Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #485 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2022-01-01 (January 1, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man.” ‒ Richard Feynman

Number of the Week: Thousands of papers

THIS WEEK:

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Scope: Due to unforeseen computer problems, this TWTW will not start a review of the important scientific papers and limitations discussed during 2021. That will begin next week. This TWTW will cover some of the interesting issues in climate science and energy policy raised over the past two weeks.

On his web site, Ross McKitrick has an explanation of his important paper for those without a background in probability theory and inferential statistics, taking data from samples to generalize about the population. The paper shows that the sudden growth in attribution of extreme weather events to climate change over the past twenty years is without a solid logical basis. The paper has been criticized as not important. But those who criticize it may not understand the importance between deduction and induction in logic.

Writing in The American Mind, J Scott Turner reviews how the US government became involved in funding major science, particularly at universities. This may explain, in part, why many universities have become closed-minded against those who think independently. Turner does not contest the views of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, columnist Joseph Sternberg expresses his views on how the western politicians who made great promises at the 26th UN Conference of Parties (COP 26) will go forward now that China, India, and Russia said NO to the grand scheme. This is interesting because the voters in western democracies are slowly becoming aware of the costs of the great promises.

Several months ago, the Biden administration was making a great deal over the costs of climate change to financial institutions. It suddenly stopped. A November report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York may be the reason.

Roger Pielke Jr. brings attention to a retraction of a paper by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper was overseen through the peer review process by Dr. Jane Lubchenco, a White House official who is currently overseeing President Biden’s Scientific Integrity Task Force. The event calls into question her judgement in scientific integrity. Further, S. Stanley Young, who was on EPA’s Science Advisory Board, was purged by the Biden Administration. He has sued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

********************

Attribution of Events to Cause: Ross McKitrick became involved in the UN IPCC’s version of climate science when he and statistician Steven McIntyre began examining the Third Assessment Report which featured Mr. Mann’s infamous hockey-stick, which did away with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Among other issues, they found that the statistical process used by Mr. Mann and the IPCC produces a hockey-stick shape from random noise. They recommended that the IPCC use qualified statisticians or econometricians to review such statistical work before it is published by the IPCC. The IPCC continues to ignore such practical advice.

As discussed in previous TWTWs such as on August 28, McKitrick reviewed a study by Allen and Tett (1999, referred to AT99) and found that the study fails to meet the conditions of the Gauss-Markov theorem for making reliable assessments of probability. McKitrick’s paper was published by the same journal that published AT99. As McKitrick states in his simplified explanation:

My article in Climate Dynamics shows that the AT99 method is theoretically flawed and gives unreliable results. A careful statement of the implications must note an elementary principle of logic. Remember that, according to logic, we can say “Suppose A implies B; then if A is true therefore B is true.” Example: all dogs have fur; a beagle is a dog; therefore, a beagle has fur. But we cannot say “Suppose A implies B; A is not true therefore B is not true.” Example: all dogs have fur; a cat is not a dog, therefore a cat does not have fur. But we can say “Suppose A implies B; A is not true therefore we do not know if B is true.” Example: all dogs have fur; a dolphin is not a dog, therefore we do not know if a dolphin has fur.

In this example “A” is the statistical argument in AT99 which they invoked to prove “B”—the claim that their model yields unbiased and valid results. I showed that “A”, their statistical argument, is not true. So, we have no basis to say that their model yields unbiased and valid results. In my article I go further and explain why there are reasons to believe the results will typically be invalid. I also list the conditions needed to prove their claims of validity. I don’t think it can be done, for reasons stated in the paper, but I leave open the possibility. Absent such proof, applications of their method over the past 20 years leave us uninformed about the influence of GHG’s on the climate. Here I will try to explain the main elements of the statistical argument.

A similar problem in logic was involved with the development of the scientific method. For about 1500 years European philosophers thought that deductive logic could infer things about the physical world without observation. The classic example is all swans are white. If it is a swan, it is white. Then in 1697 Dutch explorers discovered black swans in Australia turning the logic false. (Note that this is the basis of the “black swan strategy” in investments.)

