After A Trillion Tons Of CO2, The Great Barrier Reef Hits Record Coral Cover Third Year In A Row

Sixty Percent Of All Human CO2 Emissions Have Been Emitted Since 1985 But Today The Corals Are Healthier Than Ever.

In 1985 humans were emitting only 19.6 billion tons of CO2 each year, and now we emit 37 billion tons. In the meantime AIMS have been dragging divers thousands of kilometers over the reefs to inspect the coral cover.

These are the most detailed underwater surveys on the largest reef system in the world, and they show that far from being bleached to hell, the corals are more abundant than we have ever seen them.

As Peter Ridd points out, when the reef was doing badly, AIMS was happy to combine the data on the whole reef, so we could lament its demise.

But lately AIMS splits it into separate sections and if Peter Ridd didn’t check the numbers, who would know it was a record across the full 2,300 kilometer length of the reef?

And that may be exactly the point. As Ridd reminds us, in 2012 the AIMS team predicted the coral cover in the central and southern regions would decline to 5 – 10 percent cover by 2022. Instead the whole reef is thriving at 30 percent.

UNESCO has been threatening to slap an endangered label on the reef for years. They would have looked ridiculous if they had done this whilst corals were at a record high.

But that didn’t stop them demanding tribute and conditions anyway, as if Australia can’t manage the reef by itself. Our Prime Minister should have laughed at them and cut UN funding until they start making sense.

The UNESCO recommendation that the World Heritage Committee not proscribe the reef as “in danger” at its meeting next month no doubt has come as a big relief for government but it still has plenty of strings attached.

To keep favour with UNESCO, governments must ban all gillnet fishing by mid-2027 and more closely supervise land activities stretching hundreds of kilometres inland from the coastline, and further still from the reef itself. It must also keep the billions of dollars flowing for research and reef management.

Who runs the country, is it our elected government or a foreign committee at the service of third world dictators?

The Greens, unfortunately, still struggle with big-numbers, or any numbers at all:

The Greens say the UNESCO decision is a “triumph of lobbying and spin over science”. “The burning of fossil fuels is ­literally cooking our oceans and degrading marine ecosystems across the globe, and nowhere else has this been more politicised than on the Great Barrier Reef,” says Greens spokesman Senator Peter Whish-Wilson.

And who is politicizing The Great Barrier Reef more than The hyperbolic Greens themselves? No wonder Greens voters were the most confused in the AEF survey.

Ten years after our corals hit a record low, our survey showed that half the country didn’t realize the reef has recovered. Only 3% knew the corals were at a record high, and nearly half the Green voters were as wrong as they possibly could be — they thought coral cover was at a record low.

The full AIMS report will be released in August. There have been some bleaching events both before and after the survey, and as is normal, we won’t know for months whether any corals actually died or whether it was just the normal home renovation that corals go through when they get stressed.

It’s common for corals to throw out the zooanthellae as temperatures change and let in newer house-guests that are better acclimatized. Since sea levels near Queensland were 1 -2 meters higher 6,000 years ago, and the world was a lot warmer, corals can clearly look after themselves.

As Peter Ridd says the biggest threats to the reef are cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish plagues, neither of which appear to be any worse now than they were years ago.

https://principia-scientific.com/after-a-trillion-tons-of-co2-the-great-barrier-reef-hits-record-coral-cover-third-year-in-a-row/

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

Central England Temperature Record Shows No Unprecedented Warming

The Central England Temperature (CET) record, maintained by the Met Office, is the longest-running continuous temperature record in the world, starting in 1659. It provides an invaluable historical dataset that allows us to analyze long-term temperature trends and variations over centuries

This dataset serves as a critical reference point in the ongoing discourse on ‘climate change’ and the factors influencing global temperatures.

Initially, measurements were taken from various locations, including Birmingham, Oxford, and London.

Over time, the locations have changed slightly, with modern observations coming primarily from rural locations to mitigate urban influences.

