Any doubts about Climate Change?

**S Landreth** · 05-12-2021, 04:50 AM

Net Zero/Not Zero

At the COP26 gathering last week much of the discussion related to “Net-Zero” goals. This concept derives from important physical science results highlighted in the Special Report on 1.5ºC and more thoroughly in the last IPCC report that future warming is tied to future emissions, and that warming will effectively cease only once anthropogenic CO2 emissions are balanced by anthropogenic CO2 removals.

But some activists have (rightly) pointed out that large-scale CO2 removals are as yet untested, and so reliance on them to any significant extent to balance out emissions is akin not really committing to net zero at all. Their point is that “net-zero” is not zero and hence will serve as a smokescreen for insufficient climate action. To help sort this out some background might be helpful.

Net-zero CO2 has real geophysical significance

With empirical data and more and better modeling, it has become clear that, to first approximation, the eventual anthropogenic warming from carbon dioxide is tied to the cumulative emissions. This figure is from the AR6 SPM:

The relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and temperature (SPM AR6).

The basis of this relationship is the rough balance between the net uptake of carbon into deep pools (mainly the deep ocean) and the rate at which the oceans warm in response to an energy imbalance. We’ve discussed ‘commitment’ issues before, and to zeroth order global temperature is basically stable once CO2 emissions stop. Thus future warming is totally dependent on future emissions. These relationships implies that once cumulative emissions stop (i.e. net-zero is reached), the eventual warming is set.

This is a very important result, and one that underlies the recent pledges to achieve net-zero by 2030/2040/2050 etc. coming as part of the upgrade to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for the COP26 meeting.

Net-zero greenhouse gas emission does not have any geophysical significance

Within the Paris Agreement there is a section that says:

In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.

Article 4, section 1

This could be interpreted in different ways. Some folks have made a link between this statement and the emission reporting requirements which uses GWP-100 to covert different gases to a CO2-equivalent to suggest that we should be aiming for net-zero emissions of CO2-e. However this does not have any particular geophysical significance since it could be associated with an increasing, decreasing or stable temperature depending entirely on what is happening to CH4, N2O and CFCs.

For example, if anthropogenic CH4 emissions can be halved (say), that’s roughly 170 TgCh4/yr, which implies that 5100 TgCO2/yr ~ 5 GtCO2/yr could remain if net-zero CO2-e was the goal. While this is much smaller than current emissions of ~ 36 GtCO2/yr, it’s sufficient to maintain a warming trend of ~0.02ºC/decade. Alternatively, if we achieved net-zero CO2 and moved into net-negative CO2 emissions, net-zero CO2-e might occur at some point later while temperatures are declining. (At some point it will be worth looking in detail at what happens when we get 80 or 90% CO2 emission cuts because at that point the detectability of global temperature trends and the importance of small and hitherto neglected sources and sinks will come into play).

IPCC AR6 and the Glasgow text are clearer

During the approval session for the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policy Makers, this was one of the persistent issues. Wherever the authors had made a reference to net-zero CO2 emissions, the Saudis (and sometimes China) tried to amend it to say net-zero greenhouse gases instead. The authors and many other countries took pains to explain that these were not commensurate statements, and the SPM text ended up making it clear that net-zero as a concept only applied to CO2.

Subsequently, the Glasgow text clarified this for the COP process as well:

[The Conference of the Parties] also recognizes that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, including reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 relative to the 2010 level and to net zero around mid-century, as well as deep reductions in other greenhouse gases;

Glasgow Pact final text, section 17

This implies that the goal of net-zero for CO2 is now enshrined as a key goal (at least for the 1.5ºC aspiration). However, it is the timetable and cumulative emissions up until ‘net zero’ that will determine the eventual temperatures (with some additional influence from cuts to other GHGs and short-lived forcings). So even though ‘net-zero’ is only coupled to the 1.5ºC aspiration in this text, it’s actually much a broader concept.

Is net-zero as a scientific concept different from net-zero as a slogan?

