From Heartland Daily News

H. Sterling Burnett

YOU SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WEEKLY.

IN THIS ISSUE:

• Hunga Tonga Eruption Behind “Record” Warming
• Video of the Week: 20 Years of Ocean Currents: What Climate Activists Got Wrong
• Math Debunks Climate Alarm—Net Zero Buys Inconsequential Temperature Reduction
• Forest Experiment Shows Benefits of Increased CO2
• Climate Comedy
• Recommended Sites

---

Get your tickets TODAY to meet and hear Nigel Farage and Larry Arnn at The Heartland Institute’s Gala on Sept. 13, 2024 in Chicago

Click here for more info and tickets.

---

Hunga Tonga Eruption Behind “Record” Warming

The spike in temperatures over the past year has been much in the news, with dozens if not hundreds of “record-breaking month/record-breaking year/record-breaking streak” stories making headlines in the mainstream media. While climate change has been blamed for the phenomenon, sound analysis, as opposed to uninformed speculation, has been lacking.

Javier Vinos, Ph.D., the author of several books on climate change, including  Climate of the Past, Present, and Future,Solving the Climate Puzzle,  and  The Frozen Views of the IPCC, An Analysis of AR6,  undertook a review of the possible cause for the sudden, broad temperature increase reported in 2023, and in a post on Climate Etc., concludes the usual suspects, human-caused CO2 increases and El Niño, are likely not to blame. Neither is the recent cause de jour, the decrease in emissions of sulfate aerosols from cleaner shipping fuels. Rather, he suggests the massive increase in water vapor into the stratosphere from the Hunga Tonga eruption is the most likely culprit for the increase and, as water vapor draws down, so will temperatures, meaning the present increase is not a new normal; meaning that no climate catastrophe is in the offing.

Vinos explains that “El Niño is unlikely to be responsible for the simple reason that such abrupt global warming is unprecedented in our records.” El Niño, he explains, normally has large, but still largely regional, rather than global, effects. In addition, El Niño has happened many times in the past without inducing the kind of large-scale global warming experienced in 2023.

Concerning the impact of the recently adopted clean shipping fuel standard, Vinos points out, “a recent study, still under peer review, used a climate model to calculate that sulfur emission reductions from 2020 could cause global warming of 0.02°C in the first decade. Since the warming in 2023 was 10 times greater, it is difficult to believe that emissions reductions since 2020 could have been a major factor in the abrupt warming in 2023.” (Footnote omitted)

Nor is the increase in CO2 over the last year or two likely the causal factor for the rapid year-long temperature spike. As Vinos notes, 2023’s CO2 increase of approximately 2.5 parts per million from 418.5 to 421 ppm is in line with annual increases that have occurred for the past several decades (he does not add, but I will, that these sustained increases have occurred despite the trillions of dollars spent and restrictions on freedom imposed by governments—meaning all pain, no gain). In excluding CO2 as the cause of the unusual temperature rise, he points out that none of the physics of CO2 forcing, our knowledge of the past, peer-reviewed research, or climate model projections, suggests 2023’s temperature spike was or could have been caused by the observed increase in CO2.

“The proof is that scientists and models cannot explain what happened in 2023,” Vinos writes.

These facts, he argues, suggest the enormous Hunga Tonga sub-surface volcanic eruption is responsible for the temperature spike.

Just over a year before the abrupt warming, in January 2022, an extremely unusual volcanic eruption took place in Tonga. He lays out the evidence for his conclusion (footnotes and graphs omitted):

The Tonga eruption was a submarine explosion at very shallow depths, about 150 m below the sea surface. It ejected 150 million tons of water into the stratosphere. …

NASA scientists believe that the Tonga explosion occurred at the right depth to project a lot of water into the stratosphere … [with] the Tonga eruption [being] a once in 200-year event, probably less than once in a millennium. …

We know that strong volcanic eruptions, capable of reaching the stratosphere, can have a very strong effect on the climate for a few years, and that this effect can be delayed by more than a year. The eruption of Mount Tambora in April 1815 had a global effect on the climate, but it took 15 months for the effect to develop, during the year without a summer of 1816. These delayed effects coincided with the appearance of a veil of sulfate aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere due to seasonal changes in the global stratospheric circulation.

Because the Tonga eruption is unprecedented, there is much about its effects that we do not understand. But we do know that the planetary greenhouse effect is very sensitive to changes in stratospheric water vapor because, unlike the troposphere, the stratosphere is very dry and far from greenhouse saturation.

As a group of scientists showed in 2010, the effect of changes in stratospheric water vapor is so important that the warming between 2000 and 2009 was reduced by 25% because it decreased by 10%. And after the Tonga eruption, it increased by 10% because of the 150 million tons of water released into the stratosphere, so we could have experienced much of the warming of an entire decade in a single year. …

Of course, we cannot conclude that the warming was caused by the volcano, but it is clear that it is by far the most likely suspect, and any other candidate should have to demonstrate its ability to act abruptly with such magnitude before being seriously considered.

Source: Climate Etc.

---

Get Climate at a Glance on your mobile device!

---

Video of the Week

Climate activists and media allies often promote the idea that climate change will soon cause ocean currents to slow down, which would result in catastrophe for marine ecosystems. Now, the best available data suggest that ocean currents have actually sped up over the past 20 years, with no disasters.

---

Math Debunks Climate Alarm—Net Zero Buys Inconsequential Temperature Reduction

A recent paper by physicists Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., emeritus professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Happer, Ph.D., emeritus professor at Princeton University; and William A. van Wijngaarden, Ph.D., York University in Toronto, shows that if the United States  or even the world as a whole eliminated their respective human carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 (the much ballyhooed ‘net zero’), it would not make a significant difference in global temperatures—meaning no appreciable “climate change” is prevented.

They applied simple math to calculate the temperature impact of zero emissions based on real world data applied to the number of years until 2050 and the amount of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere annually.

“The only assumed datapoint is the sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2 increases,” reports Greg Wrightstone, in an article describing the findings at RealClearMarkets. In that regard, the researchers used a value almost the same as one commonly used “before global-warming alarmism became fashionable.”

“Straightforward calculations … show that eliminating U.S. CO2 emissions by the year 2050 would avoid a temperature increase of 0.0084℃,” the paper concludes, or approximately a warming 0.015℉. The amount of warming averted is too small to measure, much less for people to notice.

The paper points out that even if the climate sensitivity value is quadrupled to the sensitivity assumed in climate models and pushed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the amount of warming averted still is only 0.034 degrees Celsius.

With United States responsible for approximately 12 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, the scientists then calculated what would happen if the remaining 88 percent of human emissions went to zero. They found the amount of warming averted would be 0.07℃, using historically assumed sensitivity, or 0.28℃, using the inflated sensitivity assumptions embraced by the IPCC.

From the point of view of climate change, those numbers are “still inconsequential and certainly not worth destroying the world economy,” concludes Wrightstone.

Sources: RealClearMarkets; CO2 Coalition

---

Forest Experiment Shows Benefits of Increased CO2

Since 2017, researchers at The Birmingham Institute of Forest Research (BIFoR) at the University of Birmingham have been conducting a giant real-world experiment called the BIFoR Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment in which they have been pumping CO2 throughout a Staffordshire woodland to simulate the atmosphere we’re predicted to have in 2050. The goal is to better understand how forests are affected by and impact climate change, including the effects on animals, plants, and insects dependent upon the forest ecosystem.

Specifically, the BIFoR researchers pumped excess CO2 (140 ppm above levels in the ambient air) into a 180-year-old oak forest. They found the increased CO2 produced a 9.8 percent increase in woody biomass over seven years.

Most of the CO2 was used and captured in the trees’ woody parts—the trunk, bark, and limbs—rather than the leaves, meaning it is stored for extended periods of time. In addition to increasing the woody biomass, the study found the higher CO2 led to enhanced nutrient cycling in the soil and improved the efficiency of roots, both of which tended to benefit the broader ecosystem.

To examine the effects of CO2 on the trees, the BIFoR researchers analyzed tree rings and conducted laser scans of the canopy to assess tree growth and carbon sequestration. The Electroverse Substack described some of the particular findings and their implications in more detail, writing:

Interestingly, while overall net primary productivity (NPP) increased by an average of 10.6%, most of this boost was attributed to wood production rather than to increases in other tissues. This suggests that mature temperate forests, previously thought to have limited responses to increased CO2, could play a more active role in carbon sequestration than expected.

Moreover, the study found that elevated CO2 resulted in a 43-63% increase in root exudation, which stimulates soil microbial activity and enhances nutrient availability, further improving forest growth dynamics and biodiversity.

Sources: Electroverse; The Birmingham Institute of Forest Research

---

Heartland’s Must-read Climate Sites

---

Climate Comedy

Via USNews

---

Recommended Sites

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is the director of The Heartland Institute’s Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Yesterday came news that the energy price cap was going to rise by a hundred and fifty quid, or ten percent. Several outlets linked this to the earlier decision by teh Chancellor to remove the pensioners’ winter fuel allowance of £300. Put together, pensioners are looking at a rise of £450. But wait! They use more energy for heating than young folk, being stuck at home more, etc; so the total for them could be +£500. Still, at least they have the option to get on a heated bus for naught, and drive in circles.

It was against this background that I turned on BBC Radio 4’s PM yesterday. The price cap was centre stage, and the first interview was with Emma Pinchbeck, the head of Energy UK and rumoured to be the next chief of the National Destruction Committee.

The interview went on a bit, so I am not going to transcribe it here. You can listen to it at this link. The whole feature runs from 5 minutes in to 14 minutes in.

The set up was Ed Miliband blaming wholesale gas prices for the change, and pretending to commiserate with his hard-up subjects.

“It’s a direct result of our country’s exposure to international gas markets that are controlled by dictators.”

So said Ed. I think he was either referring to Norway or the USA. He went on to blame the last (he meant previous) government for this “legacy.” Then he paraded his carnival of delusions re: self-generated energy, clean, green, cheap, reliable, secure, something like that.

Delusional, and transparently so. Although not to the taxpayer-funded BBC. The laptop and latte class mostly believe in this nonsense. Well, you get what you vote for, and we are getting what we voted for. Good and hard as Mencken would say.

To the BBC’s credit, it then cuts to a couple of vox pops of people unhappy with the change.

Then comes Emma Pinchbeck. The opening question: what is behind the price rise?

Her answer: the UK’s reliance on imported gas, which means of course we need more domestically-produced gas.

[I’m sorry. I made the second part up. Of course she didn’t prescribe more domestic production, nor did she ever say the F word (frack).]

Next the BBC, missing the obvious, wonders whether profiteering might be to blame. No, says Emma. Energy retailers make no money. But the evil oil and gas companies! They do quite well when the price of hydrocarbons is high. [I paraphrase slightly.] Energy UK supports windfall levies to deter investment in new production – I mean to prevent producers from profiting in a crisis. She goes on to outline the protections available for those who are struggling with energy costs.

After a bit of waffle about customer service, we then get on to the “energy transition.” Here Emma has a good point. Things have to be fair and transparent. Customers want to know where their money is going re: the “transition.”

The following bit is loosely transcribed, capturing the essence, not the exactitude:

BBC: The government says that over time the energy transition will bring prices down. Is that correct?

Emma: They’re correct because the main pressure on energy bills is coming from the international gas market that we have very little ability to influence here. If you can’t reduce prices, you can do the next best thing, reduce your demand for gas, and renewables and insulation and other green technologies also help us reduce that gas demand. If the government can roll out more renewables, we will save money on our energy bills, and in fact delays to low-carbon policy were responsible for adding a couple of hundred quid to people’s bills during the crisis, because we were importing gas when we should have been generating from offshore [she might have said onshore; I can’t be bothered to wind it back to check] wind or living in homes that were more insulated and therefore burning less gas.

BBC: So how soon will we see the financial benefits of the shift to renewables?

Emma: It’s going to take time to build infrastructure. It does take time to build things and then it takes time for those benefits to come through.

Loose transcript ends.

People will need support for another couple of winters (implying that beyond that time we will have reached the sunlit uplands). What about standing charges? Should they be reduced? Well, says Emma, it’s complicated.

The BBC wants to know whether going for a decarbonated, I mean decarbonised, grid by 2030 rather than 2035 will mean higher bills?

Alas, Emma’s minions have not done the analysis on this yet, because the new government is so new. But in principle, the ambition by government might unlock more cheaper private capital. [“We’ve seen the opposite when governments are sceptical about the energy transition and Net Zero.”]

Which governments? Who knows? I would like to meet them, and shake their hands.

Lastly, the BBC asks Emma about the rumours re: her name being linked to the National Destruction Committee. She declines to confirm the rumours.

EDITORIAL

We have seen international gas markets blamed for our woes before. See When a Shortage Means You Have Too Much. That article is now almost three years old, and features a fresh-faced Kwasi Kwarteng [the then-Business Secretary] lauding the decision to shorten grid decarbonisation by 15 years from 2050 to 2035. Of course, our new democratically-elected government has idiotically reduced that to 2030. Remember guys! You get what you voted for. Good and hard, etc.

In that article, I noted that despite the international gas market, and despite the “fact” that the UK was unable to influence it, there were countries out there not in our trouble, with far lower gas prices than us. In particular, I noted that the US had gas that was far cheaper than the UK – the accompanying figure shows a five-fold difference.

I have just checked the current gas prices, and find the UK’s to be 88p/therm. The US’s is $2.02 for a million BTUs. The different units make comparisons a little harder to derive, but given that 1 mmBTU ~ 10 therms, and £1 ~ $1.32, you can conclude that UK gas is presently just under 6 times as expensive as US gas. Funnily enough, US gas is down 35% on the year, and UK gas is up 10%. No doubt this is because we are all slaves to the same international market, about which we can do nothing.

Next, I must point out to the BBC, and the expert in economy-scale decarbonisation, that our energy bills are not all electricity. The typical household uses more gas than electricity. Four times (ish) as much, according to Ofgem, in energy terms. Thus, unless we are forcibly switched to heat pumps, we are going to be slaves to this international market for decades. Except we are going to become more dependent on it, as we are driving out domestic production thanks to our stupid policies.

And this “cheaper” private capital? Does not the capital wish to make a profit? The present CfD system appears to offer the private capital a nice return… paid for by more expensive energy bills.

Finally, it is my duty to note that wherever we see greater penetration into the grid by renewables, we see increased domestic electricity bills. The free electricity, it turns out, is quite expensive.

As to Emma Pinchbeck, she seems like a good fit for the Climate Change Committee. I look forward to the announcement of her appointment.

MESSAGE ENDS.