The sun is in control of our oceans
In recent years, there has been observed an increase in ocean temperature. Those who adhere to the Climate Change version of events say that the oceans are getting warmer because of trapped carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causing a massive greenhouse effect leading to boiling oceans.
Well, anyone who has a brain knows that the oceans are not boiling, but let’s assume that is just hyperbole. When actual research – when actual measurements were taken – reality turns out to be the exact opposite.
New research shows that the temperature of our oceans are controlled by incident radiation from the Sun. Who would have guessed?
And as a consequence of the oceans warming, dissolved carbon dioxide gas is released due to reduced is solubility in ocean water. This means the warming of the oceans would lead (or cause) an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
One of the researchers in the study wrote on X.com:
The recent warming was caused by a decrease in Earth’s cloud cover and albedo [reflectivity], not an increase in CO2. That’s the bottom line!
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. @NikolovScience
A decrease in cloud cover and albedo means more short wavelength (SW) solar radiation reaches the oceans. Albedo is the reflectivity of the Earth. Lower albedo means more sunlight reaching the oceans and more warming by the Sun.
This is a figure from their research paper which shows a strong correlation (R2= 0.80) between rising ocean temperature, down to 100 m, and global absorbed short wave (SW) radiation as measured by instruments on CERES spacecraft.
I mean to say that this is so obvious. The Sun heats the oceans! Basic physics!
When research is carried out and real world evidence gathered, what do we find? This myth is not even plausible. I am using the language of the MythBusters!
The energy from the Sun powers all life on the planet and causes all Earth changes. Every second, the Earth receives the equivalent energy of 42 megatons of TNT in radiation from the Sun. That cannot be ignored. Read Starship Earth.
Climate Change, the ideological movement which I prefer to call a cult, views all evidence through the lens of their religious belief that the Earth is warmed by human activity. That activity releases carbon dioxide gas, which has been observed to be increasing. Their belief is that CO2 traps heat in a giant greenhouse effect. That is the dogma anyway. And I must add, we all are the carbon they want to eliminate.
But how much of that observed increase in CO2 is actually from natural causes and not from human activity? At least 94 per cent is. This new evidence now suggests it could be even more than that.
If the oceans emit CO2 gas following changes in the water temperature, which this research shows is due to the amount (flux) of solar radiation reaching the surface, then more CO2 comes from natural causes.
It is basic physics that as you heat water the dissolved gases are released due to a decrease in gas solubility. This means as the solar flux increases CO2 gas is released from the warmer ocean water.
Thus an ocean temperature increase leads to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, and not the other way around.
Another Climate Cult myth busted!
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/08/the-sun-is-in-control-of-our-oceans/
*************************************************The economic Folly of a Carbon Tax
The push for a carbon tax has regained popularity as the fiscal storm in 2025 and climate change debates intensify. Advocates claim it’s a solution to pay for spending excesses while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But a carbon tax is a misguided, costly policy that must be rejected.
A carbon tax functions more like an income tax than a consumption tax, capturing all forms of work, including capital goods production and building construction. These sectors are heavy on carbon emissions, meaning the tax disproportionately burdens them, stifling investment and innovation — much like a progressive income tax, but with broader economic repercussions.
For example, in the US, the construction sector alone accounts for about 40 percent of carbon emissions. A carbon tax would heavily penalize this industry, reducing its capacity to grow, generate new housing, and create jobs. Moreover, implementing a carbon tax involves massive administrative costs. The federal tax code is already complex and costly; a carbon tax would exacerbate these issues.
Determining net carbon emissions is a nuanced process subject to ever-changing and arbitrary federal definitions, increasing compliance costs for businesses and consumers.
A study by the Tax Foundation found that a carbon tax would cost billions of dollars annually in administrative costs, a burden that would ultimately fall on consumers through higher prices, less economic activity, and fewer jobs.
The US economy is already suffering from regulatory costs of $3 trillion annually, including many energy-related restrictions, and the Biden administration has added more than $1.6 trillion in regulatory costs since taking office.
One core principle of free-market capitalism is that it comes with limited government. A carbon tax contradicts this principle by expanding governmental regulation of everyday economic activities. The tax revenues would also enable further overspending, though that’s questionable given the supposed purpose of the tax is to reduce carbon emissions and, therefore, the taxes collected.
Furthermore, a carbon tax could favor certain production methods over others, disrupting the level playing field that free markets thrive on and leading to inefficiencies and market distortions. The government picks winners and losers by favoring specific methods, undermining competition and economic growth. Renewable energy projects are likely to receive preferential political treatment, skewing investments away from the market’s more efficient, practical technologies.