In the section Replying to Responses, McKitrick addresses those who reject correction of their logic and the IPCC’s logic:

A number of commentators on my paper have tried to shrug my criticism off as unimportant or irrelevant. But AT99 has been used hundreds of times in the climate literature and studies applying it have been cited thousands of times. Also, the IPCC chose to focus on AT99 as soon as it appeared, promoting it in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR Chapter 12, Box 12.1, Section 12.4.3 10 and Appendix 12.1), and it has been referenced in every IPCC Assessment Report since. TAR Appendix 12.1 was headlined “Optimal Detection is Regression” and [it] began

The detection technique that has been used in most “optimal detection” studies performed to date has several equivalent representations (Hegerl and North, 1997; Zwiers, 1999). It has recently been recognised that it can be cast as a multiple regression problem with respect to generalised least squares (Allen and Tett, 1999; see also Hasselmann, 1993, 1997)

Their reliance on AT99 continues today: see AR6 Section 3.2.1. The relevance of my critique is proven by the heavy reliance the climate profession has placed on AT99 over the years, including the nearly exclusive reliance on the RC test and the absence of any mention of the conditional independence assumption.

More specifically, in considering any response to my paper, it will be important to note whether it actually disagrees with my paper, or simply tries to change the subject. I anticipate that a lot of respondents will implicitly concede that my paper is correct, but argue it doesn’t matter because so much time has gone by. However, as a matter of the scientific record it is important to understand and acknowledge if AT99 made errors in their mathematical presentation and whether the subsequent literature corrected those errors or simply carried them forward. As far as I have seen, they were carried forward in the sense that people still to this day rely on the RC test [a statistical test applied to sets of data to evaluate how likely it is that any observed difference between the sets arose by chance] and they still use AT99-type regression models without testing for specification errors associated with specific GM conditions.

Also, and more generally, if major errors in AT99 went unnoticed for so long, it calls into question how much confidence we can have in the various other methodologies that have been developed in climate journals in subsequent years. Having worked on paleoclimate reconstruction methods, trend estimation and comparisons methods, and now on optimal fingerprinting, comparing climate journals to stats or econometrics journals I find that climate journals seem to rely on referees who don’t know how to ask the right questions when confronted with a novel statistical method. My discussion of the introduction of the RC test contrasts what AT99 did with what you’d expect to see in a statistics or econometrics journal. 11 Another line of response has been that AT99 has been superseded by regularization methods (associated with Ribes, Terray, Hannart and so forth) and they get the same results. I mention this approach in my paper in a couple of places. Regularization is an alternative to the Moore-Penrose algorithm to estimate the inverse of the non-invertible climate noise matrix. It yields a full-rank approximation so there is no longer a dependence on the rank truncation parameter K. But there remains the problem of showing that the resulting estimator is consistent (see condition [N3] in my paper). It’s a computational improvement, possibly, but not a theoretical one. The regularization literature has never discussed the conditional independence assumption nor has it revisited the claims around the Gauss-Markov theorem applying. [Boldface added]

There are some other recent attribution methods, including time series methods (such as cointegrating vector autoregressions or CVAR) that do not make any use of climate models. My critique does not specifically apply to these. There may be other issues with them, but I haven’t looked at them in detail. The ones I have seen have largely been confined to analysing the time series of global average surface temperatures and have considered only a very limited number of explanatory variables. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

********************

Broken Science? J. Scott Turner begins his essay on modern US science with:

“The founding manifesto of the modern scientific enterprise—Vannevar Bush’s 1945 classic Science: The Endless Frontier—laid down a promise: that federalizing the academic sciences would protect the universities as bastions of free inquiry and curiosity-driven research. Without such support, Bush argued, the academic sciences would be captured and enslaved by government and corporate political interests. That argument was persuasive to the political authorities of the time. Now, seven decades later, that promise stands broken. Science’s “endless frontier” has become Big Science, a self-aggrandizing cartel organized around the aggressive pursuit of federal money.

“Science is grounded in Enlightenment virtues. Its core attributes are unfettered freedom of intellect; cultivation of curiosity; skepticism; dispassionate reason; and dedication to evidence. A robust modern science immensely enriches our society. In return, our society affords the sciences enormous privilege and prestige. This mutually beneficial bargain held for many generations. Scientists were free to roam the intellectual frontiers, the public mostly watched from a respectful distance, and both science and society flourished. That bargain is now unraveling, damaging both science and the society that supports it.

“Less and less do the sciences serve as bulwarks of reason against political and corporatist aims. To the contrary, the sciences are becoming stridently politicized, acting as a vanguard for an authoritarianism of “expertise”. Increasingly, science is being used as a cloak to shield political agendas from normal scrutiny and debate, thereby betraying the scientific ideal.

“These trends, and the reasons for them, are not hard to discern. Scientists’ careers are no longer charted by the esteem of peers, but increasingly by conformity to institutional and political interests. The natural immunity of tenure, which is intended to protect university scientists’ intellectual freedom, is being systematically gutted. Adhering to science’s core virtues, listed above, is becoming a career hazard. In the face of this, fellow scientists either remain silent, or become eager participants in a masquerade of “consensus.” Public trust in science, which turns on the common perception that scientists are avatars of dispassionate and independent inquiry, is becoming increasingly tattered. The COVID-19 spectacle is demonstrating just how fragile that public trust is.

“This trend is not new, but the intrusion of identity politics into the sciences has made it toxic. Distinguished scientific careers are snuffed out in an instant. The interests of favored identity groups become the primary criteria for advancement, trumping credentials, ability, and qualification. Fealty to dogma, not respect for reason, now determines whether careers will grow, be terminated prematurely, or be aborted before they begin. Conformity and risk-aversion, behaviors once alien to the scientific enterprise, are now pervasive, enforced in Star Chamber Human Resources inquisitions.”

After discussing several examples of those who wish to keep the federal money flowing, Turner concludes:

“The modern social bargain struck with science after the War was founded on the assumption that independent, skeptical, and dispassionate scholars would be an invaluable source of methodical good judgment and resistance to half-cocked political and corporate agendas. The Big Science cartel, propped up by enormous federal subsidies, has mostly subordinated those virtues.  It is time to face a hard truth: the seventy-year experiment to federalize the sciences has been a failure.  The task now is to prevent the Big Science cartel from further dehumanizing society and delegitimizing science. There is a second hard truth: the necessary reforms will not come from within. Rather, it will be the people and their representatives that will have to impose them. To restore science to its rightful and valuable place, break up the Big Science cartel.”

In his Farewell Address in 1961, President Eisenhower cautioned the nation about threats to public’s liberties and peace, including the military-industrial complex and:

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

“In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

“It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

Are there statesmen in Washington willing to integrate patrician interests “within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society?” See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=90&page=transcript

********************

Just Fade Away? In his article, “Many Climate Ambitions Will End With 2021: In the U.K., Germany and France, leaders walk back as their plans’ exorbitant price tag becomes clear.” Joseph Sternberg begins:

It’s New Year’s resolution season, and don’t be surprised if politicians world-wide settle into the same informal pledge: Talk as little as possible about climate change in 2022. They’ve gotten a head start on that resolution, working hard at it even before Friday night’s socially distanced parties begin.

The biggest, most entertaining and also most telling climb-downs are happening in the U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson in October unveiled an ambitious policy program to get Britain to net-zero carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050. It was Mr. Johnson’s public-relations coup ahead of the COP26 global climate conference he hosted in Glasgow. It also was unusual in its honesty about what such environmental ambitions will cost individual households and businesses—a point politicians usually avoid for all the obvious reasons.

Sure enough, the backtracks and U-turns began before that document was written. The most controversial component of Mr. Johnson’s net-zero boondoggle concerns an attempt to steer households away from the gas boilers on which 86% of them rely for hot water and central heating.