Some parts of the climate community has been hostile to the use of “net-zero” because, in their eyes, the “net” part allows for bad faith actors to maintain current emissions while promising unrealistic amounts of negative emissions in the future to compensate. This is clearly an issue. Any net-zero pledge needs to be examined for credibility and the proposers need to be held accountable for the claims. I think it’s inevitable that some (maybe even all) such pledges will be optimistic about the magnitude of plausible negative emissions. But is net-zero the same as climate denial?

My answer is no. Net-zero is a well-founded physical goal that is rooted in the science that climate deniers mostly try to ignore. Is the rhetorical flourish here useful? I don’t particularly think so – it mostly serves to confuse greenwashing (a real problem) with the science of the carbon cycle which people already have a hard enough time with.

This isn’t to say that pledges and targets should not be scrutinized – of course they should, and some will be found to be less credible than others. But even though net-zero is not zero it is still geophysically meaningful and a useful concept for the general public to understand because it underlies the important conclusion that future CO2-driven warming is driven by future CO2 emissions.

About the author Gavin Schmidt - Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and received his PhD in applied mathematics at University College London

**S Landreth** · 10-12-2021, 10:48 AM

Copernicus – November 2021 was the 5^th warmest November recorded.

Globally, November 2021 was:

0.35°C warmer than the 1991-2020 average for November
the fifth warmest November on record
close to 0.2°C cooler than November 2020, the warmest November
only a little cooler (≤0.06ºC) than the Novembers of 2015, 2016 and 2019.

Homepage | Copernicus

From time to time I’ll read that a climate scientist has put another denier in their place. One recent occasion…..

- Prof Richard Betts - This claim is false. Until emissions stop completely (not merely decline), CO2 will continue to build up in the atmosphere.

It's like saying that there's no risk of your bathtub overflowing because you've turned the taps down a tiny bit. You actually have to turn the taps OFF!: https://twitter.com/richardabetts/st...93077059039237

- Prof Richard Betts - Michael showed the graph of CO2 emissions, but the actual impact on climate comes from CO2 *concentrations* (the amount actually in the atmosphere)

CO2 concentrations have continued to increase even though emissions have not risen over the last decade

- Prof Richard Betts - For the record, here’s the misleading tweet I was commenting on above, which has now been deleted.

About the author: Richard Betts is Head of Climate Impacts Research in the Met Office Hadley Centre and a Professor at the University of Exeter. BSc (Physics), University of Bristol, 1991./MSc (Meteorology and Applied Climatology), University of Birmingham, 1992./PhD (Meteorology), University of Reading, 1998.

**S Landreth** · 16-12-2021, 09:36 AM

NOAA – November 2021 was the 4^th warmest November recorded.

NOAA - Year-to-date

January – November 2021 was the 6^th warmest to date

National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world

It’s almost a mantra in climate science: The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. But that figure, found in scientific studies, advocacy reports, the popular press, and even the 2021 U.N. climate assessment, is incorrect, obscuring the true toll of global warming on the north, a team of climate scientists reports this week. In fact, the researchers say, the Arctic is warming four times faster than the global average.

“Everybody knows [the Arctic] is a canary when it comes to climate change,” says Peter Jacobs, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, who presented the work on 13 December at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union. “Yet we’re misreporting it by a factor of two. Which is just bananas.”

Researchers have long known the world warms faster in the far north, because of a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. The drivers of amplification include increased solar heating, as dark ocean water replaces reflective sea ice, along with occasional intrusions of tropical heat, carried to the Arctic by “atmospheric rivers,” narrow parades of dense clouds that drag water vapor northward.

Jacob’s co-authors include researchers who oversee several influential global temperature records, and they noted the faster Arctic warming as they prepared to release the global temperature average for 2020. NASA’s internal peer reviewer challenged the higher figure, suggesting the scientific literature didn’t support it. But the researchers have found the four times ratio holds in record sets from both NASA (3.9) and the United Kingdom’s Met Office (4.1), and they hope to soon include the Berkeley Earth record. (Their work also has company: In July, a team at the Finnish Meteorological Institute posted a preprint also arguing for the four times figure.)

