Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in the summer before 2050 even if emission-cutting goals are met, shock study reveals

Another stupid model.  These models have never got anything right yet.  "As a result of".  How do they know what any melting was a result of?  They don't know and could not know.  It is just a bald assertion that CO2 was a factor

The sea around the North Pole will be ice-free in the summer before 2050 — even if emission-cutting goals are met, a shocking study has revealed.

Experts modelled the impact of various levels of carbon dioxide emissions on Arctic sea ice, finding that the targets of the Paris Climate agreement will not be enough.

Sea ice in the Arctic normally grows and shrinks according to the seasons, but at present some ice — which is home to animals like polar bears — always remains.

However, the team behind the findings said that we can still have control over how often the Arctic thaws and for how long in future — but only if emissions are slashed.

The climate-modelling study was conducted by climate scientist Dirk Notz of the University of Hamburg in Germany and colleagues.

'If we reduce global emissions rapidly and substantially, and thus keep global warming below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels, Arctic sea ice will nevertheless likely disappear occasionally in summer even before 2050,' Dr Notz said. 'This really surprised us,' he added.

Currently, the North Pole is covered by sea ice all-year-round — but, each summer, the area of the sea  that the ice covers decreases before growing again in winter.

*As a result of* the warming effect of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, areas of the Arctic Ocean once constantly covered with ice have begun to thaw out during the summer months.

In the future — if humanity succeeds in reducing its emission levels rapidly — completely ice-free years in the Arctic are predicted to occur only occasionally.

However, with higher emissions, the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free in the summers of most years.

Not only will the additional melting contribute to rising sea levels, but it will also mean the loss of precious hunting grounds and habitats for polar bears and seals.

In their study, the researchers used the most up-to-date climate models to predict the effects of different carbon dioxide levels on the state of Arctic sea ice.

These are the same models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the environmental research branch of the United Nations. [That's a recommendation??]

The full findings of the study were published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

SOURCE





Happy 50th, Earth Day — now for less alarmism

BJORN LOMBORG

As we mark the 50th anniversary of Earth Day on Wednesday and the birth of modern environmentalism, we should pause to give each other a virtual high-five for the impressive environmental progress society has accomplished during this span. We should also think about the ways we can make the next 50 far more effective.

Case in point: many people are surprised to hear that the environment is improving, a lot. This surprise grows from the unfortunate flip side of the Earth Day legacy, which too often can focus on doom and alarmism that can make us despondent and drive poor policies.

Early environmentalism from the 1970s helped focus societies on important environmental priorities such as polluted rivers — the Cuyahoga River in the US even famously caught fire in 1969 — and fouled air, with soot and smog killing millions.

Most bodies of water in rich countries are much cleaner, since we are prosperous enough to clean up our mess. In the US, a recent comprehensive study showed “water pollution concentrations have fallen substantially” across 50 years. And 3.8 billion people in the world have gained access to clean drinking water over multiple decades in that time.

Air pollution, the biggest environmental killer, has seen even greater improvements. Outdoor air pollution has declined dramatically in rich countries, in no small measure due to attention from 1970’s Earth Day and subsequent actions such as the landmark US Clean Air Act later that year.

For the world’s poor, the deadliest air pollution is indoors. Almost three billion of the world’s poorest still cook and keep warm using dirty fuels such as dung, cardboard and wood, and the World Health Organisation estimates the effects are equivalent to smoking two packets of cigarettes each day. Since 1970, the death risk across the world from indoor air pollution has been cut by more than half.

Despite the amazing progress, indoor and outdoor air pollution still kills eight million people. At least two billion people still use drinking water sources contaminated by faeces. So, we still have our work cut out for us. Things are far better, but they are still not OK.

But, curiously, this is not our typical environmental conversation. We don’t emphasise enormous improvements or focus on vital unfinished business in water and air. Instead, the standard story is how the environment is getting ever worse — how we’re hurtling towards catastrophe. This tradition also started with Earth Day.

By 1970, many environmentalists were predicting the end of the world. Stanford ecologist Paul Ehrlich, a frequent guest on the popular Johnny Carson television show, was perhaps the leading apocalypse proponent. For Earth Day, he pre­dict­ed that environmental deteriora­tion would kill 65 million Amer­icans, and four billion would die globally before the year 2000. Life Magazine also saw impending doom, predicting air pollution would be so bad that Americans would have to wear gas masks in the 80s and that pollution would block half the sunlight.

Not only were these predictions spectacularly wrong but they were outlandish when first made. Yet, in a world where more alarm gets more attention, they started a trend of framing environmental issues in worst-case ways. This tone scares, this depresses — and this likely skews our focus and spending.

Today, climate change takes up most of the environmental conversation, and it is definitely a real problem. However, too often it also is framed in exaggerated fashion, with predictable results: a new survey shows that almost half of humanity believe global warming likely will make humans extinct.

This is entirely unwarranted. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the gold standard of climate research, finds that the overall impact of global warming by the 2070s will be equivalent to a 0.2 per cent to 2 per cent loss in average income. That is a problem but not the end of the world.

Such fear also makes us prioritise poorly. Climate change mitigation today costs more than $US400bn ($634.5bn) each year in renewable subsidies and other costly climate policies. Yet we spend much less on making water and air cleaner for the billions with basic needs.

We can rightly look back on Earth Day with pride for the attention it has brought to the environment. But we need to curb the exaggerations, to make sure we leave the environment in the best possible state.

SOURCE




Surprising clarity from Michael Moore

As you likely know Michael Moore is an ardent champion for climate change (e.g. here).

Understanding his perspective, please watch his latest anxiously-awaited full length documentary, which was just released to the public today.

In this movie he:

1 - unapologetically exposes Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Robert Kennedy, etc. for being con artists and hypocrites,

2 - crucifies the Sierra Club and their ilk for being disingenuous and primarily in it for the money and influence, and

3 - also carefully documents how wind, solar and biofuels are scams.

(Skip the other messages as those are the three key takeaways.)

Any of this sound familiar? To readers here, yes.
To the public (the marks and victims here), probably no.

To be clear, despite the unequivocal message about the foolishness of industrial wind energy, the movie still understates the problem. For example see this Report, as none of these issues were mentioned in the film.




Oil market crash just one more reason why Pelosi must start doing her job

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement in response to the crash of global oil markets:

“While Speaker Pelosi enjoys her $13/pint ice cream, the world's oil markets have completely crashed due to the destruction of the global economy of the China-originated virus. While it is debatable whether Pelosi is playing the role of Marie Antoinette or Nero, who fiddled while Rome burnt, it is inexcusable of her to engage in her dereliction of duty by not having the House of Representatives immediately convene to provide necessary relief for small businesses to allow them to survive this public health devastation.

“The current oil price drop puts hundreds of thousands of American energy jobs at risk. While this might seem to be a Green New Deal dream, it actually is an economic catastrophe, which can only be alleviated when governors restart their respective economies. When commuters hit the roads again, they can expect gas prices at levels not seen since before the OPEC oil embargo of 1973. Counterintuitively, this is also bad for our nation's airlines who purchase fuel months in advance and were obligated to pay dramatically more per barrel months ago. Airlines consume a significant amount of America's oil usage, and America restoring previously robust travel schedules will soak up some of the oversupply, but the main answer to restoring energy markets will be when Americans hit the road and get back to work, enjoying dramatically lower commuter costs.

“At the very least, Speaker Pelosi's private jet commuting from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. can show the way for America getting back to work, even though the work she typically does is counterproductive. Maybe this time she can actually help out by passing a clean funding bill to save what remains of our nation's small business economic backbone.”

SOURCE

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

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

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