Public Comment Period for the 5th US National Climate Assessment is Open

The time to review and remark is now. Once this report is published, it will be too late and all our crabby complaints will be useless. All public comments filed via this system become a part of the record. If significant critiques and facts are ignored, this will be apparent when the comments are published.

The Federal Government’s 5th National Climate Assessment (NCA5) public comment period has officially opened its 45-day public comment period. During this time, the draft outline for the NCA5 is being shared for the first time with the purpose of seeking public feedback. Those wishing to participate in the public comment period must submit their comments via the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) Review and Comment System by 11:59 PM ET on February 20, 2022.


https://review.globalchange.gov/


Over the next several months, the USGCRP will also launch public engagement workshops for each chapter; please join if you are interested in providing feedback. For more information on the NCA5, contact Emily Osborne (emily.osborne@noaa.gov).

HT/MM

5 6 votes
Article Rating
39 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
January 10, 2022 10:19 pm

How ’bout posting a copy of Willis Eschenbach’s:

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Redge
Reply to  Steve Case
January 10, 2022 11:00 pm

In the fevered imaginations of the watermelons

Mr.
January 10, 2022 10:39 pm

I assess all Earth’s climates as doing what they’ve been doing since time immemorial –
CHANGING.

angech
Reply to  Mr.
January 10, 2022 10:54 pm

Only US Citizens or residents

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Mr.
January 11, 2022 2:50 am

yuh, and the Chinese published, thousands of years ago, the “I Ching” (Book of Changes)

Ireneusz Palmowski
January 11, 2022 1:55 am

Stratospheric “bomb” in eastern Canada.comment image

Last edited 7 months ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
January 11, 2022 9:38 am

Yes, eastern Canada and the northeast U.S. are getting the brunt of the cold arctic air.

Most of the rest of the U.S. is south of the jet stream so temperatures should warm a little there.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-91.37,27.76,304

Philo
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
January 12, 2022 6:03 pm

The only cold spot is way up North at Shores. -38F. That is cold.
Pines trees only start shattering at -30F. or thereabouts.

michel
January 11, 2022 1:57 am

There is also a UK ongoing consultation, ending tomorrow, for the UK’s proposal to phase out the installation of fossil fuel home heating. See here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/phasing-out-fossil-fuel-heating-in-homes-off-the-gas-grid

There are roughly 1 million homes currently off the gas grid and reliant on oil fired boilers. This consultation offers various possible measures to force them to move to heat pumps.

Even if you don’t comment, its worth reading. Only about 10 pages. What it gives insight into is the mentality of the government and civil service advocates who are driving Net Zero.

Its particularly interesting to read that one of the proposed measures to use in forcing the transition to heat pumps is the Planning Approval process.

The remarks about the need to raise generating capacity are also interesting. Especially so in view of the intention of moving generation to wind and solar.

The document proposes to ban the sale of gas boilers that are not hydrogen ready. The height of insanity considering there is no source of hydrogen.

The other striking thing about this is that the EU has now moved to considering gas a green fuel (along with nuclear). But the UK is fanatically bent on eliminating all fossil fuel consumption of any kind.

As to saving the planet, these households probably account for no more than 5% of the UK’s household heat CO2 emissions. Which in turn are 25% of the UK total emissions.

So go figure. The idea is to do all this in order to reduce UK emissions as a means of reducing global emissions. UK emissions now are about 450 million. 25% of that is 113 million. 5% of that is around 6 million tons.

So this will reduce global emissions by about 0.0002%.

We are saving the planet, everyone. Don’t distract us with detail.

These people are insane.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  michel
January 11, 2022 2:25 am

Forecast for Europe at the end of January.
https://i.ibb.co/2Z2p61G/hgt300.webp

Last edited 7 months ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Jay Willis
Reply to  michel
January 11, 2022 4:30 am

Thanks for that link. I answered their consultation. They appear to suggest moving to wood burners for those unable to reasonably use heat pumps. I mentioned storage and transport of “Solid biomass” ffs.

But yes, thanks again for the link. I think it is worth responding.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  michel
January 11, 2022 5:09 am

The document proposes to ban the sale of gas boilers that are not hydrogen ready. The height of insanity considering there is no source of hydrogen.

Boiler makers are already producing prototypes for easily convertable furnaces which run on either natural gas or hydrogen. I couldn’t find an estimate for how much this adds to the cost. More of a problem is whether hydrogen can be run through the current pipes without excessive leakage. Hydrogen contains about one third the thermal energy as natural gas, so to deliver the same energy in the existing pipes means pressure would have to be raised. Hydrogen leaks through smaller cracks than natural gas and raising pressure would make that worse.

I suspect manufacturers will provide boilers that qualify as “hydrogen ready” (as defined by lawyers writing regulations for bureaucrats), but the cost of upgrading the pipe network together with the lack of green hydrogen will delay actually using it for decades.