The researchers found Arctic warming has been underestimated for a couple of reasons. One is climate scientists’ tendency to chop each hemisphere into thirds and label the area above 60°N as the “Arctic”—an area that would include, for example, most of Scandinavia. But the true definition of the Arctic is defined by Earth’s tilt. And, as has been known for centuries, the Arctic Circle is a line starting at 66.6°N. When researchers lump in the lower latitudes, “you’re diluting the amount of Arctic warming you’re getting,” Jacobs says. “That is not a trivial thing.”

The other difference is the choice of time periods over which the warming rate is calculated. Jacobs and his colleagues focused on the past 30 years, when a linear warming trend emerged for the Arctic. Analyses that look at longer term trends see less divergence between the Arctic and the world. That’s because before 1990, the Arctic’s temperatures fluctuated, and even cooled for decades because of air pollution, including light-blocking sulfate aerosols that swept in from the northern midlatitudes, says Mark England, a climate scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who is unaffiliated with the new work. As the world moves off fossil fuels and curbs pollution, he says, “this scenario is not going to repeat itself again.”

Overall, the researchers make a valuable point, England says. “I’m one of the people guilty of using the 60° mark. I guess a large number of people are.” One open question, he adds, is how much of the fast Arctic warming comes from human-driven climate change versus natural variability. Some of the Arctic temperature rise could be due to multidecadal temperature swings in the Atlantic Ocean in the 20th century, which some scientists believe are driven by the ocean’s intrinsic variability. Even so, “introducing this rigor in terms of 66° is a welcome development and I’ll certainly be doing that going forward,” England says.

Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, also welcomes the new analysis but points out that Arctic amplification is never a fixed ratio. As the researchers showed, the time span used to calculate the rate matters, as does the latitude and season—amplification is far larger in the winter. Serreze adds that Arctic warming has always been more uncertain than the rest of the world, because of the spottiness of the observational records. “As a result, I’m always in favor of looking at it as a range,” he says. “Two times to four times.”

Wherever the exact ratio of amplification sits, its influence is undeniable, researchers say. Thawing permafrost is undermining Indigenous villages, summer sea ice is vanishing, and water is sluicing off Greenland’s ice sheet in record amounts.

The team also sees the work as a cautionary tale, says Jacobs, who also works on communications for NASA. “When something is changing as quickly as the climate, numbers can get old and outdated quickly,” he says. “Before you realize it, you’re misinforming people by a factor of two.”

Authors: Peter Jacobs, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States, Nathan J L Lenssen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, United States, Gavin A Schmidt, NASA/GISS, New York, NY, United States and Robert A. Rohde, Berkeley Earth, Zurich, Switzerland

**S Landreth** · 24-12-2021, 09:25 AM

NASA – November 2021 was the 4^th warmest November recorded. September, October and November 2021 was the 4^th warmest September, October and November recorded

GISS: Data

Glen Peters - Global fossil CO₂ emissions in 2021 are still on track to be ~1% below 2019 levels, according to @Carbon_Monitor data from Jan-Oct (Blue bars are change from 2019-2020, red bars are change from 2019-2021).

As of Oct 2021, emissions are 1.3% below 2019.: https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/stat...71248300683264

Carbon monitor

about the author, Glen Peters: CICERO - Glen Peters – The Conversation

Himalayan glaciers melting at ‘exceptional rate’

The accelerating melting of the Himalayan glaciers threatens the water supply of millions of people in Asia, new research warns.

The study, led by the University of Leeds, concludes that over recent decades the Himalayan glaciers have lost ice ten times more quickly over the last few decades than on average since the last major glacier expansion 400-700 years ago, a period known as the Little Ice Age.

The study also reveals that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking far more rapidly than glaciers in other parts of the world – a rate of loss the researchers describe as “exceptional”.

The paper, which is published in Scientific Reports, made a reconstruction of the size and ice surfaces of 14,798 Himalayan glaciers during the Little Ice Age. The researchers calculate that the glaciers have lost around 40 per cent of their area – shrinking from a peak of 28,000 km2 to around 19,600 km2 today.

During that period they have also lost between 390 km3 and 586 km3 of ice – the equivalent of all the ice contained today in the central European Alps, the Caucasus, and Scandinavia combined. The water released through that melting has raised sea levels across the world by between 0.92 mm and 1.38 mm, the team calculates.

Dr Jonathan Carrivick, corresponding author and Deputy Head of the University of Leeds School of Geography, said: “Our findings clearly show that ice is now being lost from Himalayan glaciers at a rate that is at least ten times higher than the average rate over past centuries. This acceleration in the rate of loss has only emerged within the last few decades, and coincides with human-induced climate change.”

The Himalayan mountain range is home to the world’s third-largest amount of glacier ice, after Antarctica and the Arctic and is often referred to as ‘the Third Pole’.

The acceleration of melting of Himalayan glaciers has significant implications for hundreds of millions of people who depend on Asia’s major river systems for food and energy. These rivers include the Brahmaputra, Ganges and Indus.

The team used satellite images and digital elevation models to produce outlines of the glaciers’ extent 400-700 years ago and to ‘reconstruct’ the ice surface. The satellite images revealed ridges that mark the former glacier boundaries and the researchers used the geometry of these ridges to estimate the former glacier extent and ice surface elevation. Comparing the glacier reconstruction to the glacier now, determined the volume and hence mass loss between the Little Ice Age and now.

The Himalayan glaciers are generally losing mass faster in the eastern regions – taking in east Nepal and Bhutan north of the main divide. The study suggests this variation is probably due to differences in geographical features on the two sides of the mountain range and their interaction with the atmosphere – resulting in different weather patterns.

Himalayan glaciers are also declining faster where they end in lakes, which have several warming effects, rather than where they end on land. The number and size of these lakes are increasing so continued acceleration in mass loss can be expected.

Similarly, glaciers which have significant amounts of natural debris upon their surfaces are also losing mass more quickly: they contributed around 46.5% of total volume loss despite making up only around 7.5% of the total number of glaciers.

Dr Carrivick said: “While we must act urgently to reduce and mitigate the impact of human-made climate change on the glaciers and meltwater-fed rivers, the modelling of that impact on glaciers must also take account of the role of factors such as lakes and debris.”

Co-author Dr Simon Cook, Senior Lecturer in Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Dundee, said: “People in the region are already seeing changes that are beyond anything witnessed for centuries. This research is just the latest confirmation that those changes are accelerating and that they will have a significant impact on entire nations and regions.” https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/938235

Extra - Who wouldn’t……….

China opposes Japanese decision to release nuclear-contaminated water into ocean

China is seriously concerned about and firmly opposes Japan's unilateral decision to discharge the nuclear-contaminated water into the sea and its proceeding with the preparatory work, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Wednesday.

Zhao Lijian made the remarks when asked to comment on a media report that Tokyo Electric Power Company has submitted an application to Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority with a detailed plan of discharging nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea.

Since April this year, the international community has raised concerns to the Japanese side over the legitimacy of the discharge into the sea, the rationality of the discharge plan, the credibility of the data about the nuclear contaminated water and the reliability of the equipment to purify the nuclear-contaminated water, Zhao said. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/asi...0601260/c.html

Energy company will pay $43 million for US' longest-running oil spill

Taylor Energy, the company behind the United State’s longest-running oil spill, has agreed to pay more than $43 million in removal costs, civil penalties and natural resource damages since its pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico began leaking in 2004.

Taylor Energy would also be transferring a $432 million trust fund to the Department of Interior, according to a proposed consent decree announced by the Department of Justice on Wednesday.

Additionally, the Louisiana gas and oil company is required under the settlement to dismiss three existing lawsuits it filed against the government. As a part of the settlement, Taylor Energy does not "admit any liability to the United States or the State arising out of the MC-20 Incident.” https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...ning-oil-spill

**Backspin** · 25-12-2021, 10:50 AM

Netherlands Goes Nuclear In Massive Atomic Humanist Victory!

Dutch government will keep existing nuclear plant operating AND build two more full-sized water-cooled plants

Netherlands Goes Nuclear In Massive Atomic Humanist Victory!

Michael Shellenberger

**S Landreth** · 25-12-2021, 11:29 AM

Good interview with Gavin Schmidt, NASA Acting Senior Adviser on Climate

A climate crisis from the Arctic to Antarctica

**OhOh** · 27-12-2021, 09:45 AM

IAE sourced data.

Five Eye countries top the list.

Any doubts about Climate Change?-inf65-jpg

**S Landreth** · 27-12-2021, 10:25 AM

Climate disasters cost world billions in 2021

10 of 2021's most extreme weather events were driven by climate change and caused a total of $170.3 billion in damages — with the deadly Hurricane Ida that struck the U.S. the most costly, per a new study.

Why it matters: Each of the 10 most destructive weather events caused over $1.5 billion damage, with Ida costing $65 billion, according to the study by U.K. charity Christian Aid.

"Most of these estimates are based only on insured losses, meaning the true financial costs are likely to be even higher," per a statement published Monday by accompanying the study.
The study notes that insurer Aon has warned that 2021 is set to be the sixth time global natural catastrophes have cost more than $100 billion — with all six occurring since 2011.

What else they found: The report notes that financial costs are usually higher in richer countries because they have higher property values and can afford insurance.

But some of the most devastating extreme weather events in 2021 hit poorer nations.
These extreme weather events have caused severe human suffering from food insecurity, drought and extreme weather events causing mass displacements and loss of life, the report notes.

What they're saying: "The costs of climate change have been grave this year, both in terms of eyewatering financial losses but also in the death and displacement of people around the world," said report author Kat Kramer, Christian Aid's climate policy lead, in a statement.

"Be it storms and floods in some of the world's richest countries or droughts and heatwaves in some of the poorest, the climate crisis hit hard in 2021."

By the numbers: 2021's most costly weather events, according to Christian Aid:

Hurricane Ida — $65 billion.
European floods — $43 billion.
Texas winter storm —$23 billion.
Henan floods (China) — $17.6 billion.
British Columbia floods — $7.5 billion.
France's "cold wave" — $5.6 billion.
Cyclone Yaas (India, Bangladesh) — $3 billion
Australian floods — $2.1 billion.
Typhoon In-fa (China, Philippines, Japan) — $2 billion.
Cyclone Tauktae (India, Sri Lanka, Maldives) — $1.5billion.

The big picture: Extreme weather events are the clearest way we're feeling climate change in our daily lives — and this year's ones are a preview of even more turbulent times, Axios' Andrew Freedman and Kia Kokalitcheva note.

A study by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this year found an "unequivocal" connection between human-caused global warming and extreme weather.

Worth noting: The National Intelligence Council of the U.S. warned in a November report that 11 countries faced grave instabilities due to climate change: Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iraq, Nicaragua, North Korea and Pakistan.

"Diminished energy, food and water security in the 11 countries probably will exacerbate poverty, tribal or ethnic intercommunal tensions and dissatisfaction with governments, increasing the risk of social, economic, and political instability," the report notes.

The bottom line: The COP26 climate summit in Glasgow "generated plenty of headlines, but without concrete emissions cuts and financial support the world will continue to suffer," Christian Aid's report states.

"One glaring omission from the outcome in Glasgow was a fund to deal with the permanent loss and damage caused by climate change," the study adds. "This is one issue which will need to be addressed at COP27 in Egypt in 2022."
Kramer noted "it is clear that the world is not on track to ensure a safe and prosperous" future.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...mate-breakdown

#AGU21 Press Conference: The Threat from Thwaites: The retreat of Antarctica’s riskiest glacier

**beam8** · 31-12-2021, 08:50 PM

Here is over an hour of video of people sucking in as much Oxygen as they can and than pumping out Carbon monoxide and to boot they are shredding as much co2 as they can in the rubber. They are basically saying F--- Y--. to the "Global war'mers".

**Backspin** · 01-01-2022, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Copernicus – November 2021 was the 5^th warmest November recorded.

Globally, November 2021 was:

0.35°C warmer than the 1991-2020 average for November
the fifth warmest November on record
close to 0.2°C cooler than November 2020, the warmest November
only a little cooler (≤0.06ºC) than the Novembers of 2015, 2016 and 2019.

Homepage | Copernicus

From time to time I’ll read that a climate scientist has put another denier in their place. One recent occasion…..

- Prof Richard Betts - This claim is false. Until emissions stop completely (not merely decline), CO2 will continue to build up in the atmosphere.

It's like saying that there's no risk of your bathtub overflowing because you've turned the taps down a tiny bit. You actually have to turn the taps OFF!: https://twitter.com/richardabetts/st...93077059039237

- Prof Richard Betts - Michael showed the graph of CO2 emissions, but the actual impact on climate comes from CO2 *concentrations* (the amount actually in the atmosphere)

CO2 concentrations have continued to increase even though emissions have not risen over the last decade

- Prof Richard Betts - For the record, here’s the misleading tweet I was commenting on above, which has now been deleted.

About the author: Richard Betts is Head of Climate Impacts Research in the Met Office Hadley Centre and a Professor at the University of Exeter. BSc (Physics), University of Bristol, 1991./MSc (Meteorology and Applied Climatology), University of Birmingham, 1992./PhD (Meteorology), University of Reading, 1998.

He put nobody in his place. Michael Shellenberger is NOT a denier..jfc.

**S Landreth** · 01-01-2022, 07:52 AM

JMA – November 2021 tied with November 2019 to be the 3^rd warmest recorded

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2015 (+0.42°C), 2nd. 2020 (+0.36°C), 3rd. 2021,2019 (+0.28°C), 5th. 2013 (+0.21°C)

The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature for the year 2021 (i.e., the combined average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the sea surface temperature) is estimated at +0.22°C** above the 1991 – 2020 average, likely to be the 6^th warmest on record.

気象庁 Japan Meteorological Agency

Study: Growing risk of overlapping heat waves in Northern Hemisphere

The risk of large heat waves happening simultaneously in at least two parts of the Northern Hemisphere is growing due to global warming and its effects on atmospheric circulation, a new study finds.

Why it matters: The study, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate, adds to concerns about food supply disruptions and other major societal impacts, depending on the location of the concurrent extremes.

Driving the news: The research, led by Cassandra Rogers, a post-doctoral researcher at Washington State University, examined climate data from 1979 to 2019 and found a six-fold increase in the number of simultaneous large heat waves occurring in the Northern Hemisphere warm season between the 1980s and 2010s.

During the same period, the heat events grew in size and intensified. The study was discussed Thursday at a major Earth science meeting in New Orleans.

Details: While heat waves themselves can pose huge risks to human health, with hundreds of deaths attributed to last summer’s Pacific Northwest heat wave, for example, they can also prime the environment for wildfires and affect agriculture.

A 2019 study by Columbia University’s Kai Kornhuber, a co-author of the new research, found that simultaneous heat waves caused about a 4% decrease in crop production.
That research identified specific patterns of the jet stream, which steers storms, that are associated with heat extremes that tend to occur simultaneously in different breadbasket regions.
One such pattern, for example, can cause heat waves to break out in central North America, Eastern Europe and East Asia, the study found.

What they did: This study quantified large heat waves as periods of three or more days with daily mean temperature greater than the local 90th percentile with a range roughly the size of Mongolia or Iran (about 620,000 square miles).

The researchers were able to show that the primary driver of the increase in simultaneous heat waves is the background warming of the climate, plus warming's influences on atmospheric circulation, through changes in the jet stream, for example.

What they’re saying: "The fact that we know what's happening, we know these events are going to continue to happen, is a real opportunity to actually prevent the deaths that could happen," Rogers told Axios.

"I think it's a little silver lining there, as bad as the predictions are,” she added

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...-21-0200.1.xml

Originally Posted by Backspin

Michael Shellenberger is NOT a denier..jfc.

He’s worse. https://www.desmog.com/2020/08/06/mi...mate-hearings/

**beam8** · 01-01-2022, 08:15 AM

I will live my life knowing that the climate will change regardless of my punie existence on the planet, To those that are sucked into the corporate money monger idea that we will all die in 12 years unless we buy their batteries, Go ahead and buy them, I'm not stopping you, but you want to stop me from putting diesel in my car. Maybe you people should have to pay more taxes for every time your predictions are wrong? and let everyone else get on with our lives.

**Hugh Cow** · 01-01-2022, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

IAE sourced data.

Five Eye countries top the list.

Now once we get past the chinese minister of propaganda. We go to the figures that really matter. Total CO2 output:

China (9.3 GT)
United States (4.8 GT)
India (2.2 GT)
Russia (1.5 GT)
Japan (1.1 GT)
Germany (0.7 GT)
South Korea (0.6 GT)
Iran (0.6 GT)
Canada (0.5 GT)
Saudi Arabia (0.5 GT)

Meanwhile the five eyes collectively account for about 6.4GT in total, or less than 70% of China's output.
OHOH what tangled webs we weave when we practise to deceive.

**Backspin** · 01-01-2022, 11:13 AM

In the dictionary , there is a picture of Landreth beside neo Malthusian.

**aging one** · 01-01-2022, 11:20 AM

Which he much prefers to your picture next to the moronic dickhead. You will still be in Loserland for 2022 and forever mate.

**Hugh Cow** · 04-01-2022, 06:57 AM

I wonder how many pages on this thread there would be if we removed Greta Landreths' posts.

**S Landreth** · 04-01-2022, 07:35 AM

^I started this science related thread dipchit, to bring awareness to the problem

Now if TD would have removed all the non-science related, misinformation, cherry picking posts, trash/etc from this thread there would be 96+ less pages. (25 posts/page)

RPETER65 - Posts 541
Boon Mee - Posts 316
Blue - Posts 298
Pseudolus - Posts 289
Pulvarien - Posts 160
ENT - Posts 116
Hazz - 120
Mr Earl - Posts 80
OhOh - Posts 68
Jesus Jones - Posts 63
Horatio Hornblower - Posts 62
Hugh Cow - Posts 53
Backspin - Posts 51
JetsetBkk - Posts 41
Buriramboy - Posts 38
Longway - Posts 32
Chico - Posts 31
Taxexile - Posts 24
Pragmatic - Posts 10
RickThai - Posts 5
Deeks - Posts 3
Attaboy - Posts 3

**harrybarracuda** · 06-01-2022, 11:51 AM

They don't call him "repeater" for nothing...

**malmomike77** · 07-01-2022, 12:18 AM

Interesting

Scientists develop a novel strategy for sustainable post-lithium-ion batteries

Scientists astounded by performance of sustainable batteries with far-reaching implications for e-vehicles and devices.

Researchers at Bristol have developed high-performance sodium and potassium ion batteries using sustainably sourced cellulose.

Scientists at the Bristol Composites Institute have developed a novel controllable unidirectional ice-templating strategy which can tailor the electrochemical performances of next-generation post-lithium-ion batteries with sustainability and large-scale availability. The paper is published in the journal Advanced Functional Materials.

There is a rapidly increasing demand for sustainable, ethical and low-cost energy-storage. This is due in part to the drive towards developing battery-powered transport systems – mostly replacing petrol and diesel-based engines with electric vehicles – but also for hand-held devices such as mobile phones. Currently these technologies largely rely on lithium-ion batteries.

Batteries have two electrodes and a separator, with what is called an electrolyte between them which carries the charge. There are several problems associated with using lithium for these batteries, including build-up of the metal inside the devices which can lead to short circuits and overheating.

Alternatives to lithium, such as sodium and potassium batteries have not historically performed as well in terms of their rate performance and the ability to use them lots of times. This inferior performance is due to the larger sizes of sodium and potassium ions, and their ability to move through the porous carbon electrodes in the batteries.

Another issue associated with these batteries is they cannot be easily disposed of at end-of-life, as they use materials that are not sustainable. The cost of the materials is also a factor and there is a need to provide cheaper sources of stored energy.

Additionally, lithium is mined in countries such as Chile, Bolivia and Argentina. This mining is very destructive and there are poor human rights records associated with it.

more below:

http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2022/january/sustainable-post-lithium-ion-batteries.html

**S Landreth** · 08-01-2022, 09:46 AM

Dr. Zeke Hausfather - A regular reminder not to read too much into short-term year-to-year temperature variability. We have not seen any meaningful "global cooling" since 2016 just like we did not see a thermageddon after 2011. Rather, we see consistent long-term warming driven by our CO2 emissions: https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1478435521164578816

Early data ranks 2021 as Earth's fifth warmest year

Something a little different, so a reminder. RSS is Remote Sensing System and TLT is Temperature Lower Troposphere (where we don’t live)

Really_Bad_At_Names - RSS has released their December data for TLT, and it's the 4th hottest December (80°S-80°N) in recorded data set, making this the 6^th hottest year, the hottest La Nina year.

