Monthly Archives: January 2023

Study Says that 90% of Rainforest Carbon Offsets are Worthless


This has to be terrible news for Al Gore, John Kerry , Leo Dicaprio, etc.
They have been saying that their use of jet fuel and diesel fuel for ocean cruisers was alright because they have been buying offsets. What will be their excuse now?

The following posting by the Guardian titled “Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest provider are worthless, analysis shows |” should really shake up the global warming alarmists.

The forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading provider and used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations are largely worthless and could make global heating worse, according to a new investigation.

The research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by companies – are likely to be “phantom credits” and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.

The analysis raises questions over the credits bought by a number of internationally renowned companies – some of them have labelled their products “carbon neutral”, or have told their consumers they can fly, buy new clothes or eat certain foods without making the climate crisis worse.

But doubts have been raised repeatedly over whether they are really effective.

The nine-month investigation has been undertaken by the Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation. It is based on new analysis of scientific studies of Verra’s rainforest schemes.

It has also drawn on dozens of interviews and on-the-ground reporting with scientists, industry insiders and Indigenous communities. The findings – which have been strongly disputed by Verra – are likely to pose serious questions for companies that are depending on offsets as part of their net zero strategies. https://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader/embed/2023/01/carbon_credits/giv-6562QtneEGS9p8ZT/ Verra, which is based in Washington DC, operates a number of leading environmental standards for climate action and sustainable development, including its verified carbon standard (VCS) that has issued more than 1bn carbon credits. It approves three-quarters of all voluntary offsets. Its rainforest protection programme makes up 40% of the credits it approves and was launched before the Paris agreement with the aim of generating revenue for protecting ecosystems.

Verra argues that the conclusions reached by the studies are incorrect, and questions their methodology. And they point out that their work since 2009 has allowed billions of dollars to be channelled to the vital work of preserving forests.

The investigation found that:

  • Only a handful of Verra’s rainforest projects showed evidence of deforestation reductions, according to two studies, with further analysis indicating that 94% of the credits had no benefit to the climate.
  • The threat to forests had been overstated by about 400% on average for Verra projects, according to analysis of a 2022 University of Cambridge study.
  • Gucci, Salesforce, BHP, Shell, easyJet, Leon and the band Pearl Jam were among dozens of companies and organisations that have bought rainforest offsets approved by Verra for environmental claims.
  • Human rights issues are a serious concern in at least one of the offsetting projects. The Guardian visited a flagship project in Peru, and was shown videos that residents said showed their homes being cut down with chainsaws and ropes by park guards and police. They spoke of forced evictions and tensions with park authorities.
  • The two studies from the international group of researchers found just eight out of 29 Verra-approved projects where further analysis was possible showed evidence of meaningful deforestation reductions.
  • The journalists were able to do further analysis on those projects, comparing the estimates made by the offsetting projects with the results obtained by the scientists. The analysis indicated about 94% of the credits the projects produced should not have been approved.
  • Credits from 21 projects had no climate benefit, seven had between 98% and 52% fewer than claimed using Verra’s system, and one had 80% more impact, the investigation found.
  • Separately, the study by the University of Cambridge team of 40 Verra projects found that while a number had stopped some deforestation, the areas were extremely small. Just four projects were responsible for three-quarters of the total forest that was protected.
  • The journalists again analysed these results more closely and found that, in 32 projects where it was possible to compare Verra’s claims with the study finding, baseline scenarios of forest loss appeared to be overstated by about 400%. Three projects in Madagascar have achieved excellent results and have a significant impact on the figures. If those projects are not included, the average inflation is about 950%.
  • The studies used different methods and time periods, looked at different ranges of projects, and the researchers said no modelling approach is ever perfect, acknowledging limitations in each study. However, the data showed broad agreement on the lack of effectiveness of the projects compared with the Verra-approved predictions.
  • Two of the studies have passed the peer review process and another has been released as a preprint

I recommend that you visit the Guardians full report. You can do that by clicking on the link at the beginning of this posting.

cbdakota

The Great Reset Demands MONEY


Last week the Great Reset group gathered in Davos Switzerland to continue contriving the destruction of capitalism using global warming as the vehicle. These so-called elites arrived using an alleged 1200 private jets. If they actually believed that carbon dioxide (CO2) is pushing the planet ultimately to an apocalypse, they would do these meetings by Zoom . But instead, they choose to create large amounts of jet engine exhausts of CO2 into the atmosphere. No, they believe that they should govern the planet. To do that they need to spark fear that global warming will bring on extinction. And only these elite can save you by turning governance over to them.

A Washington Times https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/23/editorial-for-select-at-davos-money-is-key-to-stay/?mc_cid=cc44f4808d&mc_eid=557687911 editorial focused the money as follows: (posting is behind a paywall)”

Beware of the individual who refers to his ilk as “we select group of human beings.” It’s the unmistakable mark of the elite who believe their concern for climate can save the world. Mindful that those who guaranteed the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines now associated with disturbing health anomalies derive from the same exclusive class, Americans should regard the purveyors of climate change remedies with studied caution.

The most self-assured of this sort have a habit of showing up for the World Economic Forum’s annual gathering, which recently concluded in Davos, Switzerland. With his “select group” puffery, President Biden’s special envoy for climate, John Kerry, gathered his fellow discussion panelists and audience into a league of their own.

It is all a part of forum founder Klaus Schwab’s plan to “master the future” through climate change activism. Eager to oblige, Mr. Kerry urged all within earshot to rebuff any self-image of “a crazy tree-hugging lefty liberal” and embrace their identity of the “almost extraterrestrial” breed who are “saving the planet.” He made the case that the key to staying cool is “money, money, money, money, money, money, money”: The denizens of Davos want $3 trillion annually to finance greenhouse gas reductions.

By contrast, climate guru and former Vice President Al Gore showed little hesitation in personifying the crazy tree-hugger. Referring to human-caused atmospheric emissions, the Davos forum regular claimed, “That’s what is boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers and the rain bombs and sucking the moisture out of the land, creating the droughts and raising the sea level and causing these waves of climate refugees predicted to reach one billion in this century.”

All this “settled science” from a self-appointed climate expert who, according to The Washington Post, could not quite manage a gentleman’s C in his Harvard science classes.”

I think that this man-made catastrophe theory will only be abandoned when the cost to fund this program becomes too high for the average citizen and/or explicit examples of failures become so common that people will no longer put up with it.  A major failure would be a long stretch of global cooling.  High priced electricity and frequent black outs will be a trigger too.  And ultimately when it becomes known that renewables are useless without backup nuclear and/or fossil fuels.

When politicians are faced with being voted out, we will be able to drop this crap.

Real science will then out the charlatan’s “settled science” and they will be defamed.  

The average citizen may become distrustful of any scientist, unfortunately because of this.

cbdakota

Global Warming  Causes Snow and Drought. At The Same Time.  Or, So The Alarmists Say


This view looks north on Plumas Street, just north of Bridge Street in the heart of the Yuba City, California business district. The massive Northern California flood of 1955 remains the deadliest to hit the Yuba City and Marysville region. 38 were killed, 280 homes were destroyed and over 1500 were damaged. The Shanghai Bend on the west levee of the Feather River, about one mile south of Yuba City was breached around midnight on Christmas Eve, and a wall of water cascaded into Sutter County, which forced thousands of residence to evacuate their homes. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Air Force, 136th Engineer Aviation Brigade from Beale Air Force Base. Photo taken December 25, 1955. Courtesy photo U.S. Force 136th Engineer Aviation Brigade

The American Thinker site posted a blog “Too Wet? Too Dry? It’s All Climate Change”.  The author Brian Joondeph debunks the catastrophic global warming.  He begins with:

“Climate change, as defined by the United Nations: “Refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle.” That’s actually a good definition.”

“But not willing to leave well enough alone, the UN goes further, spoiling a simple and straightforward definition with: “But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.”

“It is amazing that before humans burned fossil fuels two centuries ago, it was only natural cycles that changed the climate, not backyard barbecues, gas stoves, and SUVs. Yet the UN does not explain how previous ice ages developed due to global cooling, followed by melting of mile-thick ice over the upper Midwest due to global warming, multiple times over the Earth’s history, long before there was any significant human activity.”

“Climate change” was first mentioned in 1975, but this was a time when climate scientists could not decide if temperatures were rising or falling, attributing sinister causes rather than natural and cyclic warming and cooling trends which have long preceded humans and their activities”.

“Since then, climate change has engulfed more than temperature, adding weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, droughts, and flooding. It seems that any deviation from a sunny day with temperatures in the mid ’70s with a light breeze is evidence of climate change and Republicans scheming to destroy the planet”

“The New York Times, in 2014, ran an opinion piece titled, “The end of snow?” predicting the demise of winter sports and the Winter Olympics due to global warming. Eight years later in 2022, the New York Times told us, “How climate change can supercharge snowstorms.”. Or also in 2022 how, “The deadly freeze that swept the United States was extraordinary, but while scientists know that global warming can intensify extreme weather, the effects on winter storm are tricky to untangle.”

“Tricky indeed. Climate change causes both not enough and too much snow. How does that work?  But it’s not only snow but water, both not enough and too much, all due to omnipotent climate change.”

From there he examines the droughts in California.  He cites the California Department of Water Resources relating the droughts are frequent. They also say floods are frequent too.

“Again, floods are normal and expected. They are nothing new. Here are photos of floods going back 150 years. “

Click on the “photos” in the previous sentence.

Read the entire blog by clicking here.

cbdakota  .

The West Cannot StopThe Underdeveloped Nations From Wanting to ImproveTheir People’s Wealth


The man-made global warming alarmists are trying to prevent the poor nations from getting fossil fuels to build their nations wealth. Loans to provide money to build electrification facilities powered by fossil fuels are denied. But these nations will not be denied. They will not be tricked into building unreliable wind or solar farms. China for example installs, each year, more new coal based plants than the rest of the world combined. Annual coal consumption is setting new records. And the hypocrisy of particularly of the EU Nations that have turned to coal to power their nations when their wind, and solar are unable to make up for the lost natural gas supplies from Russia. Just one more reason for the poorer nations to turn to fossil fuels.

The Oxford Union conducted a debate ” This House Believes Woke Culture Has Gone Too Far”. The last speaker was Konstantin Kisin. The attached video, his speech, can be watched by clicking here. https://twitter.com/i/status/1613830456243273730

I am not sure that those viewers of this blog that are not linked to Twitter, will be able to see this video. Please sign up with Twitter, now that it has new ownership. It’s worth it for this video.

cbdakota.

Renewable Project Rejections by Local Communities are on the Rise


RealClear Energy posted an entry by Robert Bryce titled “Solar Energy Rejections in 2022 that refutes mainstream media’s assertion that the rejections are due to energy companies “misinformation. The following comes from Bryce’s entry:

“You won’t read about this in The New York Times or The New Yorker, but 2022 was a record year for the number of solar energy projects that were rejected by rural communities in the United States. 

As I show in the Renewable Rejection Database, nearly 80 rural governments either banned or restricted solar energy projects last year

In all, more than 40 Ohio townships adopted measures last year that prohibit the construction of large solar or wind projects, or both. Across the U.S., about 106 communities have rejected or restricted solar projects since 2017. The number of wind rejections also jumped last year, with 55 communities enacting ordinances or other measures that prohibit the installation of large wind facilities. Since 2015, about 360 communities across the U.S. have rejected or restricted wind projects. (Note that last year, I published numbers that were slightly higher than that. In my continuing updates to the database, I found some entries that were duplicates and deleted them.) 

To be sure, these facts, and these numbers, don’t fit with the narrative being peddled by legacy media outlets. Last year, National Public Radio ran an article claiming that rural Americans were peddling “misinformation” in their efforts to prevent wind and solar projects from being built in their neighborhoods. Last month, an article published in The New York Times claimed that opposition to wind projects in Michigan included “anti-wind activists with ties to groups backed by Koch Industries.” But the reporter who wrote the article, David Gelles, didn’t provide any proof of any Koch connections. (Gelles did not reply to two emails asking him for substantiation of his claim.) Last month in The New Yorker, climate activist Bill McKibben claimed that “front groups sponsored by the fossil-fuel industry have begun sponsoring efforts to spread misinformation about wind and solar energy.” But like Gelles, McKibben didn’t provide any proof for his claim.

In all of the years I’ve been reporting on these issues, I have seen no evidence of Koch funding or “front groups” sponsored by the hydrocarbon sector. What I have seen is an increasing effort by the wind and solar lobbies and their claqueurs to discredit people who stand in the way of these projects. Perhaps that’s not surprising. Tens of billions of dollars in federal tax credits are at stake. Companies like Apex Clean Energy can’t feed at the federal trough if they don’t build projects.

Land-use conflicts are the binding constraint on the growth of renewables. The fundamental limitation isn’t money, it’s physics. Wind and solar energy have low power density. That means that attempting to use them to displace large quantities of hydrocarbons will require staggering amounts of land. For instance, last year, Jesse Jenkins and several of his colleagues at Princeton University produced a model to predict how much new wind and solar capacity could be built due to the supertanker of cash that Congress earmarked for renewables in the Inflation Reduction Act. In a Q&A published in these pages last year, Jenkins told me that the land required to accommodate the hundreds of megawatts of new wind and solar under the IRA would require a land area about the size of Tennessee. Here’s a newsflash: we don’t have any spare Tennessees lying around. 

Rural Americans are fighting back against wind and solar projects because they want to retain the character of their townships, ranches, farms, and villages. And no amount of spin from The New York Times will change that fact.” 

To read the entire posting click here.

cbdakota

Will there be a solar minimum soon?


Chart from video of interview of Dr Zharkova Phd ** Click on charts to enlarge

The chart above shows the forecast for Solar Cycles 25, 26 and beyond by Valentina Zharkova.Phd. She believes that she and her team have determined how to forecast solar cycle activity. Solar Cycle 25 is underway and she predicts it will be less active than Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 26 will be much less active.

Madame Zharkova is much bolder than many other experts with respect to when or if there will be a solar minimum. Before we discuss Madame Zharkova, let’s look into some of the issues that surround the question of an upcoming Solar Minimum.

** The video begins at (2 minutes and 14 seconds.)

To begin with, look at the December 2022 Global temperature.  It dropped to an anomaly of 0.05C from November 2022’s 0.17C anomaly.  This measurement continues the decline of global temperatures since the last El Nino where the anomaly peaked at about 0.4 C. (Red line)

The chart above is from a Dr Roy Spencer posting.

This has resulted in a number of people saying we are on our way to another “little ice age”.   Let’s look at several predictions of serious global cooling

ENSO is the system name acronym for and the Southern Oscillation. It a major factor affecting global temperature.

The El Nino (ocean warming) and the La Nina (ocean cooling) are considered natural phenomena, meaning that they are not man-made actions.  A simplistic description of this phenomena is that over a period of time sun and or submerged volcanos, warm a body of western Pacific Ocean, lying along the equator and its temperature rises. This causes atmospheric changes and the hot water flows eastward to the coast of South America. This is called El Nino.  After several years the conditions change and the body of water flows westward and cool, deep ocean water along South America coast rises This is the La Nina.. This ebb and flow has a major effect on global weather.

The above chart illustrates the Nino and Nina occurrences from 1990 to the present.  Comparing the temperature chart and the Ninos charts show that when an El Nino occurs the global temperature rises. Conversely global temperature drops when a La Nina occurs. The charts seems to show that El Ninos are stronger that La Ninas.  (It would be interesting if someone had measured the chart area for the two.)

Now eyeballing the charts, it looks like the strong El Ninos, a natural occurrence, are the major mover of the global temperatures. 

Examining the global temperature chart, the period following the 1997 -1998 El Nino, stretching out to about 2015 shows that global temperature is flat, in other words, no significant change in global temperature was recorded. Something like 15/16 years.  This happened even though atmospheric C02 was increasing. Does this relegate CO2 to be only a minor forcing? Does this indicate that the sun (or volcanos) are causing global temperatures to rise?

Viewing Solar Cycles.

Solar Cycle 24 was much less active than its predecessors. The new Cycle 25 activity is almost identical to Solar Cycle 24 as can be seen in the following chart

The chart above is courtsey of Solan.Info.

Cycle 25 at 30 months after cycle start is the green line and that is where Cycle 24, the black line, was at thirty months. The other Cycles, from other years, that had unusually low activity are shown on this chart. Cycle 24 the black line was less activity than the others.

For contrast, the following chart shows the “Modern Maximum”, group of Cycles, meaning very active. The chart is a little dated as the last rising blue line is Solar Cycle 24.

The solar cycles 24 and 25 are substantially less active than their predecessors.  There is really no strong signal yet that the temperature is dropping due to low activity Solar Cycles. Perhaps there is a time delay built into the system.

Cloud Formation due to weak Solar Cycles

This allows us to examine three theories.  First comes the Svensmark theory: From the posting “comes this description of the theory:

“In 1995, Henrik Svensmark discovered a startling connection between the cosmic ray flux from space and cloud cover. He found that when the sun is more active–more sunspots, a stronger magnetic field, larger auroras, stronger solar winds, etc.–fewer cosmic rays strike the earth and cloud cover is reduced, resulting in warmer temperatures.”  When the sun is inactive, more of them penetrate the atmosphere. Upon reaching the lower atmosphere where more sulphur dioxide, water vapor, and ozone is present, the cosmic rays ionize the air, releasing electrons that aid in the formation of more CCN and form more dense clouds. This increase in low-cloud amount reflects more solar energy to space, cooling the planet.”

CERN set up chambers to test this theory. While there was some verification, they said that cosmic rays did form clouds, but the formation was much too small to have any effect.  It appears that there are many that still think Svensmark is correct.  We will have to wait to see future developments.

There are some new theories positing that Ultra Violet (UV) is a player.   

First some UV information from Wiki: “The Sun emits ultraviolet radiation at all wavelengths, including the extreme ultraviolet where it crosses into X-rays at 10 nm. Sunlight in space at the top of Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light, for a total intensity of about 1400 W/m2 in vacuum.[22]

The atmosphere blocks about 77% of the Sun’s UV, when the Sun is highest in the sky (at zenith), with absorption increasing at shorter UV wavelengths. At ground level with the sun at zenith, sunlight is 44% visible light, 3% ultraviolet, and the remainder infrared.[23][24] Of the ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface, more than 95% is the longer wavelengths of UVA, with the small remainder UVB. Almost no UVC reaches the Earth’s surface.[25] 

The shorter bands of UVC, as well as even more-energetic UV radiation produced by the Sun, are absorbed by oxygen and generate the ozone in the ozone layer when single oxygen atoms produced by UV photolysis of dioxygen react with more dioxygen. The ozone layer is especially important in blocking most UVB and the remaining part of UVC not already blocked by ordinary oxygen in air.”

Here is one of the UV theories It is called the Winter GateKeeper Hypothesis. I would like to say that I know enough to describe this hypothesis, but I can not. Dr Judith Curry has posted it on her site, which I think is a favorable appraisal of this hypothesis. She has also noted another researcher which seems to have a favorable opinion. So I will give you a summary:

“The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis integrates different components of the transport system in the stratosphere, troposphere, and ocean. A schematic of the energy processes involved is presented in Fig. 8.1, with energy transport represented by white arrows. Solar modulation starting in the stratosphere affects all transport, and Vinós (2022) showed a solar effect on ENSO and the polar vortex. The mechanism by which solar activity modulates ENSO activity is still unknown, but this author proposes a solar modulation of the Brewer-Dobson tropical upwelling, known as the “tropical route” of the “top-down mechanism” (Maycock & Misios 2016; Vinós 2022).”

“Fig. 8.1. Northern Hemisphere winter meridional transport outline. The energy gain/loss ratio at the top of the atmosphere determines the maximal energy source in the tropical band and the maximal energy sink in the Arctic in winter. Incoming solar energy is distributed in the stratosphere and troposphere/surface where it is subjected to different transport modulations. Energy (white arrows) ascends from the surface to the stratosphere at the tropical pipe (left dashed line) and is transported towards the polar vortex (right dashed line) by the Brewer–Dobson circulation. Stratospheric transport is determined by UV heating at the tropical ozone layer, which establishes a temperature gradient affecting zonal wind strength through thermal wind balance, and by the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO). This double control determines the behavior of planetary waves (black arrows) and determines if the polar vortex undergoes a biennial coupling with the QBO (BO). In the tropical ocean mixed-layer, ENSO is the main energy distribution modulator. While the Hadley cell participates in energy transport and responds to its intensity by expanding or contracting, most energy transport in the tropics is done by the ocean. Changes in transport intensity result in the main modes of variability, the AMO, and PDO. Outside the tropics, most of the energy is transferred to the troposphere, where synoptic transport by eddies along storm tracks is responsible for the bulk of the transport to high latitudes. The strength of the polar vortex determines the high latitudes winter climate regime. A weak vortex promotes a warm Arctic/ cold continents winter regime, where more energy enters the Arctic exchanged by cold air masses moving out. Jet streams (PJS, polar; TJS, tropical; PNJ, polar night) constitute the boundaries and limit transport. Red oval, the part of the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis studied in Veretenenko 2022. Figure from Vinós 2022”

Finally, a few notes about the Zharkova theory.

From the posting in Principia Scientific titled “The Woman Who Could Cancel Net Zero”comes another theory.   The woman in this case is  Professor Valentina Zharkova of the University of Northumbria. The professor’s fields are applied mathematics, plasma physics, pattern recognition, solar-terrestrial physics and solar activity. She forecasts that “in the next 30yrs, global warming problem will be last thing in our mind. Then the solar cycles return to being active.

With her team, she has studied the Sun’s many magnetic fields.   She says that sunspots are not a strong enough signal to base any predictions on.  So the team separated the magnetic fields in separate components with a principal component analysis using Eigen vectors and Eigen values. She used the output to create a method to predict solar cycle activity. She maintains that she demonstrated that the teams work can closely match the past solar cycles and they can use it to project the future solar cycle activity.

It would be enormous step in understanding the Sun if Dr Zharkova’s system proves out. It might well be a big hit on the man-made global warming theory, too.

cbdakota