Pigouvian taxes, aimed at correcting negative externalities, are often cited to support a carbon tax. These taxes are named after economist Arthur Pigou and are designed to correct the negative effects of externalities by imposing costs equivalent to the external damage. But they can be counterproductive as they are bound to be the wrong tax rate, distorting economic activity.
Carbon taxes fail to account for complex economic interactions and unintended consequences. The PROVE It Act, for instance, proposes a new carbon tax framework but lacks a clear, consistent, and scientifically sound basis for implementation. This uncertainty raises the stakes for economic disruption and consumer cost increases.
Another critical issue in the carbon tax debate is ‘who decides?’
Climate science is ever evolving, and economic models predicting the outcomes of carbon taxes are fraught with uncertainties. Placing high costs on consumers based on unsettled science and unpredictable economic impacts is not a prudent policy approach. We should promote voluntary measures and technological advancements that naturally reduce emissions through market activity.
Importantly, the EPA does not consider carbon dioxide a harmful pollutant in the traditional sense, as it is essential for life. We need carbon dioxide to breathe and enjoy a fulfilling life. This further questions the rationale behind taxing carbon emissions, as it imposes undue economic strain in an attempt to regulate a naturally occurring and necessary element.
Even if America hadn’t been doing better than other countries that joined the Paris Treaty for goals on carbon emissions, China (and India) aren’t interested, thereby putting more of the unnecessary cost of reducing these emissions on Americans.
Moreover, the cost of carbon taxes can be significant. Increasing production costs leads to higher prices for goods and services, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income households — especially when they already suffer from high inflation. This regressive nature undermines its purported environmental benefits, placing a heavier burden on those least able to afford it. For example, a $50-per-ton carbon tax could increase household energy costs by up to $300 annually, hitting hardest those who can least afford it.
Countries implementing carbon taxes, like some in Europe, have seen mixed results. Emissions reductions have been minimal, while economic growth has been hampered. These policies often result in job losses and decreased global competitiveness, showcasing the unintended consequences of such interventions. For instance, France’s carbon tax led to widespread protests and economic disruption, illustrating such policies’ social and economic challenges.
While the intention behind a carbon tax — to reduce American GHG emissions in an effort to combat global climate change — is questionable in itself, the economic realities and principles of free-market economics prove it is a flawed approach. With the fiscal storm likely coming next year, Congress should just say no to the PROVE It Act and the carbon tax in general.
The bottom line is that increasing the government’s footprint through such a tax is neither conservative nor market-oriented. Instead, we should focus on market-driven solutions that encourage innovation and efficiency without imposing heavy-handed regulations.
https://cornwallalliance.org/2024/07/the-economic-folly-of-a-carbon-tax/
****************************************Beyond Climate Hysteria: Embracing Practical Environmentalism
Written by Dr. Matthew Wielicki
In the early 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt championed a form of environmentalism that led to the creation of national parks, wildlife refuges, and protected forests.
His vision of preserving vast swaths of land for future generations was driven by a deep respect for nature and a desire to maintain its beauty and resources.
The contemporary climate movement, characterized by alarming predictions and costly technological solutions, contrasts sharply with Roosevelt’s pragmatic and preservationist approach.
Here, I advocate for a return to traditional environmentalism, emphasizing land conservation and practical stewardship over the current climate hysteria.
The climate movement today is marked by a relentless push to reduce CO2 emissions through drastic measures, in the failed belief that these would translate into surface temperature changes.
However, these efforts have shown minimal results in reversing GHG concentration trends. In fact, more CO2 is being added this decade than in any previous decade as reported by NOAA.
Historical climatic variations, such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, are often downplayed or ignored in contemporary climate discourse.
These natural fluctuations, which occurred long before industrialization, challenge the narrative that current climate changes are solely human-induced, as shown by the original temperature reconstruction from the IPCC below.
By focusing exclusively on anthropogenic factors, the climate movement ignores the complexity of Earth’s climate system and the role of natural variability. Many articles on my Substack delve into these overlooked historical climate events, highlighting the need for a more balanced understanding.
The Flaws and Assumptions in Climate Models
Climate models, which predict future climate scenarios, are fraught with assumptions and uncertainties. These models often fail to account for the full range of natural climatic processes, leading to exaggerated predictions of future warming.
The assumptions built into these models, such as feedback mechanisms and sensitivity to CO2, are often based on incomplete or biased data.
The errors within these models can lead to misguided policies that prioritize reducing CO2 emissions at all costs.
In contrast, Roosevelt’s environmental policies were grounded in observable realities and practical measures. He focused on preserving land and resources for their intrinsic value and future utility, rather than speculative future scenarios.
Catastrophizing Natural Weather Events
The climate movement has a tendency to catastrophize natural weather events, attributing every hurricane, flood, or drought to climate change.