Sternberg discusses that Johnson is in hot water over trying to have the government phase out natural gas heating units with “energy efficient” heat pumps. [Using gas boilers, hot water is circulated to distribute heat, but heat pumps require a forced air duct system that can be expensive to install in existing homes.] Sternberg discusses that French President Macron faces a re-election campaign where voters are uneasy about high fuel prices, even though electricity is primarily from nuclear plants. President Biden is having difficulties in his new green deal. Then, Sternberg writes:

But even in Germany there appears to be a limit. The deal cementing the coalition between the Greens, the larger Social Democrats and the smaller Free Democrats hedges its climate commitments. A coal phase-out will happen ideally by 2030—with the newly inserted word ‘ideally’ blunting Green ambitions by marking the whole project as tentative. Carbon neutrality will wait for 2045, if it ever comes, and more-aggressive limits on aviation and automotive emissions are missing.

The net-zero gimmick will be with us for a long while yet, alas. The green true believers (or are they bitter clingers?) are busy devising rear-guard actions by which to insulate environmentalism from real-world political pressures, not least by enlisting gullible or cynical titans of finance to do via pension-fund investment allocations what can’t be done honestly via legislation. The political class remains rhetorically wedded to its earlier foolhardy promises, and the media is too enamored of reality-detached activists such as Ms. Thunberg.

All the smarter then for politicians to resolve to discuss the matter as little as possible in the year ahead. As starving the atmosphere of carbon dioxide becomes a political liability, starving the issue of political oxygen will become the electoral tactic of choice. Is this the way bold green deals end, not with a bang but a whimper? See links under Questioning European Green, Energy Issues – Non-US and Article # 1.

********************

Mystery Solved? The great noise the Biden Administration was making about the staggering risks to financial institutions from climate change suddenly stopped. What happened? Was it the November report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which asked the question: “How Bad Are Weather Disasters for Banks?” From the abstract:

“Not very. We find that weather disasters over the last quarter century had insignificant or small effects on U.S. banks’ performance. This stability seems endogenous rather than a mere reflection of federal aid. Disasters increase loan demand, which offsets losses and actually boosts profits at larger banks. Local banks tend to avoid mortgage lending where floods are more common than official flood maps would predict, suggesting that local knowledge may also mitigate disaster impacts.” [Boldface added]

So much for the Washington myth that the mythical climate crisis will financially crush banks and the Biden Bluster. It does not sell well in New York banks. See link under Funding Issues.

********************

Integrity? Dr. Jane Lubchenco, a marine ecologist recently at Oregon State University and head of NOAA during the Obama Administration, is in the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President and with Alondra Nelson is an Ex Officio member of the Biden Administration’s Scientific Integrity Task Force “comprise of nearly 50 members representing agencies from across the Federal government.” As Alondra Nelson said of the task force:

“We need all of America to help protect scientific integrity and restore public trust,”

Roger Pielke Jr. discusses that the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) retracted a paper on advocating protected marine areas for which Lubchenco was the editor. Lubchenco became the editor of the retracted paper after she and one of its co-authors submitted another paper with the newly retracted paper as the key reference. Bandwagon Science or just Bait and Switch?

On a similar topic regarding integrity, namely the EPA advisory board, the editors of the Wall Street Journal write:

One calling card of the Biden Presidency has been its rush to sweep away restrictions on executive power. A purge at the Environmental Protection Agency has now become a legal case worth watching.

The suit was brought in October by S. Stanley Young, a scientist appointed to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board in 2017 and reappointed in 2020 for another three-year term. In March new EPA Administrator Michael Regan —20 days on the job—abruptly sacked the entire board and the agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. He then restocked both with green cheerleaders. Any interested person or organization can make nominations for the board and committee, and Mr. Young, who worked as a statistician for the pharmaceutical industry, was renominated for both bodies after the purge. EPA passed him over.

The 40-to-50-member science board and the seven-member clean air committee offer advice that isn’t binding. But their recommendations guide agency decisions. Conservatives chafed at green dominance of the boards, and the Trump Administration opened more seats to industry scientists. Liberals raised a fuss, and Mr. Regan cast his political dismissals as a question of scientific integrity. That’s a convenient political cover, but no Administration before this one had fired boards en masse.