The current primary stations include Pershore College in Worcestershire and Rothamsted in Hertfordshire. This careful selection helps ensure that the data remains consistent and representative of the broader region.

Early thermometers were less precise, and methods for recording temperatures have evolved. Errors can arise from several sources, including instrument calibration, changes in measurement locations, and observer differences.

However, modern techniques have significantly improved the accuracy and reliability of temperature measurements. Regular calibration of instruments and the use of standardized methods help reduce errors.

Statistical methods are also applied to adjust for known biases and to homogenize the data across different periods and locations.

The CET record is crucial for understanding natural and anthropogenic climate influences. It provides context for recent temperature changes by showing that significant warming and cooling periods have occurred over the past several centuries.

These historical variations highlight the importance of considering natural climate variability when interpreting modern climate trends.

When examining the CET record, one can observe significant warming periods, notably from 1695 to 1735 and from 1990 onwards.

The warming from 1695 to 1735 is particularly striking; it displays a rapid increase in mean temperature anomalies, much like the warming observed in recent decades. This historical warming occurred during a period when atmospheric CO2 levels were relatively stable and pre-industrial, suggesting that natural variability played a significant role.

The modern warming period, which began around 1990, is frequently attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, the magnitude of the warming observed from 1695 to 1735 challenges the narrative that current warming is unprecedented.

If the warming in the early 18th century could occur without significant changes in CO2 levels, it challenges the assumption that current warming is driven exclusively by CO2.

Natural climate variability, driven by factors such as solar radiation, volcanic activity, and oceanic cycles, has historically influenced global temperatures. The significant warming period from 1695 to 1735, evident in the CET record, underscores the role of these natural factors.

Given that similar temperature increases occurred in the past without industrial CO2 emissions, it is plausible that natural variability could be responsible for recent warming trends as well.

Attributing the current warming trend solely to CO2 emissions may be an oversimplification driven by factors other than scientific inquiry.

The CET record demonstrates that significant temperature fluctuations can and have occurred due to natural causes. The mainstream media often portrays modern warming as unprecedented, yet historical data from the CET record suggests otherwise.

This raises critical questions about the models and assumptions used in contemporary climate science.

In conclusion, the CET record offers a valuable long-term perspective on temperature trends, illustrating that substantial warming can occur independently of CO2 levels.

Historical warming periods such as that from 1695 to 1735 suggest that natural variability remains a significant factor.

A more nuanced understanding of both natural and anthropogenic influences is essential for accurately interpreting climate trends and formulating effective policies.

https://principia-scientific.com/central-england-temperature-record-shows-no-unprecedented-warming/

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

Increased CO2 Caused Big Gains In US Crop Yields

From the US National Bureau of Economic Research: a new study by economists Charles Taylor and Wolfram Schlenker of Columbia University shows that rising atmospheric CO2 levels were better for crops than scientists had suspected up to now.

So more unsettled science… but for once it’s better than scientists thought, not worse. Experts have long known that something good was going on out in the fields. Starting around 1950 US agricultural output started soaring even while the number of workers was shrinking.

Introduction of improved seed and plant varieties helped, as did new equipment and techniques. But by the 1990s it was clear that agricultural productivity was growing much faster than the rest of the economy, and faster than could be accounted for by standard measures of technological improvement.

Using satellite-measurements of changing CO2 levels from 2015 to 2021 matched to county-level crop yields these economists found not only that extra CO2 makes crops grow better, which experts already knew, but the effect is much much better than previously believed.

The usual way of measuring how CO2 affects plants is to grow them in a greenhouse where the CO2 level can be artificially increased.

Taylor and Schlenker note that the effect is so good, so consistently, that commercial greenhouses typically raise the CO2 level to 900 ppm or more, at least double the average outdoor level.

But it’s hard to identify how plants would respond out in the field where other weather conditions can play a role.

One way to try to figure it out is to use little chimneys and pump CO2 into the air along a row of field crops, called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment or “FACE” method.

Those experiments have tended to show only small improvements in yield, but critics have argued the results aren’t very accurate since the CO2 gets blown away so the plants may not benefit from it.

There is another approach: look at the big picture. So Taylor and Schlenker made use of a satellite observatory that was put in space to measure the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere.

While CO2 eventually mixes to a uniform average in the troposphere, closer to the ground it varies considerably over space because of the variation in sources (such as cars and factories) and sinks (like plants and forests).

It also varies seasonally, dropping in the spring and summer as plants grow then rising again as they die and decompose, and it trends up over time as CO2 emissions happen.

The satellite record yielded point-by-point estimates of the local CO2 level during the 2015-2021 period that the authors could then line up with local temperature, precipitation and air pollution records, then use to explain local variations in the output of corn, soybeans and wheat.

They found that every one-part-per-million increase in local CO2 yielded a gain of between 0.5% and 0.8% in output depending on the crop type. These benefits were far higher than estimates from FACE and other previous methods.

Looking back in time Taylor and Schlenker attribute 10% of the total increase in output of corn since 1940 to CO2, plus 30% of soybeans and 40% of wheat. Which is a remarkably good thing if you dislike hunger and hate deadly famines.

Indeed, if someone invented a machine that boosted crop productivity by that much it would be hailed as a miracle of modern technology. Instead we keep hearing how extra CO2 is going to kill us all. Well at least we’ll be well fed when the apocalypse arrives.

https://principia-scientific.com/increased-co2-caused-big-gains-in-us-crop-yields/

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

Battery baloney, hydrogen hype, and green fairy tales in Australia

Viv Forbes is his usual incisive self below

How low Australia has fallen… Our once-great BHP now has a ‘Vice President for Sustainability and Climate Change’, the number of Australian students choosing physics at high school is collapsing, and our government opposes nuclear energy while pretending we can build and operate nuclear submarines.

Our Green politicians want: ‘No Coal, No Gas, No Nuclear!’ while Our ABC, Our CSIRO, and Our Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) are telling us that wind and solar energy (plus a bit of standby gas, heaps of batteries, and new power lines) can power our homes, industries and the mass electrification of our vehicle fleet. This sounds like Australia’s very own great leap backwards.

There are two troublesome Green Energy Unions: the Solar Workers down tools every night and cloudy day, and the Turbine Crews stop work if winds are too weak or too strong. And wind droughts can last for days. The reliable Coal and Gas Crews spend sunny days playing cards, but are expected to keep their turbines revving up and down to keep stable power in the lines.

Magical things are also expected from more rooftop solar. But panel-power has four huge problems:

Zero solar energy is generated to meet peak demand at breakfast and dinner times.

Piddling solar power is produced from many poorly oriented roof panels or from the weak sunshine anywhere south of Sydney.

If too much solar energy pours into the network (say at noon on a quiet sunny Sunday), the grid becomes unstable. Our green engineers have the solution – be ready to charge people for unwanted power they export to the grid, or just use ‘smart meters’ to turn them off.

More rooftop solar means less income and more instability for power utilities so they have to raise electricity charges. This cost falls heaviest on those with no solar panels, or no homes.

Magical things are also expected from batteries.

When I was a kid on a dairy farm in Queensland, I saw our kerosene lamps and beeswax candles replaced by electric lights. We had 16 X 2 volt batteries on the verandah and a big thumping diesel generator in the dairy.

It was a huge relief, years later, when power poles bringing reliable electricity marched up the lane to our house. All those batteries disappeared with the introduction of 24/7 coal power.

Batteries are never a net generator of power – they store energy generated elsewhere, incurring losses on charging and discharging.

There has to be sufficient generating capacity to meet current demand while also recharging those batteries. What provides electricity to power homes, lifts, hospitals, and trains and to recharge all those vehicle batteries after sundown on a still winter night? (Hint: Call the reliable coal/gas/nuclear crews.)

The same remorseless equations apply to all the pumped hydro schemes being dreamed up – everyone is a net consumer of power once losses are covered and the water is pumped back up the hill.

Yet AEMO hopes we will install 16 times our current capacity of batteries and pumped hydro by 2050 – sounds like the backyard steel plans of Chairman Mao or the Soviet Gosplan that constipated initiative in USSR for 70 years. Who needs several Snowy 2 fiascos running simultaneously?

Mother Nature has created the perfect solar battery which holds the energy of sunlight for millions of years. When it releases that energy for enterprising humans, it returns CO2 for plants to the atmosphere from whence it came. It is called ‘Coal’.

‘Hydrogen’ gets a lot of hype, but it is an elusive and dangerous gas that is rarely found naturally. To use solar energy to generate hydrogen and to then use that hydrogen as a power source is just another silly scheme to waste water and solar energy. It always takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it gives back. Let green billionaires, not taxpayers, spend their money on this merry-go-round.

Who is counting the energy and capital consumed, and the emissions generated, to manufacture, transport, and install a continent being covered by ugly solar panels, bird slicers, high voltage power lines, access roads, and hydro schemes? Now they want to invade our shallow seas. Who is going to clean up this mess in a few years’ time?

As Jo Nova says:

‘No one wants industrial plants in their backyard, but when we have to build 10,000 km of high voltage towers, 40 million solar panels, and 2,500 bird-killing turbines – it’s in everyone’s backyard.’

With all of this planned and managed by the same people who gave us Pink Batts, Snowy 2 hydro, and the NBN/NDIS fiascoes, what could possibly go wrong?

Another big problem is emerging – country people don’t want power lines across their paddocks, whining wind turbines on their hills, and glittering solar panels smothering their flats. And seaside dwellers don’t want to hear or see wind turbines off their beaches. Even whales are confused.

The solution is obvious – build all wind and solar facilities in electorates that vote Green, Teal, and Labor. Those good citizens can then listen to the turbines turning in the night breezes and look out their windows to see shiny solar panels on every roof. This will make them feel good that they are preventing man-made global warming. Those electorates who oppose this silly green agenda should get their electricity from local coal, gas or nuclear plants.

What about the Net Zero targets?

At the same time as Australia struggles to generate enough reliable power for today, governments keep welcoming more migrants, more tourists, more foreign students and planning yet more stadiums, games, and circuses. None of this is compatible with their demand for Net Zero emissions.

Unlike Europe, the Americas, and Asia, Australia has no extension cords to neighbours with reliable power from nuclear, hydro, coal, or gas – we are on our own.

Australia has abundant resources of coal and uranium – we mine and export these energy minerals but Mr Bowen, our Minister for Blackouts, says we may not use our own coal and uranium to generate future electricity here. Someone needs to tell him that no country in the world relies solely on wind, solar, and pumped hydro. Germany tried but soon found they needed French nuclear, Scandinavian hydro, imported gas, and at least 20 coal-fired German power plants are being resurrected or extended past their closing dates to ensure Germans have enough energy to get through the winter.

Australia is the only G20 country in which nuclear power is illegal (maybe no one has told green regulators that we have had a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney since 1958). Australia is prepared to lock navy personnel beside nuclear power plants in our new nuclear-powered submarines but our politicians forbid nuclear power stations in our wide open countryside.

More CO2 in the atmosphere brings great benefits to life on Earth. If man adds to it, the oceans dissolve a swag of it, and what stays in the atmosphere is gratefully welcomed by all plant life.

In 2023, Australia added just 0.025 ppm to the 420 ppm in today’s atmosphere. Most of this probably dissolved in the oceans. If we in Australia turned everything off tomorrow, the climate wouldn’t notice, but our plant life would, especially those growing near power stations burning coal or gas and spreading plant food.

Climate has always changed and a warm climate has never been a problem on Earth.

It is cold that kills. Especially during blackouts.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/07/battery-baloney-hydrogen-hype-and-green-fairy-tales/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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