Study: Earth is becoming GREENER, not BROWNER due to climate change

INCONVENIENT…

“[Since] the late 1970s. The vast majority of the globe’s vegetated area is greening, with 25-50% of that area showing a statistically significant change, while only 4% of the vegetated area is significantly browning…”

“Carbon Pollution” (aka Carbon Dioxide) not so “dirty” after all!

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels

It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol Browner was Bill Clinton’s EPA Administrator, but here we use it in the context of a recent Science paper by J-F. Busteri and 30 named coauthors assisted by 239 volunteers. It found, looking at global drylands (about 40% of land areas fall into this category), that we had undercounted global forest cover by a whopping “at least 9%”.

239 people were required to examine over 210,000 0.5 hectare (1.2 acre) sample plots in GoogleEarth, and classify the cover as open or forested. Thing of being condemned to looking at that many satellite views of real estate. Anyway, Here’s the resultant cool map:

clip_image002

This has been the subject of a jillion recent stories, blog posts, tweets and whatever concerning Bastin et al. So let’s add a bit…

View original post 299 more words


Good News! We Have Lots More Forest Than We Thought

SO, “Carbon Dioxide” is not the evil “pollutant” hysterically demonised by the climate cabal and even enshrined in law, as a “pollutant”, by Obama’s EPA!

The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, whether produced by humans or nature, is actually growing Earths forests! Shock news.

Another reason other than “carbon pollution (sic)” promoting forest growth, would be the advancements in energy technology, in particular the burning of efficient and energy dense ‘fossil fuels’…

When we’re burning fossil fuels, it means we’re not burning something else and cutting down forests.

The more we burn fossil fuels, the more we can produce fertiliser. That means we use less land to grow food, so we can spare land for forests. So there is net forest increase, particularly in America. New England used to be 70% farmland, it’s now 70% forest. Countries like Bangladesh are growing more forest.

The best example of this is the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Haiti is almost 99% deforested, as they rely totally on wood for domestic and industrial fuel. On the other side, the forests of the fossil fuel burning, eco-terrorists – the Dominican Republic, remain lush and green…

IMG_9187

A new satellite that measures greening of the earth has found that about 20% is getting greener. So the rain forests and forests of the world are getting greener from burning CO2. That happens to be a very unwelcome message for the environmental movement, but it happens to be true.

We’ve spent so long demonising fossil fuels, without objectively assessing the enormous benefits they provide, both for the environment and for the health and wellbeing of society in general.
The cheap, reliable nature of fossil fuels even made it possible to end slavery! Because we use machines instead of people. You either have cheap labour or cheap energy.

Moral of the story, THE greatest threat to the environment is not affluence, it’s poverty…

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/shock-news-un-carbon-regime-would-devastate-humanity/

American Elephants

A new survey using high-definition satellite images has found 378 million additional hectares of forest around the globe—it’s as if all of Earth’s forests just grew by 9%.

(The hectare is an SI accepted metric system unit of area equal to 100 ares (10,000 m²) and primarily used in the measurement of land. An acre is about 0.4047 hectare and one hectare contains about 2.47 acres. I don’t do metric, and assume that some of you don’t either. You can also think of it as an area of forest equal to sixty percent of the size of Australia, if that helps)
“The forests have been identified in drylands in the Sahara desert, around the Mediterranean, southern Africa, central India, coastal Australia, western South America, north-east Brazil, northern Columbia and Venezuela and northern parts of Canada and Russia.”
*The image is of coastal Australia.

View original post


7 REASONS Why Activist Orgs Like NatGeo (Sadly) Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change”

Nat GEop.jpg

A MUST READ unemotional and clinical scientific rebuttal of National Geographic’s latest climate change hysteria and groupthink propaganda rhetoric…

Yet another example of why – sadly – mainstream media activist outlets like the once respected NatGeo cannot be trusted on anything global warming climate change.

•••

7 part series via our friends over at Paul Homewood’s excellent site – notalotofpeopleknowthat:

1. Seven things to know about climate change–National Geographic

NG1.png

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

National Geographic has long lost any scientific credibility on climate change issues. It’s new project, “Seven things to know about climate change”, does nothing to restore it.

NG2.png

NG3

In fact, as their graph clearly shows, temperatures have been steadily rising the 19thC, long before CO2 emissions could have made any noticeable difference.

Why is there no mention that the Little Ice Age, culminating in the late 19thC, is known to be probably the coldest period in Earth’s history since the end of the last Ice Age?

They also mention satellite measurements, but strangely forget to state that atmospheric temperatures last year were no higher than in 1998.

Seven things to know about climate change–National Geographic | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

•••

2. Second Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

PART 2 – Colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food – carbon dioxide (CO2) hysteria… (Climatism comment)

NATG4.png

NG5.png

They fail to explain why global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, at the same time as CO2 emissions were rising rapidly.

They also forget to mention the role that the great ocean cycles played in 20thC warming. The post 1940 cool down coincided with the shift of both PDO and AMO to cold phase.

Similarly post 1980 warming was in large part the result of a return to warm phase for both cycles.

NG6.png

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=20&year1=1900&year2=2016&itypea=0&axistype=1&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results

•••

3. Third Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

PART 3 – The fake “97% consensus” revered worldwide by the likes of Barack Obama, cooked up by cartoonist and professional climate activist John Cook. Following on from the bogus Doran/Zimmerman study of 2009: http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats (Climatism comment)

ng7.png

NG8.png

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

The main cause of global warming? Err, well no actually.

According to the Cook study quoted, only 65 papers found explicitly found that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.

I make that 1.6%, not 97%.

Full details are here.

Virtually all scientists accept that man has some effect on climate, even if only through urbanisation. The Cook study is therefore pretty much worthless anyway, as the authors knew before they published it.

But the fact that only 65 papers identified humans as the primary cause is extremely damning to the supposed consensus.

If humans are actually responsible for less than half of recent warming, the whole scare story falls apart.

Prof Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre summed up just how meaningless Cook’s study was:

The [Cook et al.] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in [an earlier study]: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/andrew-montford-the-97/

•••

4. Fourth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

PART 4 – Starting your Arctic sea ice extent graph at the century maximum of 1979… (Climatism comment)

NG9

NG10.png

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

Even their graph of Arctic sea ice extent shows that the ice has stabilised since 2007. They are, of course, hoping that readers will not notice this.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

They start their graph in 1979, at the end of a period when the Arctic had been getting colder for three decades.

In Climate, History and the Modern World, HH Lamb wrote (in 1982):

The cooling of the Arctic since 1950-60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the 20thC, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans, but also in the Norwegian-East Greenland Sea….

A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.

Such sea ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production….. The 1960’s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland, which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years…

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/hh-lamb-cooling-in-the-arctic/

And during the earlier decades of warming, which he mentions, we know that temperatures around the Arctic were at similar levels to today.

For instance, Nuuk in Greenland:

Nuuk.png

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/greenland-temperature-trends-1873-2015/

The warming and cooling cycles in the Arctic have nothing at all to do with global warming, but follow the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a perfectly natural event, which NOAA says has been occurring for at least the last 1000 years.

NG12

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=0&year1=1895&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results

As for the Antarctic, the land ice mass there is actually growing, according to satellite altimeters.

They also mention glaciers, but do not tell their readers that glaciers worldwide grew massively between the Middle Ages and the mid 19thC, in other words during the Little Ice Age. (See here.)

They began retreating around the mid 19thC, and observations show that the rate of recession was greater then and in the early 20thC than it is now.

As glaciers melt, we are finding the remains of forests, carbon dated to the Middle Ages, as far apart as Alaska and Patagonia. Clearly glaciers are simply returning to their natural state prior to the Little Ice Age.

•••

5. Fifth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

PART 5 – The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con

“by most metrics, extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases.”

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/the-great-extreme-weather-climate-change-propaganda-con/

(Climatism comment)

ng5a

NG5b

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

There is no doubt that the “extreme weather lie” is one of the most fraudulent aspects of the whole climate scam.

Even the IPCC’s SREX report could not find any evidence that that extreme weather was increasing.

National Geographic’s claim is based on the above graph from Munich Re, showing the number of “global natural disasters”. But how are these defined?

Clearly every single flood, storm and so on is not counted. According to Munich Re themselves:

Taking very small events out of the equation, 750 relevant loss events [in 2016]such as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves were recorded in the Munich Re NatCatSERVICE database.

So what determines a “relevant event”. The answer of course is heavily weighted to economic cost. While this may have relevance to the insurance industry, it has little bearing on climate trends.

As the European Environment Agency explained in their “Damages from weather and climate-related events” report in 2012:

  • The observed damage increase is primarily due to increases in population, economic wealth and human activities in hazard-prone areas and to better reporting.
  • It is currently difficult to determine accurately the proportion of damage costs that are attributable to climate change.

Roger Pielke Jnr, a leading expert on the cost of disasters, has repeatedly shown claims that extreme weather is getting worse to be worthless. His graph below sums the whole topic up well.

Note that it is based on Munich Re’s own database.

NG5c.png

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/684740869707071488

Of course, Munich Re have a vested interest in pretending that weather disasters are on the increase, as it allows them to push up their insurance premiums.

Despite a supposedly calamitous year for disasters, Munich Re actually made a profit of Eu2.6bn in 2016, well ahead of its target of Eu2.3bn.

Most of this profit came from the reinsurance business, which made Eu2.5bn.

•••

6. The Sixth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

PART 6 – “There are many threats facing eco systems, but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.”

NG6a1

NG6a2

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

In 1982, HH Lamb wrote about how the ranges of birds and fishes had moved poleward in the first half of the 20thC.

When the Earth started cooling around 1960, this movement was reversed. All that animal and plant species are doing is returning to where they were a half a century or so ago.

NG6a3

HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World – p264
There are many threats facing eco systems,
but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.
•••

7. The Seventh Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

sg7a.png

sg7b.png

It is hard to know where to start with this load of garbage!

1) If climate change was not a serious danger, would 195 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to keep the warming below 2C?

Clearly National Geographic have failed to read what actually was agreed at Paris.

For a start, the Agreement itself actually states that, under the “pledges” made, emissions will continue to rise. To meet the 2C scenario, they would need to be cut by at least half.

sg7c.png

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/paris-agreement-will-lead-to-rise-in-ghg-emissions/

sg7d.jpg

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/why-the-uk-should-not-sign-the-paris-agreement/

Secondly, the vast majority of the 195 countries, including China and India, are designated as “developing” countries. As such, the Paris Agreement places no obligation on them at all to cut emissions, as it does on developed nations.

2) Switch to renewables

sg7e

They claim that we can save the planet by switching to renewable energy. Yet even their own graph shows that, although the use of renewable energy will roughly double by 2040, this will be dwarfed by the increasing use of fossil fuels.

The reason for this is very simple – the demand for cheap, reliable energy is growing fast amongst developing countries, as their economies expand and the expectations of their people for a better standard of living grow.

Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is utterly incapable of meeting this demand.

The sort of emission cuts needed “to do something” would condemn billions of people to grinding poverty.

3) In the US, solar now employs more people than coal, oil and gas combined.

Given that solar only provides 0.4% of the US’s energy, this fatuous statement shows just how inefficient solar power really is.

sg7f
BP Energy Review 2016

4) We can do something about it!

Who is this WE?

In the last decade or so, emissions have been slowly dropping in the US and EU, and now only account for 27% of global CO2.

Meanwhile, emissions in China and the rest of the world have been rocketing upwards.

sg7g

BP Energy Review 2016

Even if US and EU emissions dropped to zero, it would only take global emissions back to their level in 2002, and make next to no difference to the climate.

This whole series from National Geographic has from start to finish been based on a combination of irrelevant, fake and cherry picked data.

Sadly this seems to sum up the low standards that it has now sunk to.

•••

National Geographic Climate Change Alarmism Related :


Study suggests increased atmospheric CO2 created a 30% growth in plant photosynthesis during last two centuries

“Photosynthesis is the process through which plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbohydrates to fuel their growth and other activities”

Carbon dioxide – the essential gas of life on earth, without which we’d all be dead.

It is the very same gas that “Save The Planet” eco-zealots and sycophant climate-obsessed mainstream media refer to as “carbon pollution”.

It is the same essential gas of life that Barack Obama had written in law, via the EPA, as a “Pollutant”!

The demonisation of colourless, odourless, essential trace gas and plant food “CO2/Carbon Dioxide” – one of the great deceptions of the Climate Change scandal.

Watts Up With That?