Mr. Young says in Young v. EPA that his dismissal is illegal under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). That 1972 law requires that advisory committees be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented,” and EPA policy and history is to consider “a cross-section of stakeholders directly affected/interested” in and by EPA decisions.

The new Biden boards have no industry-affiliated member. The 47-member science board is made up of academics, tribal associates, and representatives from the likes of the Environmental Defense Fund. The clean air board consists of six university professors and a state official.

After a brief discussion of new board members and stating that the “EPA priority clearly wasn’t science’”, the article concludes:

FACA also requires that an agency ensure that advisory committee decisions aren’t “inappropriately influenced” by that agency—since they are meant to be checks on bureaucratic overreach. Yet the Young lawsuit notes that some 20 board and committee members have collectively received hundreds of millions of dollars in EPA grants, and the Biden EPA failed to implement rules to guard against EPA influence over the grantees.

The left was outraged by a Trump EPA rule that prohibited grant recipients from serving on boards. That prohibition lost in court, which underscores the legal problem with Mr. Regan’s blackball of industry reps.

The EPA purge belies Mr. Biden’s desire to restore faith in government. The White House has also broken norms to fire the National Labor Relations Board counsel, a Social Security Administration commissioner, and members of the Administrative Conference. The courts now have a chance to enforce the law and reinforce proper administrative behavior.

See links under Litigation Issues, Article # 2 and https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2021/06/25/the-biden-administrations-scientific-integrity-task-force-seeks-ideas-from-the-american-people/

********************

Number of the Week: Thousands of papers. As Ross McKitrick states above

“However, as a matter of the scientific record it is important to understand and acknowledge if AT99 made errors in their mathematical presentation and whether the subsequent literature corrected those errors or simply carried them forward. As far as I have seen, they were carried forward in the sense that people still to this day rely on the RC test and they still use AT99-type regression models without testing for specification errors associated with specific GM [Gauss-Markov] conditions.”

Apparently, the IPCC and its followers believe more in Hollywood movies than in rigorous science.

“‘This is the West sir: When the Legend becomes Fact, Print the Legend.’ – from the movie ‘The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.’”

Science: Is the Sun Rising?

New Study: Absorbed Solar Radiation Increased From 1998-2017…Explaining Ocean Warming

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Dec 23, 2021

Link to one paper: Earth’s Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine

By P. R. Goode, Geophysical Research Letters, Aug 29, 2021

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL094888

Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

Solar influences show up in sea level rise, El Nino events and oceanic climatic cycles

By David Whitehouse, Net Zero Watch, Dec 30, 2021

“The Sun’s energy effects our climate but its influence is often ignored as changes in its intensity are very small. Its effect might be subtle but over decadal periods it adds up to being significant as a series of recent papers show.”

Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013

Summary: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-biological-impacts/

Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019

http://store.heartland.org/shop/ccr-ii-fossil-fuels/

Download with no charge:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Climate-Change-Reconsidered-II-Fossil-Fuels-FULL-Volume-with-covers.pdf

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Download with no charge:

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008

http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf

Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data

By Craig D. Idso, David Legates, and S. Fred Singer, Heartland Policy Brief, May 20, 2019

Challenging the Orthodoxy

An Introductory-Level Explanation of my Critique of AT99

By Ross McKitrick, His Blog, August 25, 2021

Modern Science’s Broken Bargain

By J Scott Turner, The American Mind, Dec 20, 2021 [H/t Ron Clutz]

“It’s up to us to ensure progress serves our ends.”

2 More Studies: The Climate’s CO2 Sensitivity Is Low…Models Erroneously Overestimate CO2 Warming

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Dec 20, 2021

Link to latest paper: Solar and Anthropogenic Influences on Climate: Regression Analysis and Tentative Predictions

By Frank Stefani, Climate, Nov 3, 2021

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/11/163/htm

The introduction to the paper starts:

“As the heir of great pioneers, modern climate science has had major difficulties in narrowing down its most prominent parameter—equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—from the ample range 1.5–4.5 K (per 2× CO2) that was already given in the Charney report. This lack of specificity is sometimes discussed in terms of various interfering socio-scientific and political factors. Yet, in addition to those more ‘subjective’ reasons for climate predictions to be that vague, there are at least two ‘objective’ ones: the paucity of precise and reliable experimental measurements of the climate sensitivity, and the unsatisfying state of understanding the complementary solar influence on the climate.”

Unsung Zeroes: The Top 10 Under-Reported Climate Flops of 2021

By Steve Milloy, Junk Science, Dec 28, 2021 [H/t WUWT]

It’s expensive to change the global climate, just ask the EU

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 28, 2021

“It takes a really Big Government to do Really Stupid Things.”

Defending the Orthodoxy

Four environmental fights to watch in 2022

By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Dec 26, 2021

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/586776-four-environmental-fights-to-watch-in-2022

[SEPP Comment: Drilling for oil and gas on federal lands and waters; EPA determining which waters are regulated in the US; how much will power plant emissions be regulated; will countries increase their climate commitments? Don’t expect China and India to follow the lead of fools.]

Climate crisis puts oil in the crosshairs, but dependence persists

By Julien Mivielle, Paris (AFP), Dec 26, 2021

https://www.oilgasdaily.com/reports/Climate_crisis_puts_oil_in_the_crosshairs_but_dependence_persists_999.html

Climate change 2021: There’s no turning back now

By Marlowe Hood, Paris (AFP), Dec 27, 2021

https://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_change_2021_Theres_no_turning_back_now_999.html

“And forests, soil and oceans — which absorb more than half of humanity’s carbon pollution — show signs of saturation.”

“In Glasgow, former Bank of England governor Mark Carney boasted that nearly 500 banks, insurers and asset managers worth $130 trillion were ready to finance climate action.

“’If we only had to transform one sector, or move one country off fossil fuels, we would have done so long ago,’ commented Christiana Figueres, who headed the UN climate convention when the Paris deal was struck.”

Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science

Climate Change Is Threatening 40% Of All Global Oil And Gas Reserves

By Irina Slav, Oil Price.com, Dec 16, 2021

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Climate-Change-Is-Threatening-40-Of-All-Global-Oil-And-Gas-Reserves.html

Link to report: 40% of oil and gas reserves threatened by climate change

By Will Nichols and Rory Clisby, Verisk Maplecroft, Dec 16, 2021

https://www.maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/40-of-oil-and-gas-reserves-threatened-by-climate-change/

From the report:

“More than 600 billion barrels equivalent of the world’s commercially recoverable oil and gas reserves are facing high or extreme risks from more frequent storms and floods, rising sea levels, and temperature extremes. According to our Climate Change Exposure Indices, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Nigeria are among the oil and gas producing countries where the risk of climate related events disrupting the flow of oil to global markets is highest. Between them, these three countries account for nearly 19% of commercially recoverable oil and gas. 

“Climate-related supply threats to the oil and gas industry have already begun to manifest. This year a freeze in Texas knocked US oil and gas output to a three-year low, while Hurricane Ida caused a record 55 spills in the Gulf of Mexico and created historic disruptions to the supply of both crude oil and refined products. Record heat in Russia accelerated the melting of permafrost, a trend that has damaged 40% of buildings and infrastructure in northern regions heavily reliant on oil and gas production.”

[SEPP Comment: The “record 55 spills in the Gulf of Mexico” were recorded using a technology on Landsat 8, launched in 2013. Do the analysts know the number of oil spills in the 1970s and 80s? No!]

Guest post: How weather forecasts can spark a new kind of extreme-event attribution

Extreme weather events across the world this year have been hitting the headlines at an alarming rate.

By Three Ph.D.s and a candidate at University of Oxford, Carbon Brief, Dec 21, 2021

The 1970s Cooling Scare Was Real

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 24, 2021



Source link

news7g

News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button