Added annual analysis and slopes; last 10 years slope, +0.361°C/decade. https://twitter.com/25_cycle/status/1479460551071780865

Looking ahead.

Dr. Zeke Hausfather - With 2021 annual temperatures (nearly) in, it’s time for my first prediction of where 2022 will end up!

I find that 2022 is most likely to be the 6th warmest on record, with a very small chance of being the warmest year on record and a small chance of below the 8th warmest. https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1479518042702770177

Gavin Schmidt - Before we get the full updates for 2021, why not predict what 2022 will bring? https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/s...81326956912645

Just for fun………

Challenge to Biden Keystone XL revocation dismissed as moot

A federal judge in Texas dismissed a challenge to Biden’s decision to revoke a key permit for the Keystone XL pipeline — saying that the case is moot since the project has already been canceled.

Judge Jeffrey Brown cited a brief from pipeline owner TC Energy confirming that it was starting to remove the pipeline’s border-crossing segment and was expected to have done so by November.

“The court takes TC Energy at its word that Keystone XL is dead. And because it is dead, any ruling this court makes on whether President Biden had the authority to revoke the permit would be advisory,” the Trump appointee wrote.

“Thus, the court has no jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed as moot,” he added.

On his first day in office, President Biden revoked a border crossing permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

The move spurred cheers from environmentalists who had long despised the project, which was slated to bring carbon-intensive tar sands oil from Canada to the U.S.

But Biden’s move was criticized by numerous Republicans, who argued that it was an attack on fossil fuels.

More than 20 states with Republican attorneys-general sued over the decision, but their suit was ultimately rejected on Thursday. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...missed-as-moot

**Hugh Cow** · 08-01-2022, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by S Landreth

^I started this science related thread dipchit, to bring awareness to the problem

Now if TD would have removed all the non-science related, misinformation, cherry picking posts, trash/etc from this thread there would be 96+ less pages. (25 posts/page)

RPETER65 - Posts 541
Boon Mee - Posts 316
Blue - Posts 298
Pseudolus - Posts 289
Pulvarien - Posts 160
ENT - Posts 116
Hazz - 120
Mr Earl - Posts 80
OhOh - Posts 68
Jesus Jones - Posts 63
Horatio Hornblower - Posts 62
Hugh Cow - Posts 53
Backspin - Posts 51
JetsetBkk - Posts 41
Buriramboy - Posts 38
Longway - Posts 32
Chico - Posts 31
Taxexile - Posts 24
Pragmatic - Posts 10
RickThai - Posts 5
Deeks - Posts 3
Attaboy - Posts 3

Touch a nerve did I Greta? Or is it just you "delicate" time of the month? I see you didn't put the number of your posts on the list. I take it that's the 5000+ posts unaccounted for. Did it take you long to obsessively go through all that posting analysis?
You are a puffed up boring google intellectual and nothing more who plainly doesnt understand the underlying science. Hence your constant mind numbing repetitivereposting of graphs. google isn't just your friend, its a positive obsession.
You are not capable of a technical explanation of GWS because you are a boring, reprinting, reposting drone with the thermodynamic/climate science knowledge of a wood pidgeon.
I'd say go back to TC and bore the poor bastards there but you are already doing that.

**S Landreth** · 08-01-2022, 12:56 PM

^no. Just updated the thread with facts. touch a nerve to see your name on the list?

**harrybarracuda** · 08-01-2022, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by S Landreth

^no. Just updated the thread with facts. touch a nerve to see your name on the list?

Touched several I fancy.

**RPETER65** · 09-01-2022, 12:11 PM

Weather and Climate Disasters Are Declining Globally

**S Landreth** · 09-01-2022, 12:22 PM

^not true, but thanks for helping me turn the page

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions