The economy is cooling and the trade war is worsening, yet Beijing refuses to juice housing markets. Stimulus without touching a sector that feeds about 15% of

Which technology can help reduce carbon footprints?

Not wind and solar as the Alarmists believe. After more than 5 trillion wasted on subsidies these renewables have yet to reach 1 % of world wide energy consumption. Also Co2 continues to rise but this does not matter as there is no evidence our carbon footprint has any impact on the climate. This claim is pseudo science and a hoax.

Think about what we learned in high school about the importance of photosynthesis the elixir of plant life.

– CO2 is integral to the Carbon Cycle of Life, as such CO2 is a necessary requirement for Carbon Based Life Forms. CO2 feeds life and is the source of organic carbon whence it was extracted through photosynthesis by plants and phytoplankton. More atmospheric CO2 feeds more life.

– Theory that atmospheric CO2 (0.04%) causes the Earth’s surface to warm by reflecting the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface. This Theory has no Laws, Axioms, Postulates, nor formulae because we are unable to measure this purported physical property of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the real world. We can’t even measure this property on Mars with an atmosphere of 95% CO2. This theory is used to promote the idea that less atmospheric CO2 helps life.Fortunately the public are increasingly put off by foolish unproven climate hysteria blaming industry for a warming climate and now for a cooling climate. Recent elections in Australia, Canada and Holland all reject the alarmist fear mongering. The public are not duped by fudged data and far fetched exaggerated predictions about sea levels, polar bears and glacier ice.

No climate for change: How Scott Morrison used Labor’s policies against them as Americans hail ‘the Trump effect’ after pollsters’ catastrophic blunder

Scott Morrison’s ‘miracle’ election win has been cheered by US conservatives and compared to Donald Trump’s surprise 2016 presidential win.

The Coalition won despite 55 Newspolls in a row predicting they would lose – echoing how the US president rose to power against pollsters’ predictions in 2016.

The Liberal campaign had emphasized the cost of Labor’s climate change policies – which included reducing carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030.

And while Labor campaigned against the controversial Adani mine, the Coalition focused on the jobs boost of the new development.

On Saturday night, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Labor’s stance on climate had cost them the election.

After Bill Shorten failed to secure votes in Queensland the Liberal Party elder said Labor did not reassure voters about job security.

‘When they saw a Labor Party prepared to destroy jobs in the name of climate ideology in relation to the Adani mine, they said: “That’s not for Queensland”‘, he said.

On Sunday morning American TV news channel Fox News labeled Mr. Morrison’s win as ‘a stunning victory’.

American political activist Pamela Geller meanwhile trumpeted ‘the people are taking back their countries from the totalitarian left’.

‘SHOCKING Australia Election Results: Australia’s Conservative Party Seizes Stunning Win: The Trump effect. Polls were wrong…. again,’ Ms. Geller, founder of The Geller Report and president of Stop Islamisation of America, wrote on Twitter.

US news site Axios told readers the election result indicates ‘Australia will continue to closely resemble the Trump administration’s positioning on climate change’.

‘Climate advocates had said this election would be a referendum on the current leadership’s positions on climate change,’ Ms. Harder wrote.

‘The results suggest that either voter don’t care as much about the issue compared to others or they prefer less aggressive measures, as the current leadership is pursuing.’

The New York Times described how ‘the conservative victory also adds Australia to a growing list of countries that have shifted rightward through the politics of grievance, including Brazil, Hungary, and Italy.

‘Mr. Morrison’s pitch mixed smiles and scaremongering, warning older voters and rural voters in particular that a government of the left would leave them behind and favor condescending elites.’

James Grant Matkin, vancouver, Canada,

Great result showing the Australian public are not duped by the fake climate crisis advanced by media and lefty politicians. Temperatures are declining from low solar activity. Alarmist science demonizing coal and Co2 is wrong. CO2 increase lags, not leads warming, Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change. This recent Bohr institute study confirms a 200 year lag, and aligns perfectly with natural warming since the end of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.

How Scott Morrison Used Labor’s Climate Policies Against Them

How ScoMo used Labor’s policies against them

Co2 LAGS TEMPERATURE CHANGE NOT PRECEDE IT

Easterbrook, 2016

CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”

In an El Nino year, Water vapour is 4% of the atmosphere can rise to 5% and CO2 from 0.39 to 0.42. Human made CO2 would remain about the same in that year. .

Co2 is the air we breath out at 35,000 ppm with every breath. It is necessary for life on the planet through the process of photosynthesis converting radiant energy to chemical.

Figure 2.3: Photosynthesis: In the process of photosynthesis, plants convert radiant energy from the sun into chemical energy in the form of glucose – or sugar.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters the plant leaf through stomata, i.e., minuteepidermal pores in the leaves and stem of plants which facilitate the transfer of various gases and water vapor.

The entire process can be explained by a single chemical formula.

6CO2+12H2O + Light → C6H12O6+ 6O2+ 6H2O

Water (6H2O) + carbon dioxide (6 CO2) + sunlight (radiant energy) = glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (6O2).

Credit: Energy Explained Penn State University.

Photosynthesis is the transformation of radiant energy to chemical energy.

Plants take in water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight and turn them into glucose and oxygen. Called photosynthesis, one of the results of this process is that carbon dioxide is removed from the air. It is nature’s process for returning carbon from the atmosphere to the earth.

The “fossil fuels” we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.

Radiant to Chemical

Figure A. Graphs of the overall atmospheric concentration and the relative percentages of trace gases such as Co2.

The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.

The Role of Water Vapour

Water vapor is, by far, the most powerful natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, absorbing heat across many wavelengths in the infrared spectrum. However, the impact of a greenhouse gas must also consider how long that gas remains in the atmosphere and how much it varies from place to place.

From a humid rainforest to an arid desert, the amount of water vapor varies wildly around the world, making up anywhere between zero and four percent of the atmosphere. It also varies over time through seasonal changes and with height. The higher you get in the atmosphere, the drier it can become.

For Greenhouse gases water vapour at 95% is major not Co2 that is near zero.

Anthropocentric CO2 is Only 0.117% !

OUTLINE

  • Fossil fuels are the best energy source when compared with unreliable wind and solar due to indeterminacy.
  • China is helping other developing nations expand coal power plants to bring the life saving electricity grid to the poor.
  • Dream of wind and solar renewables saving the climate and ending polluting fossil fuels is becoming a deadly nightmare.
  • Adding renewables to the grid causes major cost increase in electricity.
  • Fuel poverty from increased electricity costs kills more than fatal road accidents in the UK alone.
  • Freezing winters everywhere, not moderate without snow as alarmists predicted makes keeping warm a matter of life or death.
  • The fears from predicted catastrophic global warming all fail as 90% of glacier ice expands, Pacific islands rising not sinking, SEA LEVELS STABLE OR FALLING mm of change (7″ in 130 years), fewer hurricanes, floods, tornadoes. wild fires and droughts.
  • Coal is necessary for > 2 billion living without electricity in China, India etc.
  • China opens new coal power every week wiping out all other Co2 cuts.
  • Scientific consensus crumbles as more leading scientists discredit one trick pony hypothesis of weak amounts of CO2 in green house gases.
  • Public opinion shifts against taking action on climate change.
  • Fudging data by UN scientists brings climate science into disrepute.
  • Earth’s climate is too chaotic, nonlinear and unpredictable to know the future more than a few weeks out.
  • Compter models run too hot as researchers fail to mimic reality.
  • US withdraws from Paris accords meaningless carbon targets.
  • Australian political coalition rolls back energy targets and decides to build coal power plants for more cost efficient energy.

CHINA BUILDING 300 NEW COAL POWER PLANTS AROUND THE WORLD

Date: 30/04/19

China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.

The flow of Chinese financing for new coal-fired power plants throughout Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. GLOBAL COAL FINANCE TRACKER / COALSWARM

China, known as the world’s biggest polluter, has been taking dramatic steps to clean up and fight climate change.

So why is it also building hundreds of coal-fired power plants in other countries?

President Xi Jinping hosted the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing over the weekend, promoting his signature foreign policy of building massive infrastructureand trade links across several continents.

The forum, attended by leaders and delegates of nearly 40 countries, came amid growing criticism of China’s projects, including their effect on the environment.

China’s President Xi Jinping speaks at a press briefing at the end of the final day of the Belt and Road Forum on Saturday.Wang Zhao/AFP/Getty Images

Xi took the highly unusual step, for him, of meeting with international journalists, during which he repeated the slogan that he is committed to “open, clean and green development.”

Yet China’s overseas ventures include hundreds of electric power plants that burn coal, which is a significant emitter of the carbon scientifically linked to climate change. Edward Cunningham, a specialist on China and its energy markets at Harvard University, tells NPR that China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.

Days before the forum with its “clean and green” theme, the latest Chinese-built coal plant opened in Pakistan.

The plants are significant investments at a time when most nations of the world, including China, have committed to fighting climate change. “When you put money down and put steel into the ground for a coal-fired power plant,” says Cunningham, “it’s a 40- or 50-year commitment.”
Game Over: Europe’s Great Renewables Rush Faces Armageddon

May 27, 2019 by stopthesethings 3 Comments

Death and taxes are certainties, so is the fact that wind and solar investment disappears just as soon the subsidies are cut. Without massive (and seemingly endless) subsidies we wouldn’t be having this conversation: there would have been no such thing as wind and solar power, on any scale, or at all.

Twelve countries in the European Union (EU) failed to install “a single wind turbine” last year.

And, as a result, the manufacturers of turbines and solar panels are dropping like flies, as subsidies are rolled back across Europe.

Dr John Constable tallies up the (inevitable) carnage below.

Is the Long Renewables Honeymoon Over?
The Global Warming Policy Forum
John Constable
11 May 2019

The European renewables industry press, which is usually unequivocally upbeat in its assessments, is currently reporting a broad spectrum of substantial problems in the sector, ranging from bankruptcies and technical problems to tepid policy support and increasing public resistance.

In a fundamentally viable energy generation sector such stories could be regarded as minor perturbations, but in one that has been for decades all but completely insulated from risk by subsidy and other non-market support, it suggests deep-seated structuro-physical weakness.

The German wind turbine manufacturer Senvion S.A., formerly trading under the name of RePower, is currently in financial difficulties. This Hamburg-based firm, which has installed over 1,000 wind turbines in the UK alone, applied to commence self-administered insolvency proceedings in mid-April this year, and is at present sustained by a EUR 100m loan agreement with its lenders and main bond holders.

Senvion has delayed both its AGM, which was due to take place on the 23 May, and also the publication of its recent financial results. At the time of writing the company had not yet announced a new timetable.

For nearly eight years, from 2007 to 2015, Senvion was owned by the Indian wind turbine manufacturer, Suzlon, and is now the property of the private equity firm, Centerbridge Partners. It is currently rumoured in the industry press that Centerbridge may now be compelled to cut its losses by making a distressed sale to Asian, probably Chinese, companies seeking a cheap way of acquiring a wind power market toehold in Europe.

Western companies are thought to be unlikely to have the appetite for such a purchase, and their reluctance is entirely understandable: as Ed Hoskyns shows in a recent note for GWPF using EurObservER data, the annual installation rates for wind and solar have halved in the EU28 since 2010.

Senvion may be the first major company to feel the effects of this downturn, and is certainly large enough for its difficulties to have wide ramifications, with two of its suppliers, FrancEole, which makes towers, and the US company TPI Composites, which makes blades, both being hurt by reduced revenues. Indeed, FrancEole was already in a poor way, and is now reported as being on the verge of liquidation.

Projects that were being supplied by Senvion are also affected, with the building of one, Borkum West 2.2, a 200 MW offshore wind farm, being suspended mid-construction since components due from Senvion have not been delivered on schedule.

This delay, which has been front-page news in some circles, must be causing considerable headaches for Borkum West’s developer, Trianel GmbH, which is apparently now seeking to establish direct links with Senvion’s suppliers so that they can complete the project.

Elsewhere in the offshore wind universe, two large and relatively new projects are in the midst of what must be costly repairs involving significant downtime. Having received regulatory approval, the Danish mega-developer Orsted is about to start removing and renovating all 324 blades on the 108-turbine, 389 MW, Duddon Sands wind farm in the UK part of the Irish Sea, a year after problems first became apparent.

The machines used, the Siemens 3.6–120, have suffered leading edge erosion, a problem that affects perhaps some 500 turbines in Europe (See “Type Failure or Wear and Tear in European Offshore Wind?”), and requiring the application of a remedial covering to each blade.

Less can be read in the public domain about the repairs about to restart at the gigantic, EU-funded Bard Offshore 1, which is owned by Ocean Breeze Energy GmbH & Co. KG. The project, which commissioned in 2013, has eighty 5 MW turbines, with a total capacity of 400 MW.

Bard had already suffered a well-known series of cable failures, and it now transpires that both nacelles and rotors have been undergoing replacement for about two years, though Ocean Breeze is, according to industry press reports, apparently declining to confirm how many turbines are affected. The company’s website gives no information in either German or English that I could find.

There would, then, appear to be a great deal of work in servicing offshore wind installations, but this has not been enough to prevent Offshore Marine Management Ltd (OMM), a UK-based offshore wind contractor, entering into voluntary liquidation after several years of losses. Interestingly, OMM, a relatively small company though prominent in the UK, cited the increasingly “competitive nature” of the sector as a factor underlying its failure, and it seems likely that it was unable to survive the efforts of developers determined to reduce both capital and operational and maintenance costs to the bone (and judging from the failures reported, perhaps into the bone itself).

With margins pared thin, costly local suppliers may quite simply be forced out of the market, and regardless of their other merits. Related evidence of this phenomenon, which is clearly global, can be found in the fact that the Danish mega-developer Orsted is now grumbling that the Taiwanese government’s insistence of a high level of local content for its projected 900 MW Changua 1 & 2a offshore wind farms will double the capital cost from approximately £1.6m/MW to about £3m/MW.

One wonders whether this underlying reality was discussed at the recent and apparently robust meeting between the Scottish Government and the offshore wind industry, convened because the Scottish metal manufacturing firm BiFab had not been commissioned to make equipment for the 950 MW Moray East wind farm, a wind farm that has one of the much over-hyped Contracts for Difference at £57.50/MWh. The supply deals had instead been awarded to Lamprell, which is based in the UAE.

The Scottish Energy Minister, Paul Wheelhouse, MSP, used the meeting to express “significant frustration” that local firms had been involved to such a small degree hitherto, in spite of repeated promises. Did Benji Sykes of the Offshore Wind Industry Council, present at the meeting, cite the Taiwanese case and explain to Mr Wheelhouse that something very similar would apply in Scotland, and that if local content was insisted upon, then construction costs would increase substantially and subsidies would also have to be increased to pay for it? Did he explain that there is genuine doubt whether Moray East can be viable at £57.50/MWh, even with low-cost international suppliers, and that local content would certainly not improve that situation? It would seem not. However, he did promise to “work closely” with the Scottish government to “ensure that communities up and down the country reap the economic benefits offshore wind offers”. Mr Wheelhouse has probably heard that before. How much longer will he go on believing it?

So much for the action in the foreground. The backdrop is also sombre. The Crown Estate, which in effect controls offshore wind development in UK territorial waters, has delayed pre-qualification for Round 4 projects until after the summer of 2019, and the German maritime agency, the BSH, has disappointed developers by not assigning new development zones as had been requested. In delay is danger, and the offshore wind industry in general will be deeply concerned at the loss of momentum that may result from these decisions.

Onshore wind is doing no better. The most recent auction for wind contracts in Germany took place in February and was radically undersubscribed, with only 476 MW of a possible 700 MW being awarded, the underlying causes being, it is reported, less favourable planning consent regulations and less generous price support. Senvion itself is described in some reports as being one of the supply chain casualties, alongside the German tower and foundation maker, Ambau GmbH, which has already filed for bankruptcy.

One wonders why these companies were not better prepared. Reductions in subsidy in Germany were inevitable, and the tightening of planning regulations is long overdue and unsurprising. Indeed, it is remarkable that the German public has tolerated for so long such intense development in close proximity to domestic housing.

However, some German states are now considering an exclusion zone of 1 km from the nearest turbine, which is still extremely close for structures in excess of 100m, and now heading, believe it or not, to over 200m in overall height. The German people have been patient, but the mood is clearly changing; indeed, the premier manufacturer and developer Enercon has recently been compelled by court order to suspend construction of its 30 MW Wulfershausen wind farm because it had, apparently, breached the local authorities’ requirement that no dwelling should be within a distance ten times tip height.

This less favourable atmosphere is contributing to a general sense that existing onshore wind farms in Germany will not be repowered in great numbers at the end of their lives. About 15 GW of Germany’s onshore wind is now over fifteen years old and the end of the economic lifetime is in sight. But industry sources quoted in the subscription only press suggest that less than a third of this will actually be repowered, much less than had been expected only a few years back. The reasons given for this sudden change in prospects include declining public acceptance, reflected in tougher planning conditions, and falling subsidies.

Meanwhile, in Norway and in its home territory Sweden, Statkraft, Europe’s largest generator of renewable energy, has suspended further onshore wind construction because it would be “very challenging” to develop profitable projects in these areas. They are concentrating on other less resistant markets, such as the United Kingdom, where it has acquired a 250 MW portfolio of projects from Element Power.

But as it happens, things in the UK may prove to be no more promising. It has just dawned on the wind industry that government is actually acting on Amber Rudd’s landmark energy reset speech when Secretary of State for the Department of Energy & Climate Change in November 2015.

In that speech Rudd remarked that “we also want intermittent generators to be responsible for the pressures they add to the system”. That of course was only right, but perhaps the industry hoped the intention would never materialise. If that was their expectation they were gravely mistaken. Aurora Energy Research has now released analysis of the regulator, Ofgem’s proposal to reform network charges, the “Targeted Charging Review”, and believes that the proposed changes “could set back subsidy-free renewables by up to five years”.

When “unspun” this actually means is that if the regulator removes the hidden subsidy of avoided system costs, imposed by renewables but socialised over all generators, then more of the true cost of renewables will be revealed to the market, making it much less likely that even the most greenwash-thirsty corporate, NGO, or governmental body will sign an extravagant long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a wind or solar farm. In other words, far from hindering the emergence of subsidy-free renewables, Ofgem’s reforms threaten to give the lie to the subsidy-free claim and show that it was never anything more than an empty PR gambit.

In spite of all this, it is doubtless too soon to say that the game is up for renewables. The industries concerned will fight back, and beg further direct and indirect public assistance while threatening politicians and civil servants with missed climate targets if that support is not forthcoming. In all likelihood they will be to some degree successful. But this will only delay the inevitable. As the depressing news stories summarised above suggest, after decades of public support and de-risking there are still fundamental weaknesses in the renewables industry that go well beyond teething troubles and localised management failure. One explanation, the sole necessary one in my view, is that the physics is against this industry, and that the physics is beginning to tell. It remains only to say that this blog is not licensed to give investment or financial advice.
GWPF

Yes, we have reached a tipping point about the unreasonable expectations that wind and solar renewables would make any difference to fossil fuel energy consumption and the earth’s climate. The large subsidies to renewables in the past decades are failing to create cheap, reliable electricity and they are pushing up the cost of electricity to consumers with devastating consequences for poor consumers.

The climate change debate has suffered too much politics and too little science with over the top fear mongering that unsettles the public’s common sense. My comment on Academia.edu – Share research is relevant.

https://www.academia.edu/1910842…

We are in an ice age geologically for the past 2.5 million years.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/10…

Reference: Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained

Date: August 7, 2013Source: ETH Zurich

Summary:Science has struggled to explain fully why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years. As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.Ice ages and warm periods have alternated fairly regularly in Earth’s history: Earth’s climate cools roughly every 100,000 years, with vast areas of North America, Europe and Asia being buried under thick ice sheets. Eventually, the pendulum swings back: it gets warmer and the ice masses melt. While geologists and climate physicists found solid evidence of this 100,000-year cycle in glacial moraines, marine sediments and arctic ice, until now they were unable to find a plausible explanation for it.Using computer simulations, a Japanese, Swiss and American team including Heinz Blatter, an emeritus professor of physical climatology at ETH Zurich, has now managed to demonstrate that the ice-age/warm-period interchange depends heavily on the alternating influence of continental ice sheets and climate.”If an entire continent is covered in a layer of ice that is 2,000 to 3,000 metres thick, the topography is completely different,” says Blatter, explaining this feedback effect. “This and the different albedo of glacial ice compared to ice-free earth lead to considerable changes in the surface temperature and the air circulation in the atmosphere.” Moreover, large-scale glaciation also alters the sea level and therefore the ocean currents, which also affects the climate.

Weak effect with a strong impactAs the scientists from Tokyo University, ETH Zurich and Columbia University demonstrated in their paper published in the journal Nature, these feedback effects between Earth and the climate occur on top of other known mechanisms. It has long been clear that the climate is greatly influenced by insolation on long-term time scales. Because Earth’s rotation and its orbit around the sun periodically change slightly, the insolation also varies. If you examine this variation in detail, different overlapping cycles of around 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years are recognisable.Given the fact that the 100,000-year insolation cycle is comparatively weak, scientists could not easily explain the prominent 100,000-year-cycle of the ice ages with this information alone. With the aid of the feedback effects, however, this is now possible.

Simulating the ice and climateThe researchers obtained their results from a comprehensive computer model, where they combined an ice-sheet simulation with an existing climate model, which enabled them to calculate the glaciation of the northern hemisphere for the last 400,000 years. The model not only takes the astronomical parameter values, ground topography and the physical flow properties of glacial ice into account but also especially the climate and feedback effects. “It’s the first time that the glaciation of the entire northern hemisphere has been simulated with a climate model that includes all the major aspects,” says Blatter.Using the model, the researchers were also able to explain why ice ages always begin slowly and end relatively quickly. The ice-age ice masses accumulate over tens of thousands of years and recede within the space of a few thousand years. Now we know why: it is not only the surface temperature and precipitation that determine whether an ice sheet grows or shrinks. Due to the aforementioned feedback effects, its fate also depends on its size. “The larger the ice sheet, the colder the climate has to be to preserve it,” says Blatter. In the case of smaller continental ice sheets that are still forming, periods with a warmer climate are less likely to melt them. It is a different story with a large ice sheet that stretches into lower geographic latitudes: a comparatively brief warm spell of a few thousand years can be enough to cause an ice sheet to melt and herald the end of an ice age.

The Milankovitch cyclesThe explanation for the cyclical alternation of ice and warm periods stems from Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958), who calculated the changes in Earth’s orbit and the resulting insolation on Earth, thus becoming the first to describe that the cyclical changes in insolation are the result of an overlapping of a whole series of cycles: the tilt of Earth’s axis fluctuates by around two degrees in a 41,000-year cycle. Moreover, Earth’s axis gyrates in a cycle of 26,000 years, much like a spinning top. Finally, Earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun changes in a cycle of around 100,000 years in two respects: on the one hand, it changes from a weaker elliptical (circular) form into a stronger one. On the other hand, the axis of this ellipsis turns in the plane of Earth’s orbit. The spinning of Earth’s axis and the elliptical rotation of the axes cause the day on which Earth is closest to the sun (perihelion) to migrate through the calendar year in a cycle of around 20,000 years: currently, it is at the beginning of January; in around 10,000 years, however, it will be at the beginning of July.Based on his calculations, in 1941 Milankovitch postulated that insolation in the summer characterises the ice and warm periods at sixty-five degrees north, a theory that was rejected by the science community during his lifetime. From the 1970s, however, it gradually became clearer that it essentially coincides with the climate archives in marine sediments and ice cores. Nowadays, Milankovitch’s theory is widely accepted. “Milankovitch’s idea that insolation determines the ice ages was right in principle,” says Blatter. “However, science soon recognised that additional feedback effects in the climate system were necessary to explain ice ages. We are now able to name and identify these effects accurately.”

Story Source:Materials provided by ETH Zurich. Original written by Fabio Bergamin. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.Journal Reference:Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Fuyuki Saito, Kenji Kawamura, Maureen E. Raymo, Jun’ichi Okuno, Kunio Takahashi, Heinz Blatter. Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume. Nature, 2013; 500 (7461): 190 DOI: 10.1038/nature12374Cite This Page:ETH Zurich. “Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 August 2013. <Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained>.

The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Climate of the Past.

In the warmer climate the atmospheric content of CO2is naturally higher. The gas CO2(carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs heat radiation from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2helps to intensify the natural climate http://variations.It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the ice age approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years.”Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.The research results show that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere followed the temperature in Antarctica closely throughout the shift from ice age to interglacial in the period 19-11,000 years before the present. The green curve shows the temperature from measurements from the 5 ice cores marked on the map. The red and blue curves show the atmospheric CO2 content in the air bubbles in the ice cores from the two bores at Siple Dome (red) and Byrd (blue). The analysis shows that the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. That the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the Antarctic tempera- ture so closely suggests that processes in the ocean around Antarctica play an important role in the rise in CO2.The research, which was carried out in collaboration with researchers from the University of Tasmania in Australia, is based on measurements of ice cores from five boreholesthrough the ice sheet in Antarctica. The ice sheet is formed by snow that doesn’t melt, but remains year after year and is gradually compressed into kilometers thick ice. During the compression, air is trapped between the snowflakes and as a result the ice contains tiny samples of ancient atmospheres. The composition of the ice also shows what the temperature was when the snow fell, so the ice is an archive of past climate and atmospheric composition.Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate changeLike night follows day glaciation (low temperatures) follows interglaciation (higher temperatures) and is so devastatingly cold it threatens human survival. The Little Ice Age was a glaciation bump in the Holocene of the last 12,000 years.Think about this just 12,000 years ago most of North America was covered with ice that was more than 1 mile thick. Will it happen again? Of course as the earth is in a long term temperature decline.Sadly the evidence is this temperature decline has not abated for the past 7000 years once there was a rapid recovery from the glaciation at 12,000 years ago.Holocene climatic optimum

WikipediaThis graph is taken from Wikipedia. It shows eight different reconstructions of Holocene temperature. The thick black line is the average of these. Time progresses from left to right.
On this graph the Stone Age is shown only about one degree warmer than present day, but most sources mention that Scandinavian Stone Age was about 2-3 degrees warmer than the present; this need not to be mutually excluding statements, because the curve reconstructs the entire Earth’s temperature, and on higher latitudes the temperature variations were greater than about equator.
Some reconstructions show a vertical dramatic increase in temperature around the year 2000, but it seems not reasonable to the author, since that kind of graphs cannot possibly show temperature in specific years, it must necessarily be smoothed by a kind of mathematical rolling average, perhaps with periods of hundred years, and then a high temperature in a single year, for example, 2004 will be much less visible.
The trend seems to be that Holocene’s highest temperature was reached in the Hunter Stone Age about 8,000 years before present, thereafter the temperature has generally been steadily falling, however, superimposed by many cold and warm periods, including the modern warm period.
However, generally speaking, the Holocene represents an amazing stable climate, where the cooling through the period has been limited to a few degrees.

History of Earth’s Climate

Zero to Hero: Brand New Climate Skeptic Party Now the Largest Group in the Dutch Senate

Eric Worrall / March 22, 2019

Thierry Baudet

Thierry Baudet, Leader of the Forum voor Democratie. By DWDD – DWDD, CC BY 3.0

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A brand new Dutch climate skeptic party has swept the field in its first election.

New Populist Party Goes from Zero Seats to Largest Party in Dutch Election

OLIVER JJ LANE

21 Mar 2019

A new populist, Eurosceptic party has achieved the remarkable feat of going from zero seats to becoming the largest single party in the Dutch Senate in a single election, as a young politician likened to a “Dutch Donald Trump” beat seasoned professionals in Wednesday’s poll.

Thierry Baudet’s Forum for Democracy party, which has gained attention for its Euroscepticism, campaigned against open borders politics and against what he calls “climate-change hysteria,” winning 86 seats across the Dutch regions. The victory put his party ahead of even the ruling mainstream conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which achieved 80 seats.

Forum was founded in 2016, and this is the first regional election the party has contested. Remarkably, in some Dutch regions Forum was so unexpectedly successful it won the right to appoint more elected members than they actually have registered candidates living in those areas.

The European Union is terrified of the upcoming EU Parliament election, because they are anticipating a parliament dominated by populists, climate skeptics and Euroskeptics who want to break up the union.

If skeptics do win control of the European Parliament, under the democratically deficient EU system elected members probably won’t have the power to change EU climate policy or break up the EU. But the skeptics may rob the unelected soviet style bureaucrats who really run the EU of the facade of democratic legitimacy they have enjoyed to date, thanks to their rubber stamp parliament of tame elected Europhiles.

Britain’s best hope of being ejected from the EU in the next few weeks is Eurocratic fear that Britain’s anticipated hardcore climate skeptic and Eurosceptic voting block might tip the balance in the next European parliament.

Thomas Homer

March 22, 2019 at 6:42 am

– CO2 is integral to the Carbon Cycle of Life, as such CO2 is a necessary requirement for Carbon Based Life Forms. CO2 feeds life and is the source of organic carbon whence it was extracted through photosynthesis by plants and phytoplankton. More atmospheric CO2 feeds more life.

– Theory that atmospheric CO2 (0.04%) causes the Earth’s surface to warm by reflecting the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface. This Theory has no Laws, Axioms, Postulates, nor formulae because we are unable to measure this purported physical property of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the real world. We can’t even measure this property on Mars with an atmosphere of 95% CO2. This theory is used to promote the idea that less atmospheric CO2 helps life.