The Weather Channel published an article on its website Wednesday claiming global warming threatens the extinction of mangrove trees – which rely on warm temperatures to live – within 30 years. 805 weitere Wörter

Sorry, Weather Channel, Mangroves Will NOT Disappear in 30 Years — Climate Realism

The Weather Channel published an article on its website Wednesday claiming global warming threatens the extinction of mangrove trees – which rely on warm temperatures to live – within 30 years. Common sense and scientific evidence reveal that the Weather Channel’s alarmist claim is preposterous.

Mangroves Love Heat, Salty Water

Mangrove trees grow along shorelines in saltwater or brackish water. They provide many ecological benefits, including filtering water pollution, anchoring shoreline soil, and providing breeding grounds and host environments for many marine species.

Mangroves are very susceptible to frost events and therefore are limited to the tropics and subtropics. There are no coastlines that are too warm for them, as they grow throughout the tropics and thrive even along the equator on all three continents that span the equator.

Mangroves Currently Expanding Their Range

Recent scientific research shows warming temperatures allow mangrove trees to grow larger and more rapidly, and also for mangrove forests to expand their ranges. A recent study in the peer-reviewed Journal of Ecology reports, “As freeze events decline with climate change, mangroves expand their range to higher latitudes….”

The Journal of Ecology study also mangroves dramatically increase their growth and concentrations under warmer conditions. “We found that chronic warming doubled plant height and accelerated the expansion of mangrove into salt marsh vegetation, as indicated by a six-fold greater increase in mangrove cover in warmed plots compared to ambient temperature plots,” the study found.

That’s right, mangrove cover increased six-fold under warmer temperatures!

The study also found warmer temperatures facilitated elevation gain, with mangroves migrating further inland from the shore, “driven by increased mangrove root production in warmed plots.”

Dubious Alarmism

How, then, does the Weather Channel claim global warming threatens to make mangroves go extinct within 30 years?

The Weather Channel cited a very dubious alarmist study regarding mangroves and sea-level rise, and then further misrepresented the dubious study to make it appear even more alarmist. One could call the Weather Channel’s (mis)representations bad science, but even that would likely be too kind.

Stationary Ranges?

In the study cited by the Weather Channel, modelers attempted to discern the pace of mangrove migration 10,000 years ago when global sea level dramatically rose. The modelers then forecast that mangrove forests can migrate to higher elevations at a speed of no more than 7 millimeters (0.27 inches) of sea-level rise per year.

Anybody who lives near mangroves knows mangrove forests can migrate much faster than that. Mangrove roots can spring up from the soil several feet from the trunk of the host mangrove tree. Moreover, mangrove seed pods float on the water and can therefore take root at the same pace with the rising waters and tides. Accordingly, mangrove forests can easily keep up with rising sea level, and can certainly migrate more than 0.27 inches of sea-level rise per year.

Wild Sea-Level Speculation

Regardless, according to NASA satellite measurements, sea level is currently rising at approximately 3 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year, a pace that has held steady for at least the past 25 years. That is less than half the pace of what the modelers dubiously predict as the upper pace of mangrove migration. So, even at an upper migration limit of 0.27 inches per year, the authors of the Weather Channel-cited study acknowledge mangroves are easily keeping up with modest sea-level rise.

However, the authors of the study cited by the Weather Channel dubiously speculate that sea-level rise will immediately and dramatically skyrocket. The authors speculate that within 30 years, sea level will rise at nearly triple its current pace – despite no significant increase in the pace of sea-level rise since satellite instruments began measuring sea-level rise late last century. Accordingly, the notion that sea-level rise will nearly triple between now and 2050 is far-fetched.

Misrepresenting the 30-Year Threshold

Nevertheless, even if dubious rapid and immediate acceleration of sea level occurs, and even in the unlikely event that mangrove systems cannot migrate at 0.27 inches per year, the year 2050 would be the year in which mangroves would first start to struggle to keep up with sea-level rise – it would not be the year in which all mangroves all over the world become extinct, as the Weather Channel claims.

Alarmists Assume People Can’t Plant Seeds

Moreover, in the event all those dubious events occurred, people could easily plant mangroves at the slightly higher shoreline. It is not that difficult a task.

Holding Alarmists Accountable

The nature of alarmism is to make predictions too far into the future for doomsayers to be held accountable during their lifetimes. This particular prediction is for 30 years from now, which will allow most people alive today to verify whether the mangrove extinction prediction comes true. The alarmist prediction will certainly not come true, proving who the “science deniers” truly are.

