the climate crisis,” said Friends of the Earth ’s Muna Suleiman…

The green gap in the plans comes despite the independent Committee on Climate Change calling for gas boilers to be phased out and new infrastructure to make cycling and walking easier.

Full story

The post Anger As Boris Johnson’s ‘New Deal’ Lacks Net Zero Commitment appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2VCsH9R

July 1, 2020 at 07:08AM

Fooling Us With Climate Trickery

An influential report aimed at business leaders re-labelled an implausible, far-fetched scenario as ‘our current path.’

In an article published late last year, analyst Roger Pielke Jr. demonstrates that the US National Climate Assessment and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have placed an extreme and unlikely vision of the future at the center of their recent reports.

Known as the RCP8.5, this hypothetical scenario was never rooted in reality. It was an implausible hallucination. What if absurd amounts of fossil fuels were burned? What if population trends reversed? What if technological innovation stalled? (see my previous post)

Despite it’s improbable and extreme nature, Pielke says RCP8.5 got mentioned “more than 470” times in a 2017 US government report. And “more than 580 times” in a 2019 IPCC report.

In a subsequent article, titled How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science, Pielke explains some of the reasons RCP8.5 began appearing everywhere. This is a story, he says, of “privilege and conceit.”

If you’re mindbogglingly wealthy like Steyer and Bloomberg, you hire groups of consultants to write a custom report aimed at business leaders. Titled Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States, its impressive-looking pages contain the names of rich and famous people. They also feature a highly misleading graphic.

The original, below, comes from a 2011 paper that guestimates the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere according to four fairy tales developed by the IPCC.

The red line is RCP8.5. If that highly unlikely scenario were to hypothetically come true, the parts-per-million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would hypothetically exceed 1,000 around the year 2100 (the tan-coloured bar represents the years 2000 to 2100). Currently, there are 414 parts-per-million of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Risky Business tells us its own graphic – which appears at the top of this blog post – is based on this paper. But the new version takes a highly implausible scenario – the red line that is RCP8.5 – and calls it Business as Usual: Our Current Path.

This is absolute nonsense. Utter chicanery.

A few pages earlier, Risky Business tells us:

Our research combines peer-reviewed climate science projections through the year 2100 with empirically-derived estimates of the impact of projected changes…on the U.S. economy. [bold added, first page of the Executive Summary]

So let us be clear about what has happened here. The 2011 paper is about imaginary scenarios. Calling those scenarios science is a stretch.

The fact that those scenarios are discussed in a peer-reviewed journal tells us nothing about their accuracy. Let us not forget Lancet editor Richard Horton’s famous declaration: “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

So the Risky Business report not only re-labells a dystopian climate hallucination as our current path, it calls this ‘peer-reviewed climate science.’

That’s how you fool people. That’s how you frighten and manipulate them.

 

.

If what you’ve just read is useful or helpful,
please support this blog

please support this blog

.
ADDITIONAL INFO:

  • I’ve written about the lead author of this 2011 paper previously. His name is Malte Meinshausen. He’s a longtime IPCC insider, and a former consultant to activist groups Greenpeace & the WWF. In 2009, a third party website described him as ‘key member‘ of Greenpeace’s climate team. In other words, here’s another climate scientist who, rather than keeping aloof from activist groups, has instead gotten into bed with them. This calls his neutrality into question.
  • The ‘introduction’ section of Meinshausen’s 2011 paper begins by citing two documents. In both cases, the lead author is Richard Moss. I’ve written about that longtime IPCC insider, as well. He, too, has been on the payroll of an activist organization. In 2007, he became a WWF vice president.
    .

via Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

https://ift.tt/38hVs0B

July 1, 2020 at 06:02AM

UK could hit 40C ‘regularly’ by end of this century–Says Flawed Met Office Study

By Paul Homewood

 

The absurd Matt McGrath hypes the latest Met Office modelling exercise!

 image

Sweltering temperatures of up to 40C could be a regular occurrence in the UK by 2100 if carbon emissions stay very high says the Met Office.

The current record stands at 38.7C, set in Cambridge last July.

This new study says there is an "increasing likelihood" of going beyond this figure, because of the human influence on the climate.

Under the worst emissions scenario, the 40C mark could occur every three and a half years by the end of this century.

The past two summers have seen periods of significant and uncomfortable heat across much of the UK and Europe.

Met Office researchers are clear that these hot summers occurred partly as a result of warming gases originating from human activities.

In fact, the use of energy, transport and all the other carbon that we’ve been producing made the heatwave of 2018 around 30 times more likely.

The Met Office’s new modelling study says that this human influence on UK temperatures is going to continue.

"We find that the likelihood of extremely warm days in the UK has been increasing and will continue to do so during the course of the century with the most extreme temperatures expected to be observed in the South-East of England," the report finds.

The scale of the impact, though, is still very much in our hands.

Right now the chances of any part of the UK hitting 40C are extremely low – it could occur once every 100 to 350 years.

This changes significantly by the end of the century, depending on how much more carbon is emitted.

The researchers say the chances of hitting that high mark are "rapidly accelerating" with a 40C day occurring every 3.5 years, under a very high emissions scenario.

Under a more modest carbon projection, the 40C mark happens about once every 15 years.

"If we think about the climate that we would have had, had we not emitted any greenhouse gases, and something like 40C looks looks well nigh impossible, because it is so extreme," said Prof Peter Stott from the Met Office, one of the paper’s authors.

"But now we’ve already entered this scenario where we can see over 38C as we saw last summer, and increasingly the chances of seeing 40C become ever higher if we continue emitting greenhouse gases," he told BBC News.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53231875

 

For a start, Stott gives unwarranted prominence to one temperature measurement at Cambridge last summer, which as we know had very serious siting issues. Whereas Cambridge reached 38.7C, the nearest anywhere else in the country got was 37.9C, and that was next to the tarmac at Heathrow and did not even beat the previous 2003 record at Faversham. To spook the public with threats of 40C temperatures based on one dodgy location is not science.

That is not to say that that day last July was not an extremely hot one. Many places in the country had record temperatures, although many others did not break their records set in 1990, another extreme day. But it was only one day, and it was caused by an unusual meteorological set up. The days before and after were four degrees or more cooler, at least as far as CET was concerned.

One hot day does not have any climatic significance at all. While 25th July 2019 was the warmest day on CET, we can see that the heatwave of 1976 was far longer and more intense than any other summer since.

image

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html

 

Stott’s paper itself gives the game away, as his chart below shows:

 image

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16834-0

 

The red and blue bands are simply modelling and can be ignored. It is the black line which measures the actual warmest day each year, as represented by the UK average. While 2019 is an outlier, there seems to be little in the way of an upward trend since the 1970s.

Yet Stott conjures up three or four degrees of warming in the next few decades. But, of course, this is based on modelling and not actual data.

 

We can see the actual trends more clearly on my chart of CET daily highs:

image

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html

 

Again, last year stands out, but other than that it has not peaked above 1976 and 1990 since. While other recent years have been relatively warm, they have not been dissimilar to many other other earlier periods, such as the 1940s.

Quite simply, the actual data does not support Stott’s projections.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/31CDwwr

July 1, 2020 at 05:42AM

Is the hydrogen tech ‘revolution’ hope or hype?

Hydrogen-powered London bus

More hopeless than hope. But for those who want to put a lot of time, effort and money into looking for ‘solutions’ to the non-problem of supposedly human-caused climate change, it’s a topic for discussion. It may have some specific uses, but cost and practicality seem to be strongly against it as a general replacement for traditional fuels.
– – –
Can hydrogen – a relatively clean source of fuel – help power the economy of the future? – asks the BBC.

In his speech on the planned economic recovery, the prime minister said hydrogen technology is an area where the UK leads the world. He hopes it’ll create clean jobs in the future.

But is the hydrogen revolution hope or hype?

The digger with the long-toothed bucket bites into a pile of stones, tilts up and flexes its sturdy mechanical arm.

It swivels, extends the arm and dumps its load on the harsh ground of a Staffordshire quarry.

It’s a beast of a machine and from the front it looks like a normal excavator.

But from the back you can see its tank full of dirty diesel has been replaced with a hydrogen fuel cell.

The excavator is the latest in a generation of vehicles powered by the lightest element on Earth.

The compendium of vehicles powered by hydrogen now stretches from diggers to micro-taxis, trucks, boats, vans, single-deck and now double-decker buses – and even small planes.

It works by reacting hydrogen with oxygen in a fuel cell to generate electricity. The only direct emission is water.

Talking about a revolution
So at last, the long-awaited hydrogen revolution is here. Or is it?

Back in the early 2000s, backers of hydrogen thought it would dominate the clean automobile market.

But the promised “hydrogen highway” never materialised, for a couple of crucial reasons.

Firstly, hydrogen power needed a new infrastructure, whereas rival battery cars could be charged off the near-ubiquitous electricity grid.

Secondly, high-powered batteries at that time were already well-advanced for other uses such as computers, but hydrogen was not.

Continued here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/2BrgzSf

July 1, 2020 at 04:57AM