From the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – MERCED and the “CO2 is plant food, but, it’s still terrible department” (see text)

Composite image showing the global distribution of photosynthesis, including both oceanic phytoplankton and terrestrial vegetation. Dark red and blue-green indicate regions of high photosynthetic activity in the ocean and on land, respectively. Image: NASA SEAWIFS

Research shows global photosynthesis on the rise

Plant photosynthesis was stable for hundreds of years before the industrial revolution, but grew rapidly in the 20th century, according to new research published today in Nature.

“Virtually all life on our planet depends on photosynthesis,” said UC Merced Professor Elliott Campbell, who led the research. “Keeping tabs on global plant growth should be a central goal for the human race.”

Photosynthesis is the process through which plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbohydrates to fuel their growth and other activities.

Yet, researchers lack…

View original post 916 more words


“Green” Germany’s Emissions Keep Rising

“Germany’s energiewende has propped up renewables at extraordinary cost to consumers, but it has also shuttered the country’s nuclear reactors. That decision, made largely in response to the 2011 Fukushima disaster, doomed a fleet of zero-emissions baseload [nuclear] power suppliers. And, because solar panels and wind turbines can only supply power when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, those binned reactors had to be replaced by fossil fuels.

And not just any fossil fuels: Germany has been ratcheting up its consumption of domestically produced lignite, a particularly dirty variety of coal.

“It’s hard to argue that Germany is any better off for having implemented the energiewende.”

Ironically, Greenpeace legislators within the German parliament killed German nukes off based on Fukushima hysteria, thus forcing the largest expansion of coal-fired power plants in Germany’s history !

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/green-german-lies/

Greens – Killing the Earth to “save it”.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

From The American Interest:

Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions rose last year, according to a new report. CO2 levels rose by 4 million tons in 2016 (0.7 percent), which means Berlin will have to reduce those levels by 40 million tons over the next three years in order to meet the country’s 2020 climate targets. As the FT reports, the country’s opposition Green party (who sponsored the study) is blaming an increase in vehicle miles traveled for the emissions increase:

A key reason for the increase was rising emissions in the transport sector, the Greens said. That was backed up by figures from the Federal Environment Agency, which showed carbon dioxide emissions from transport rose by 5.4m tonnes, or 3.4 per cent in 2016 — partly due to an increase in freight traffic, which expanded by 2.8 per cent. […]

The Greens also blamed a pick-up in…

View original post 258 more words


Germany’s Monumental Environmental Fail: CO2 Emissions Rise Despite €Trillions Blown on Subsidised Wind & Solar

And after a €1TRILLION of other people’s money burnt on Energiewende, ideologically-green Germany is reverting *back* to CO2-intensive coal with the biggest coal-fired power expansion in her history planned over the next ten years.

What a sick joke.

What a scam.

What a giant con.

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/green-german-lies/

STOP THESE THINGS

report-card

In Germany, around €190 billion has already been burnt on renewable subsidies; currently the green energy levy costs €56 million every day. And, the level of subsidy for wind and solar sees Germans paying €20 billion a year for power that gets sold on the power exchange for around €2 billion.

Energy poverty is a feature of daily life for hundreds of thousands; the promise of millions of groovy ‘green’ jobs is little more than a cruel hoax; and, adding insult to injury, the pretext for the insanity – the reduction of CO2 emissions in the electricity sector – hasn’t quite panned out as Green edicts predicted: emissions are, instead, rising fast.

If the justification for subsidies that will top €1 tillion was cutting CO2 gas emissions, the report card for 2016 on Germany’s Energiewende should score a big fat ‘F’.

Failure…Hundreds Of Billions For Nothing As Germany CO2 Reductions…

View original post 927 more words


Is Carbon Dioxide A Pollutant?

co2

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Driving down on Saturday, we stopped off at Crickley Country Park in Gloucestershire.

On the information board there was the usual eco stuff we often see these days. At the top it mentioned (roughly)

Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant and is harmful to the environment.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of pollution is;

The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects.

Clearly, CO2 is not poisonous, and far from being harmful is absolutely essential for life on Earth as we know it.

At best, the only argument can be that an increase in CO2 levels MAY, on balance, be harmful, but equally a reduction could be even more harmful.

Unfortunately, this sort of sloppy, lazy propaganda is far too common these days.

Crickley Park is owned and run by Gloucestershire County Council. It is sad we cannot count on…

View original post 8 more words