The post Sorry, Weather Channel, Mangroves Will NOT Disappear in 30 Years appeared first on Climate Realism.

By Paul Homewood By pure coincidence, John Constable has just published his verdict on the push for hydrogen: London, 19 June: Desperate policy makers trying to reach Net Zero targets that are unaffordable and infeasible are rushing into the premature adoption of hydrogen as a last ditch attempt to save the current agenda. […]

Desperate Policymakers Rushing Into Inefficient Hydrogen — Iowa Climate Science Education

By Paul Homewood

By pure coincidence, John Constable has just published his verdict on the push for hydrogen:

London, 19 June: Desperate policy makers trying to reach Net Zero targets that are unaffordable and infeasible are rushing into the premature adoption of hydrogen as a last ditch attempt to save the current agenda.
Faced with the task of eliminating carbon dioxide emissions while sustaining economic growth, the UK government, like others around the world, is promoting hydrogen as an energy carrier for sectors of the economy such as heavy transport and peak winter heating that are extremely difficult to decarbonize.
The wisdom of this policy, with a special focus on the United Kingdom, is addressed in a new historical and technical study published today by the GWPF.
The study concludes that current enthusiasm is a desperate measure that will jeopardise the long-term promise of hydrogen for the sake of short-term political optics.
Because of the accelerated timetable required by arbitrary targets, it is necessary to manufacture hydrogen via two expensive and energetically inefficient commodity production processes, the electrolysis of water, and the reforming of natural gas.
Electrolysis is extremely expensive, and the reforming of methane emits carbon dioxide and so requires Carbon Capture and Sequestration, which is not only costly but unproven at the required scale. Both these commodity processes imply high levels of fresh water consumption.
The prudent approach, obvious since the 1970s and still the official long-range policy of the government of Japan, is to aim for hydrogen production by the thermal decomposition of sea water employing advanced nuclear reactors, which alone might conceivably make hydrogen cheap. This is, however, very difficult chemical and nuclear engineering, and its realisation lies well into the future.
The paper also notes that hasty introduction will not give enough time for safe societal adjustment to the inherent dangers of a fugitive and readily ignited gas that has a strong tendency to technical detonation (combustion with a supersonic combustion frontier). The learning experience could be needlessly painful and deadly.
Dr John Constable, author of the study, said: 
“Hydrogen has genuine long term potential as a universal energy carrier to supplement electricity, but current methods of production are hugely expensive and will stress fresh water supplies. Target-driven haste is already resulting in accidents. Counterproductive and naive policies are compromising the hydrogen future.”

Hydrogen: The Once And Future Fuel (pdf)

John’s work confirms a lot of what I was saying yesterday about the gross inefficiencies in the production of hydrogen, not to mention the crippling costs. Usefully, he also covers safety and water consumption issues.

In particular he highlights the economic realities of electrolysis, pointing out that we would need 60 TWh of electricity to produce 44 TWh of hydrogen (energy equivalent). If all of the 270 TWh worth of hydrogen needed was to be sourced via electrolysis, we would need 368 TWh of electricity, which is more than our total generation now.

As it would need to all be renewable, we would be looking at about 100GW of offshore wind capacity, (currently standing at 10GW). The capital cost of the electrolysers, according to John’s numbers, would be up to £74bn, to which would be added the cost of all the wind turbines.

Plainly this sort of output could not be sourced by simply relying on excess wind power, which is why the Committee on Climate Change commented in their Net Zero report:

Decarbonising Heating Will Cost Us £28bn A Year

See more

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/3fKmMY5

June 19, 2020 at 12:30PM

Guest essay by Eric Worrall Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, has just suggested Americans don’t believe science. Anthony Fauci: Americans ‘Don’t Believe Science and They Don’t Believe Authority’ JOSHUA CAPLAN 18 Jun 2020 Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, served up harsh […]

Fauci: Americans “Don’t Believe Science” — Iowa Climate Science Education

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, has just suggested Americans don’t believe science.

Anthony Fauci: Americans ‘Don’t Believe Science and They Don’t Believe Authority’

JOSHUA CAPLAN 18 Jun 2020

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, served up harsh criticism of Americans on Thursday, asserting that the country suffers from what he described as an “anti-science bias” problem.

“One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are — for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable — they just don’t believe science and they don’t believe authority,” Fauci told the Learning Curve podcast, which is produced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“So when they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it, who’s talking about science, that there are some people who just don’t believe that — and that’s unfortunate because, you know, science is truth,” Fauci continued, referring to the White House coronavirus task force’s once-daily briefings.

“It’s amazing sometimes the denial there is, it’s the same thing that gets people who are anti-vaxxers, who don’t want people to get vaccinated, even though the data clearly indicate the safety of vaccines,” he added. “That’s really a problem.”

…

Read more: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/18/anthony-fauci-americans-dont-believe-science-and-they-dont-believe-authority/

The words were spoken in an episode of “Learning Curve”, hosted by the US Department of Health and Human Services. The “don’t believe science” comments are made around the 15 minute mark.

The following is a short excerpt from the full interview of Dr. Fauci speaking the quoted words:

Your browser does not support embedded audio sorry.

Fauci also said people should believe him and trust him, because of his long track record of always speaking the truth, through six administrations.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/30UXK4h

June 19, 2020 at 12:19PM

According to global warming catastrophists, climate change is good for everything that’s bad, and bad for all that is good. So not surprisingly, many have been claiming for years that tornadoes will become ever stronger, more frequent and so devastating that we’ll be sorry for not listening. But as many of us are finding out, […]

Meteorologists: “Tornado Season Is Tanking”…This Year Sahara Dust May Be “Inhibiting Factor” For Hurricanes! — Iowa Climate Science Education

According to global warming catastrophists, climate change is good for everything that’s bad, and bad for all that is good.

So not surprisingly, many have been claiming for years that tornadoes will become ever stronger, more frequent and so devastating that we’ll be sorry for not listening. But as many of us are finding out, their claims are a real load of bullcrap. Everyone knows there are loads of other major factors at work. and they cannot be possibly ignored.

Tornado activity well below normal

40-year veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi tweeted yesterday that tornado activity would be at a record low level right now had it not been for one single day of intense activity last April:Joe Bastardi✔@BigJoeBastardi

Tornado season is tanking, Remember that when the climate change hype with hurricanes starts. If not for the one day in April, would be at record lows

4813:53 – 18. Juni 2020Twitter Ads Info und Datenschutz24 Nutzer sprechen darüber

Naturally one season says nothing about the overall trend. Luckily we have annual data on tornado activity going back decades. Again some would have us believe that the trend is upward, meaning more tornadoes each and every year.

But the data tells us a different story:

In summary, when it comes to tornadoes in the US, if anything, the warming has had a diminishing effect on activity, and that’s good news.

Like Joe Bastardi says, “Remember that when the climate change hype with hurricanes starts.”

Speaking of this year’s hurricane season, many serious experts are warning that a stronger than normal season likely awaits us…due to natural oceanic cyclic patterns. The alarmists on the other hand of course will blame it on CO2.

Sahara dust to hamper Atlantic tropical storm formation

But one meteorologist says that currently there’s one factor acting to suppress tropical storm formation: Sahara dust.

Paul Dorian of Perspecta Weather reports: 

Sahara Desert dust is pushing across the Atlantic and it should reach all the way into the southern US…an inhibiting factor for tropical activity…possible brilliant sunsets.*

That would be great news for people living along the US coast, but more bad news for the alarmists.

Donate – choose an amount

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/37Hz14G

June 19, 2020 at 12:02PM

By Paul Homewood By pure coincidence, John Constable has just published his verdict on the push for hydrogen: London, 19 June: Desperate policy makers trying to reach Net Zero targets that are unaffordable and infeasible are rushing into the premature adoption of hydrogen as a last ditch attempt to save the current agenda. […]

Desperate Policymakers Rushing Into Inefficient Hydrogen — NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

By pure coincidence, John Constable has just published his verdict on the push for hydrogen:

London, 19 June: Desperate policy makers trying to reach Net Zero targets that are unaffordable and infeasible are rushing into the premature adoption of hydrogen as a last ditch attempt to save the current agenda.
Faced with the task of eliminating carbon dioxide emissions while sustaining economic growth, the UK government, like others around the world, is promoting hydrogen as an energy carrier for sectors of the economy such as heavy transport and peak winter heating that are extremely difficult to decarbonize.
The wisdom of this policy, with a special focus on the United Kingdom, is addressed in a new historical and technical study published today by the GWPF.
The study concludes that current enthusiasm is a desperate measure that will jeopardise the long-term promise of hydrogen for the sake of short-term political optics.
Because of the accelerated timetable required by arbitrary targets, it is necessary to manufacture hydrogen via two expensive and energetically inefficient commodity production processes, the electrolysis of water, and the reforming of natural gas.
Electrolysis is extremely expensive, and the reforming of methane emits carbon dioxide and so requires Carbon Capture and Sequestration, which is not only costly but unproven at the required scale. Both these commodity processes imply high levels of fresh water consumption.
The prudent approach, obvious since the 1970s and still the official long-range policy of the government of Japan, is to aim for hydrogen production by the thermal decomposition of sea water employing advanced nuclear reactors, which alone might conceivably make hydrogen cheap. This is, however, very difficult chemical and nuclear engineering, and its realisation lies well into the future.
The paper also notes that hasty introduction will not give enough time for safe societal adjustment to the inherent dangers of a fugitive and readily ignited gas that has a strong tendency to technical detonation (combustion with a supersonic combustion frontier). The learning experience could be needlessly painful and deadly.
Dr John Constable, author of the study, said: 
“Hydrogen has genuine long term potential as a universal energy carrier to supplement electricity, but current methods of production are hugely expensive and will stress fresh water supplies. Target-driven haste is already resulting in accidents. Counterproductive and naive policies are compromising the hydrogen future.”

Hydrogen: The Once And Future Fuel (pdf)

John’s work confirms a lot of what I was saying yesterday about the gross inefficiencies in the production of hydrogen, not to mention the crippling costs. Usefully, he also covers safety and water consumption issues.

In particular he highlights the economic realities of electrolysis, pointing out that we would need 60 TWh of electricity to produce 44 TWh of hydrogen (energy equivalent). If all of the 270 TWh worth of hydrogen needed was to be sourced via electrolysis, we would need 368 TWh of electricity, which is more than our total generation now.

As it would need to all be renewable, we would be looking at about 100GW of offshore wind capacity, (currently standing at 10GW). The capital cost of the electrolysers, according to John’s numbers, would be up to £74bn, to which would be added the cost of all the wind turbines.

Plainly this sort of output could not be sourced by simply relying on excess wind power, which is why the Committee on Climate Change commented in their Net Zero report:

Decarbonising Heating Will Cost Us £28bn A Year

See more

According to global warming catastrophists, climate change is good for everything that’s bad, and bad for all that is good. So not surprisingly, many have been claiming for years that tornadoes will become ever stronger, more frequent and so devastating that we’ll be sorry for not listening. 321 weitere Wörter

Meteorologists: “Tornado Season Is Tanking”…This Year Sahara Dust May Be “Inhibiting Factor” For Hurricanes! — NoTricksZone

According to global warming catastrophists, climate change is good for everything that’s bad, and bad for all that is good.

So not surprisingly, many have been claiming for years that tornadoes will become ever stronger, more frequent and so devastating that we’ll be sorry for not listening. But as many of us are finding out, their claims are a real load of bullcrap. Everyone knows there are loads of other major factors at work. and they cannot be possibly ignored.

Tornado activity well below normal

40-year veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi tweeted yesterday that tornado activity would be at a record low level right now had it not been for one single day of intense activity last April:Joe Bastardi✔@BigJoeBastardi

Tornado season is tanking, Remember that when the climate change hype with hurricanes starts. If not for the one day in April, would be at record lows

4813:53 – 18. Juni 2020Twitter Ads Info und Datenschutz24 Nutzer sprechen darüber

Naturally one season says nothing about the overall trend. Luckily we have annual data on tornado activity going back decades. Again some would have us believe that the trend is upward, meaning more tornadoes each and every year.

But the data tells us a different story:

In summary, when it comes to tornadoes in the US, if anything, the warming has had a diminishing effect on activity, and that’s good news.

Like Joe Bastardi says, “Remember that when the climate change hype with hurricanes starts.”

Speaking of this year’s hurricane season, many serious experts are warning that a stronger than normal season likely awaits us…due to natural oceanic cyclic patterns. The alarmists on the other hand of course will blame it on CO2.

Sahara dust to hamper Atlantic tropical storm formation

But one meteorologist says that currently there’s one factor acting to suppress tropical storm formation: Sahara dust.

Paul Dorian of Perspecta Weather reports: 

Sahara Desert dust is pushing across the Atlantic and it should reach all the way into the southern US…an inhibiting factor for tropical activity…possible brilliant sunsets.*

That would be great news for people living along the US coast, but more bad news for the alarmists.Donate – choose an amount

Coastal history analyses increasingly suggest sea levels are lower today than at any time in the last 7000 years – even lower than the 1600s to 1800s. 213 weitere Wörter

New Studies Suggests Sea Levels Are Lower Today Than They Were Even During The Little Ice Age — NoTricksZone

Coastal history analyses increasingly suggest sea levels are lower today than at any time in the last 7000 years – even lower than the 1600s to 1800s.

Recently we compared cartology from the 17th to 19th centuries to direct aerial images of coastal positions today. Rather surprisingly, there seemed to be more land area below sea level a few hundred years ago.

For example, an 1802 nautical map of New York City and Long Island shows there may have been more open waters in this region during the Little Ice Age than in 2019.

Image Source: Amazon.com

Shoreline analysis from India also suggests the coasts were further inland during the 1600s than they are today (Mörner, 2017).

Image Source: Mörner, 2017

In another new study, the borehole sea level history for the Italian port city of Salerno reveals the coast was hundreds of meters further inland compared to today’s 7000 years ago. Even 300 years ago the coast was still much further inland (Amato et al., 2020).

Image Source: Amato et al., 2020

Citing previous studies, another new paper has today’s sea levels about 2 to 3 meters lower than they were 4000 to 5000 years ago along the coasts of Brazil (Martins et al., 2020). And, again, today’s relative sea levels seem to be the lowest of the record – lower than the Little Ice Age.

Image Source: Martins et al., 2020

German Coal Power Plants To Be Converted: To Burn Trees Millions of trees to be shipped from around the world to Europe to be burned as “green coal”. 529 weitere Wörter

Folly: Germany Plans To Convert Coal Power Plant To Burn 100-Year Old Trees In Minutes! — NoTricksZone

Millions of trees to be shipped from around the world to Europe to be burned as “green coal”. Image cropped from “Planet of the Humans”

By Die kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

On May 2, 2020, we reported on the movie Burned. In the USA, the focus is on biomass.

However, they do not ferment fast-growing plants into gas as is the case in Europe, rather they cut down trees and burn them in power plants – often together with other things like car tires or soaked railway ties.

The issue is controversial because it is about pure ideology. Climate organisations such as 350.org, which in the USA is like Fridays For Future (FFF) in Europe, have given their blessing to this type of power generation.

The film Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore also denounces this.

Converting CO2 sinks instantly into atmospheric CO2

And so the USA is losing valuable carbon sinks and biotopes, destroying its environment and lying to itself about sustainability and the climate. A tree that takes 50 – 100 years to become big and stately, but then is burned up in a few minutes, can never have a favorable climate balance, no matter how you calculate it. Trees are the new coal, it seems.

But anyone who thinks that this is only done in the USA, where huge forests and thus carbon sinks are destroyed, is mistaken.

“Madness”: German coal plant to be converted to burn trees

The online daily Weserkurier reports on a coal-fired power station in Wilhelmshaven (North Germany) that is to be converted to burn wood. This made Germany’s most famous forester, Peter Wohlleben (book “The Secret Life of Trees“) flash with anger on Twitter.Peter Wohlleben@PeterWohlleben

Der Wahnsinn geht weiter: Obwohl hunderte Wissenschaftler vor der Holzverbrennung als Klimakiller warnen, setzen Politik und Wirtschaft in Deutschland auf Waldzerstörung und wollen Kohlekraftwerk umrüsten. https://www.weser-kurier.de/deutschland-welt/deutschland-welt-wirtschaft_artikel,-kraftwerk-in-wilhelmshaven-soll-mit-biomasse-betrieben-werden-_arid,1917939_type,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true … @GrueneBundestag @SvenjaSchulze68 @spdbt46109:27 – 13. Juni 2020Twitter Ads Info und Datenschutz212 Nutzer sprechen darüber

Wohlleben’s tweet in English:

The madness continues: although hundreds of scientists are warning against burning wood as a climate killer, politics and industry in Germany are backing forest destruction and want to convert coal-fired power plants.”

What Wohlleben means by madness could be the statements of Social Democrat Party member of parliament Siemtje Möller. Her slogan on her own website: “Think about the climate too!”

“Green coal”

Siemtje Möller is already thinking ahead. After all, the Wilhelmshaven site could eventually also produce hydrogen with the green coal. The stimulus for the technology, worth billions of euros, which has just been ratified, should also come to Wilhelmshaven.

“I’d like a fair share here,” says the Siemtje Möller about the budget. In general, she sees the hydrogen initiative, the coal phase-out law and the structural transformation law as “a huge opportunity for the Northwest to enter the future”.

She calls trees “green coal” in all seriousness and then wants to use the energy from burnt trees to produce hydrogen. Does the federal hydrogen initiative mean something like that? Probably not. Destroying carbon sinks cannot possibly be a huge opportunity for the future.

Why does Ms. Möller take her own slogan so little seriously?