Who am I kidding? Of course practical considerations will be ignored. Expect the mandate to go through and everyone forced to buy new boilers. To supply the hydrogen it will be “temporarily” allowed to steam reform coal or natural gas. So the net result is a huge expense to get hydrogen ready followed by using more fossil fuel at much greater expense to produce the hydrogen.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 11, 2022 12:20 pm

I believe that hydrogen will leak from pretty much any pipes, regardless of there being cracks.

observa
Reply to  michel
January 11, 2022 5:11 am

They really shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds them-
Switch to EVs will cost Treasury £5bn a year in lost fuel duty by 2028 (msn.com)

Do you get the feeling all their chickens are coming home to roost at present?

COP was another abysmal flop with Xi and Modi ignoring them and now the UK/EU have serious power problems jettisoning coal with gas prices going sky high as the insurer of last resort and now nukes are green but not for the Germans.

It suddenly dawns on them they’ll have to throttle EV charging at night with TOU charging to boot when the sun doesn’t shine and when it does in spades they’ve got problems with having paid too many too much for dumping on the grid-
Why clean energy advocates are divided over California’s plan to slash solar incentives (msn.com)

We live in interesting times with these economic illiterates and their vision splendid as all that Green helicopter money chases too few real goods that always relied on affordable dependable energy for its existence. The climate changers are in trouble everywhere they look at present.

michel
Reply to  observa
January 11, 2022 6:54 am

Actually the consultation document referred to in my post above mentions the use of smart meters to only schedule the heat pumps to off peak!

So the idea is, we move the grid to supply the non-existent hydrogen at the same time as we move everyone from gas to heat pumps, so they will not need or buy the hydrogen. In preparation for which we will have converted all their appliances.

And meanwhile we have converted cars to EVs and the gas and oil boilers to heat pumps.

And the electricity generation to wind and solar.

And so the result is that we then have not only no gas to power the boilers, we also have no electricity to charge the cars or to run the heatpumps, so we use smart meters (a disaster in itself) to turn them off!

Nigel Farage, where are you now we really need you?

They are raving lunatics.

Dave Fair
Reply to  michel
January 11, 2022 9:31 am

Its not insane to guarantee a fine career and a comfortable retirement by pandering to the bosses.

Its not insane to use crony capitalism to become wealthy by ripping off consumers and taxpayers.

Its not insane to fund entire academic edifices off government grants for fraudulent “scientific” work.

Its not insane to further a lucrative political career by stoking existential climate change fears.

Richard Page
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 11, 2022 12:30 pm

It is insane, however, to expect to get away with it forever. The sanity is in expecting to get away with it just until retirement then receive a knighthood before the sh!t really hits the fan.

King Coal
Reply to  michel
January 11, 2022 2:09 pm

I have submitted my response to the UK Govt consultation on replacing fossil fuel heating with silly expensive, inefficient heat pumps – the greenies won’t like my responses, but I will always call out these weird net zero policies where possible

King Coal
Reply to  King Coal
January 11, 2022 2:23 pm

As Steve Baker says – The UK’s plans to decarbonise the economy are a classic example of the ancient political strategy of “winging it”. Hard though it is to credit that idea, it’s true; the “experts” in Westminster have been basing your future and mine on a plan that relies, to a very great extent, on a collective crossing of the fingers.

Governments of one shade or another, Whitehall bureaucrats, and their advisers in the Climate Change Committee have been working on such plans for well over a decade now, and it’s fair to say that they still have little or no idea how Net Zero can be achieved, beyond a vague idea that we should electrify everything and have lots of energy from windfarms.

Reply to  michel
January 12, 2022 2:22 pm

Responded. No punches pulled.

Auto

Ireneusz Palmowski
January 11, 2022 2:36 am

La Niña for January 10.comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
January 11, 2022 9:42 am

I noticed the ENSO meter needle on this webpage moved a little bit.

January 11, 2022 4:54 am

Let me see … what have they missed all these years. Oh yes — we are in a CO2 famine — more is good … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB6KGUFbCkU

Nick Schroeder
January 11, 2022 6:36 am

The Earth is cooler with the atmosphere not warmer. Stand in front of a blazing campfire. Hold up a large mylar space blanket. Are you warmer now or colder? That’s what the atmosphere does and a greenhouse does not.
Per the K-T atmospheric energy balance graphic as well as numerous clones the GHGs do their thang with “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating LWIR as a black body. These graphical representations contain egregious math and physics error. See https://youtu.be/0Jijw7-YG-U
As demonstrated by experiment the surface cannot independently upwell LWIR as a black body.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
This experiment is replicated when an engineer performance tests his finned/fanned heat exchanger design, when cold water is poured over a hot car radiator, when a British baker cools a loaf by waving a cookie sheet.
There is no greenhouse effect.
The so-called GHGs do not actually do anything.
Mankind’s CO2 does not drive global warming or climate change.

K-T simplified.jpg
DMacKenzie
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 11, 2022 8:14 am

So oversimplified as to be nearly meaningless, Nick.

At average surface temperature of 288 K, the Earth’s surface emits 390 W/m^2 upwards by SB equation. At top of atmosphere the planet emits 240 W/m^2 to outer space (equal to incoming minus reflected sunlight). The difference is what most people call the GHE. Not a difficult concept.

To be adamant that it does not exist detracts from your “cooler with the atmosphere not warmer” statement, which you could easily verify with some Albedo calcs instead of making grandiose and false statements that “There is no Greenhouse effect”.

mkelly
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 11, 2022 9:05 am

You did not say whether you attribute the GHE in you second paragraph to CO2.

Nick’s last sentence is of importance in his post.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  mkelly
January 11, 2022 1:08 pm

mkelly

The effect of CO2 can’t be determined from anything Nick or I have said so far.

But to simplify somewhat, without the greenhouse gasses and clouds, the “sky” would not have a IR radiative temperature, other than the temperature of outer space, 3 K, as nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to IR. Instead the “sky” is some 250 K warmer than outer space, and the heat loss from the ground due to radiation is much reduced (Stefan-Boltzmann equation).

As far as CO2, at ground level CO2 is 400 ppm and H20 is thousands of ppm, but at 10 km, CO2 is 400 ppm and water is only 10 ppm. So at that altitude CO2 becomes the primary absorber and emitter of IR. The increase of CO2 from 1900 until now is about 1/3, with the result that more IR is absorbed and reemitted back to ground level from the higher altitudes.

This is where the fun begins. Basic calcs would show CO2 alone would cause 1.2 C warming. The 1.2 C would cause water vapor to increase in the air at 7% more per degree. Ends up at about 2.5 C per doubling of CO2. But more water vapor causes more clouds that reflect more sunlight, therefore cooling the surface. Increased temp and water vapor also cause more convection and heat being lifted into the upper troposphere, where it can more easily radiate into space. Plus with more convection, cloud tops get higher and bigger as well. The error bars of the various calculations and measurements are too big to decide the issue.

The temperature increase per CO2 doubling remains the primary disputed point in CliSci as evidenced by the attached chart.

53685932-36E7-457E-A8E3-6A37BEBEFC74.gif
Last edited 7 months ago by DMacKenzie
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 11, 2022 10:03 am

If you are standing between the fire and the blanket, Nick, you are warmer (like the troposphere). If the blanket is between you and the fire, you are cooler (like the stratosphere).

griff
January 11, 2022 7:44 am
Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
January 11, 2022 9:43 am

What conclusion should we draw from your link, Griff?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 11, 2022 12:24 pm

It’s the Guardian.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
January 11, 2022 9:56 am

Griff, you beclown yourself by apparently believing politicized Guardian hype. All one needs to do to check on the validity of the article is read UN IPCC reports or, for a much clearer discussion, anything by Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. One will find that “climate” disasters (bad weather) have not increased the cost of such bad weather when considering the increases in exposed populations and infrastructure over time. One will also find that the incidences and severity of bad weather events have also not increased over time in either metric.

All of this information has been available (and pointed out to you) for some time now, Griff. Your refusal to acknowledge clear facts while pushing obvious propaganda is an indication that your apparent hard-Left ideology is affecting your ability to accurately perceive the real world or that you are willing to lie to further your ideological bent. If you aren’t lying, quit listening to people and organizations with agendas that are not beneficial to you or society in general.

Last edited 7 months ago by Dave Fair
Nigel in California
Reply to  griff
January 11, 2022 12:25 pm

Read it. It’s wrong. If you consider the increases in exposed populations and infrastructure over time the fatal error in the Guardian’s claims is exposed.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
January 11, 2022 12:35 pm

Why Griffy? You have such a bad track record on (dis)information that you’re going to have to do better this time. You need to convince me to read your link – come on, I’m waiting.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  griff
January 11, 2022 1:01 pm

There ARE NO “climate” disasters. Just WEATHER disasters.

Pure propaganda.

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 3:10 am
Philo
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 6:21 pm

There’s no conclusion to be drawn from cut-and-paste journalism.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
January 13, 2022 8:34 pm

If you recommend it, then I’m not going to bother. Your reputation precedes you!

George Ellis
January 12, 2022 2:46 am

Just wow. I opened an account and the bias is just beyond believe in that report. I commented on the fact that 2.1 was observer and selection bias. The start time for comparison of why we already have 1.1 C of warming? 1850. Just wow. Can you find a worse way to start your observation?

%d bloggers like this: