Category: Uncategorized

Claim: Controlling ‘short-lived climate pollutants’ (like soot) would save millions of lives

Claim: Controlling ‘short-lived climate pollutants’ (like soot) would save millions of lives

via JunkScience.com
http://junkscience.com

No… controlling soot (i.e., PM2.5) won’t “keep millions of people from dying.”

PM2.5 kills no one. Read ‘Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA’ for the proof.

The media release is below.

###

Policies to curb short-lived climate pollutants could yield major health benefits
Controlling soot, methane, hydrofluorocarbons would yield immediate effects

DUKE UNIVERSITY

DURHAM, N.C. — A commitment to reducing global emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) such as methane and black carbon could slow global warming while boosting public health and agricultural yields, aligning the Paris Climate Agreement with global sustainable development goals, a new analysis by an international research panel shows.

Methane and black carbon – or soot – are the second and third most powerful climate-warming agents after carbon dioxide. They also contribute to air pollution that harms the health of billions of people worldwide and reduces agricultural yields.

“Unlike long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, SLCPs respond very quickly to mitigation. It’s highly likely that we could cut methane emissions by 25 percent and black carbon by 75 percent and eliminate high-warming hydrofluorocarbons altogether in the next 25 years using existing technologies, if we made a real commitment to doing this,” said Drew T. Shindell, professor of climate science at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

Acting now to reduce these emissions would contribute to long-term goals set under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement while concurrently offering governments substantial benefits in the short term for investing in sustainable development – a set of goals through 2030 that countries also agreed to in 2015.

“The urgency in dealing with SLCPs now rather than later is that if we wait to address them, we continue to incur all these damages – increased public health burdens and reduced agricultural yields – along the way,” Shindell said. “If we want to avoid those costs, and keep millions of people from dying, we need to do this now.

“Adding a pathway goal would help reduce the risks faced by the current generation and our children, complementing the Paris Agreement’s long-term target that reduces risks for future generations,” he said.

Shindell and colleagues from 10 other international research institutions published their peer-reviewed policy forum article May 5 in Science.

The article builds upon previous work by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), an international consortium of more than 100 countries and non-state partners working to reduce SLCPs. Shindell chairs the CCAC’s Science Advisory Panel; his co-authors of the new policy forum are all members or affiliates of that panel.

In the new article, they point out that in addition to saving human lives and boosting global food security, curbing SLCPs will significantly slow the pace of climate change over the next 25 years. This could help reduce biodiversity losses and slow amplifying climate feedbacks such as snow-and-ice albedo that are highly sensitive to black carbon.

Under the Paris Agreement, many countries have already committed to reducing SLCPs, Shindell noted, yet they are combining those pledges into a single, so-called “CO2-equivalent” reporting method that lumps SLCPs into the same basket as carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases. Maintaining separate reporting methods for each pollutant would provide a clearer understanding of the benefits associated with SLCPs’ reduction.

“Targeting immediate reductions in SLCP emissions is the most beneficial path we can take toward achieving the Paris Climate Agreement’s goal of reducing warming by 2oC,” Shindell said. “You could, conceivably, delay reducing these pollutants for decades and still achieve that goal. But why would you want to if there are all these advantages to be gained by following this path, instead?”

###

Researchers at the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development in Washington, D.C.; the University of British Colombia; the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; the University of York; the United Nations Environment Programme; Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Colorado State University; the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria; and TERI University in India co-authored the new article with Shindell.

CITATION:”A Climate Policy Pathway for Near- and Long-Term Benefits,” D. Shindell, N. Borgford-Parnell, M. Brauer, A. Haines, J.C.I. Kuylenstierna, S.A. Leonard, V. Ramanathan, A. Ravishankara, M. Amann and L. Srivastava. Science, May 5, 2017: DOI: 10.1126/science.aak9521



via JunkScience.com http://junkscience.com

May 4, 2017 at 06:06AM

New Study Confirms: Global Warming Pause Is Real

New Study Confirms: Global Warming Pause Is Real

via Climate Change Dispatch
http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

A new paper has been published in the Analysis section of Nature called Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’. It confirms that the ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ is real. It is also rather revealing. It attempts to explain the ‘Pause’ by looking into what is known about climate variability. One could be a little sarcastic in […]

via Climate Change Dispatch http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

May 4, 2017 at 05:44AM

Richard Lindzen–Part III

Richard Lindzen–Part III

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

 

More from Richard Lindzen:

 

The extreme weather meme:

Every line weather forecaster knows that extreme events occur someplace virtually every day. The present temptation to attribute these normally occurring events to climate change is patently dishonest. Roger Pielke, Jr. actually wrote a book detailing the fact that there is no trend in virtually any extreme event (including tornados, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc.) with some actually decreasing. Even the UN’s IPCC acknowledges that there is no basis for attributing such events to anthropogenic climate change.

Figure 5. Temperature map for North America.


The situation with respect to extreme temperatures actually contradicts not just observations but basic meteorological theory. Figure 5 shows a map of temperatures for North America on February 27, 2008. Extreme temperatures at any location occur when air motions carry air from the coldest or warmest points on the map. Now, in a warmer climate, it is expected that the temperature difference between the tropics and the high latitudes will decrease. Thus the range of possible extremes will be reduced. More important is the fact that the motions that carry these temperatures arise from a process called baroclinic instability, and this instability derives from the magnitude of the aforementioned temperature difference. Thus, in a warmer world, these winds will be weaker and less capable of carrying extreme temperatures to remote locations. Claims of greater extremes in temperature simply ignore the basic physics, and rely, for their acceptance, on the ignorance of the audience.

The claims of extreme weather transcend the usual use of misleading claims. They often amount to claims for the exact opposite of what is actually occurring. The object of the claims is simply to be as scary as possible, and if that requires claiming the opposite of the true situation, so be it.

Sea level rise:

Globally averaged sea level appears to have been rising at the rate of about 6 inches a century for thousands of years. Until the advent of satellites, sea level was essentially measured with tide gauges which measure the sea level relative to the land level. Unfortunately, the land level is also changing, and as Emery and Aubrey note, tectonics are the major source of change at many locations. Beginning in 1979 we began to use satellites to measure actual sea level. The results were surprisingly close to the previous tide gauge estimates, but slightly higher, but one sees from Wunsch et al (DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1840.1) that one is in no position to argue that small differences from changing methodologies represents acceleration. Regardless, the changes are small compared to the claims that suggest disastrous changes. However, even in the early 1980’s advocates of warming alarm like S. Schneider argued that sea level would be an easily appreciated scare tactic. The fact that people like Al Gore and Susan Solomon (former head of the IPCC’s Scientific Assessment) have invested heavily in ocean front property supports the notion that the issue is propagandistic rather than scientific.

http://ift.tt/2oJHtZe

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

May 4, 2017 at 05:39AM

Ben Goldsmith’s Letter To The Telegraph

Ben Goldsmith’s Letter To The Telegraph

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

 

 

The Telegraph have printed this letter from the billionaire Ben Goldsmith today:

 

 

SIR – Charles Moore couldn’t have got it more wrong in writing that climate change fears are elitist and limited to those in metropolitan areas.

MPs up and down the country report increasing numbers of constituents raising this issue with them. There is in fact huge public backing for action on climate change, and in particular support for energy efficiency and renewables.

Moreover, it is a myth that climate policies are driving up energy bills: wind and gas are now demonstrably the cheapest sources of electricity in Britain. Bill-payers are better off as a result of green policy measures which drive greater efficiency. And, ultimately, our economy is stronger because of the world-leading contribution our country makes to green industries.

As we leave the European Union, we must continue to show leadership, encourage innovation, work towards energy self-sufficiency and invest in long-term sustainable energy solutions – no matter what the ever-shrinking collection of climate naysayers do to try to hinder such progress.

Ben Goldsmith
Chairman, Conservative Environment Network
London NW3

http://ift.tt/2qEoBNo

 

 

Here’s my reply, which we’ll have to see if they publish:

 

 

Dear Sir

Ben Goldsmith claims that climate policies are not pushing up energy bills (Letters, 4th May).

He obviously is not aware that, according to the OBR, subsidies for green energy will cost £9.1bn this year, and are due to rise to £14.3bn by 2020. To that figure must be added £11bn for the smart meter rollout. All of this must be paid for by bill payers.

He also claims that wind power, along with gas, is now the cheapest form of electricity. Perhaps he might like to explain why wind farms still require large subsidies under the CfD mechanism, rather than compete on the open market.

Paul Homewood

I have to say it is ironic that the aforesaid billionaire, from one of the poshest parts of London, takes umbrage with Charles Moore’s claim that climate change fears are largely a elitist, metropolitan issue!

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

May 4, 2017 at 05:39AM