This alarmism not only distorts public perception but also undermines the resilience of communities. Natural disasters have always been part of Earth’s dynamic system, and attributing them solely to climate change overlooks the need for effective disaster management and preparedness.
Roosevelt’s approach was different; he recognized the power of nature and the importance of working with it rather than against it. He promoted sustainable land use and conservation practices that enhanced the resilience of natural systems.
The Failure to Reduce Global CO2 Levels
Despite decades of climate activism and international agreements, global CO2 levels continue to rise. This failure underscores the ineffectiveness of current climate policies, which often focus on symbolic actions rather than substantive change.
https://principia-scientific.com/beyond-climate-hysteria-embracing-practical-environmentalism/
***********************************************Australian government retreats on solar panels as China fires up
It took less than six months for the Albanese government and some of Australia’s biggest climate investors to change their mind on a solar panel manufacturing plunge.
The government and the project backers discovered the enormous costs in challenging China in the areas where it dominates the market and slashes prices to keep others out.
Given the base facts were known six months ago, the speed of the reversal of the decision to make solar panels in Australia has shocked those who believed that the “Made in Australia” plan can be based around climate investing.
Already, BHP has mothballed its nickel plans because the nickel market is being flooded with low cost Indonesian nickel funded by the Chinese.
China has vowed to further increase investment in manufacturing products such solar panels batteries and electric cars, despite the losses that are being incurred because of the low prices. If Donald Trump is elected president, he will take on China and use tariffs to thwart the Chinese. What Kamala Harris will do if she wins is not clear.
I will describe below China is also set to make the “Made in Australia” investment in rare earths costly and has announced a big rise in Chinese funded rare earths production.
“Made in Australia” is also in trouble on another front.
As I set out on Wednesday, the nation is set for a substantial fall in Australian manufacturing as the Victorian government hits the manufacturing base by starving the manufacturers of assured gas (by stopping gas developments) and imposing high taxes. The Commonwealth also lands blows on manufacturing via its industrial relations legislation.
The Victoria, Premier Jacinta Allan, has been fully briefed on the impacts of what she is doing but has other priorities.
The Albanese government decision to direct its controversial $1bn Solar Sunshot incentives program towards taking solar panel technology group SunDrive into panel manufacturing was high risk given what is happening in the global solar market.
The announcement was made by Anthony Albanese, Industry Minister Ed Husic and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, but it was Bowen who set out the strategy most clearly.
“A lot of people ask me why don’t we make more solar panels in Australia, and we should”, he said.
“And so Solar Sunshot will support making solar panels and solar cells in Australia and as a result a great Australian company called Sun Drive, that makes the most efficient solar panels in the world, have now said they will move to open a new factory on the site of the old Liddell power station in Muswellbrook and that new factory will employ more people than used to be employed at the Liddell power station.
“So there is a lot more to do, but we are going to bring back solar panel manufacturing to Australia and Solar Sunshot is going to the policy that gets it done for us”, Bowen declared.
The announcement surprised the solar panel world because of the strong group backing SunDrive, including Atlassian founder Mike Cannon-Brookes, venture capital groups, Blackbird and Main Sequence, Canva founder Cameron Adams, former PM Malcolm Turnbull, and Tesla chair Robyn Denholm, plus the federal government-backed Australian Renewable Energy Agency and Clean Energy Finance Corporation,
SunDrive this week announced a “strategic review” to focus on developing technology to transform panel manufacture rather than producing the physical panels.
Significant retrenchments took place as a result of the reversal. It was a very sensible decision, and I suspect the wiser heads among the shareholders prevailed.
In rare earths, China is planning to maintain its domination of supply and treatment by expanding in Africa in association with Australia’s Peak Rare Earths company.
China’s Shenghe group has acquired half of Peak Rare Earth’s $US300m Tanzania project, and China effectively finances the project. The Chinese cover most or all of Peak Rare Earth’s capital outlays.
This year, the Chinese have stepped up production of rare earths and the prices have plunged, sending many rare earth company shares lower and making it difficult for new developments – exactly what the Chinese are aiming to do.
The Australian government’s investment in rare earths will face similar hazards to those it encountered in solar panels, but in rare earths we are clearly supported by the US, which is determined to be independent of the Chinese.
The economics of each project only make sense if the United States and/or other buyers are prepared to pay above the market for the materials they require to ensure independence from the Chinese.
In just the same way, the solar panel manufacturing plunge only made sense if buyers were prepared to pay above the market for the SunDrive solar panel technology that was unique and produced better panels than those made by the Chinese.
But once again, buyers must be prepared to pay for the better technology to justify the manufacturing investment.
***************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment