Attribution of big wind events is just assertion
Data on tropical cyclones are among the most studied and reliable data you can find in climate science. These data are the result of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people doing the heroic work of science over more than a century.
The resulting dataset is called the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) — a monumental scientific achievement (and also one the IPCC tried to throw shade on for not providing the “right” trends, but I digress).
Thanks to IBTrACS, data on tropical cyclone incidence worldwide is readily at our fingertips.
For instance, at Colorado State University, Phil Klotzbach uses IBTrACS to keep a real-time dataset of global tropical cyclone activity that is easy for anyone to use — and I use it often. The IBTrACS data is the basis for the analyses below.
You don’t need a math degree to see that there is no upwards trend in either. In fact, we can clearly see a gradual reduction in the number of hurricanes since the mid 1990s, the exact opposite of what the IPCC and other alarmists claim.
What we are looking at today, however, is the ratio of the bottom line to the top line — the proportion of all tropical cyclones of hurricane strength that are major hurricanes.
Well there we have it, there has been an increase in the proportion of major hurricanes since 1980. That must be ‘climate change’, right? Case closed?
Not at all.
You’ll note that the time series above starts in 1980. That is when the IBTrACS dataset has global coverage. It is also right in the middle of a decade-plus period where hurricane activity was extremely low, perhaps even the lowest in centuries.
Starting any trend analysis in 1980 for tropical cyclones is thus very likely to result in upward trends, but that doesn’t mean that they are the result of human-caused ‘climate change’.
Here it is important to revisit how the IPCC defines the detection of a change in climate:
Detection of change is defined as the process of demonstrating that climate or a system affected by climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change.
An identified change is detected in observations if its likelihood of occurrence by chance due to internal variability alone is determined to be small, for example, <10 percent.
To conclude that a variable has changed requires demonstrating that a trend in observed statistics goes beyond that which might be observed within the variability of those data.
Otherwise, we risk misidentifying noise or internal variability as a change in the system. Climate data can be highly variable over many different time scales — this of course is why cherry-picking data can be problematic, but also appealing to the mischievous.
Fortunately, on tropical cyclones much data predates 1980, allowing us to explore in-depth internal variability in tropical cyclone occurrence and how apparent trends compare to that variability.
Specifically, there are longer-term data on tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and Western North Pacific — NA and WNP, which represent about 50 percent of all global activity — dating back to 1950.
Let’s take a look at what those data show.
As we would expect, these time series are highly correlated, since the latter comprises 50 percent of the former.
We can conclude with some confidence that trends in the proportion of major hurricanes in the NA & WNP combined make for a good proxy for trends in the proportion of major hurricanes at the overall global level.
From 1950 to 2022, there is no upward trend in the proportion of major hurricanes. In fact, if you look closely at the red line, there is a slight decrease.
But if you start an analysis in the 1970s or 1980s, you will get an upward trend.
So where does all this leave us? Well, here is a cherry-picker’s guide to the proportion of major hurricanes:
Want to show an increase? Start your analysis in 1980.
Want to show no trends? Start your analysis in 1950.
Want to show a decrease? Start your analysis in 2002.
More seriously, what does the scientific community conclude when a climate time series does not indicate trends outside the bounds of observed variability?
Detection has not been achieved.
That means there is no trend to attribute. Neither detection nor attribution has been achieved.
The IPCC AR6 failed spectacularly on tropical cyclones in concluding that both detection and attribution have not only been achieved related to an increasing proportion of major hurricanes but that such conclusions have strengthened since 2014.
This is all fiction, misinformation even. Yes, I know these are strong words. The IPCC is far too important to allow errors of this magnitude.
This is what the IPCC and other organisations do. They pick low points to start their graphs, which will always show an upward trend.
This can only be seen as either total incompetence, or a deliberate deception.
https://principia-scientific.com/climate-expert-misinformation-in-the-ipcc-part-2/
******************************************Biden’s newest nominee vows to use loophole to push climate agenda
The Biden administration is pushing an aggressive climate agenda and has no problem spending taxpayer money to do it.
The latest example of this comes from the little-known Department of Transportation safety subagency, where Biden’s nominee to lead the agency privately boasted that she would use her position to push climate policies.
Ann Carlson, an environmental law expert, was recruited by the Biden-Harris transition team in early January 2021 to serve as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) chief counsel, according to emails obtained by the watchdog group Government Accountability & Oversight (GAO).
In her position, Carlson has overseen key agency initiatives like the modification of fuel economy standards and has served as acting administrator since September.
She boasted to colleagues at UCLA Law in January 2021 that “the agency is in charge of climate standards for cars and trucks, which is why they have recruited me for the position.”
Days later, she wrote to board members of UCLA’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change & the Environment, similarly boasting of the climate policymaking potential at NHTSA, saying “I view my appointment (and a number of others) as evidence that the Biden Administration is truly committed to a ‘whole of government’ approach to addressing climate change.”
In August 2021, Biden signed an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department to issue regulations on fuel efficiency and emissions standards, and the NHTSA unveiled ambitious new standards that it acknowledged would cost automakers about $236.5 billion and eventually make cars $1,000 more expensive.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., the current chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the regulations “will only add to the cost of new cars, depriving people of safe, affordable vehicles.”
But that hasn’t stopped the Biden administration from pushing their climate agenda. Carlson also reportedly helped coordinate high-profile climate nuisance lawsuits filed by a dark money-fueled law firm against fossil fuel companies in 2017 and 2018.
This whole situation is outrageous. The Biden administration is spending taxpayer money to ram through a climate agenda that was never voted on and goes against the will of the taxpayers. It’s also a huge waste of money and resources that could be used to help the American people in other ways.
What’s worse is that this administration is also pushing for stricter gun control laws, which goes against the 2nd Amendment. It’s clear that this administration is out of touch with the American people and their priorities.
If Biden and his team really wanted to do something about climate change, they should focus on policies that would actually make a difference, like investing in clean energy technology and incentivizing businesses to reduce their emissions. Spending taxpayer money on costly regulations is not only ineffective, it’s also fiscally irresponsible.
https://libertyonenews.com/bidens-newest-nominee-vows-to-use-loophole-to-push-climate-agenda/
****************************************************Ageing multi-storey car parks 'could collapse' under the weight of heavier electric vehicles
Multi-storey car parks across the UK could be at risk of collapsing due to the weight of electric vehicles, experts warn.
Electric cars, which are roughly twice as heavy as standard models, could cause serious damage to car park floors with especially older, unloved structures most at risk of buckling.
New guidance is now being developed recommending higher load bearing weights to accommodate the heavier vehicles.
Chris Whapples, a structural engineer and car park consultant, is at the forefront of these new measures which are due to be published in the coming weeks.
'I don’t want to be too alarmist, but there definitely is the potential for some of the early car parks in poor condition to collapse,' he told The Telegraph.
The weight of electric vehicles could cause the collapse of multi-storey car parks across the UK +3
The weight of electric vehicles could cause the collapse of multi-storey car parks across the UK
'Operators need to be aware of electric vehicle weights, and get their car parks assessed from a strength point of view, and decide if they need to limit weight.'
Most of the nation’s 6,000 multi-storey and underground facilities were built according to guidance based on the weight of popular cars of 1976, including the Mk 3 Ford Cortina.
But the electric cars currently on the UK market are far bulkier. For instance, the best-selling Tesla Model 3 weighs 2.2 tons fully loaded, making it more than 50 per cent heavier than a 1.4-tonne Cortina.
Electric vehicles are heavier predominantly because of the batteries used to power them, and the reinforced framework and suspension needed to accommodate them.
Hugo Griffiths, an investigative journalist, warned last year: 'Cars have been getting heavier for some time now. Back in the 1970s, a family car like the Ford Cortina weighed less than 1,000kg, while the original Range Rover was a tonne or so lighter than its modern-day counterpart.
'Consumer demand and technological advancements have seen a rise in the number of creature comforts fitted to cars, with features including electric windows and climate control piling on the pounds.
'Safety improvements have also led to increasing weights. Side-impact bars, airbags, laminated glass and traction-control systems help prevent collisions or reduce their severity, but features that make cars safer also tend to increase their mass.
'Added to this is the push towards electrification: a petrol engine might weigh 150kg or so, while an EV battery pack can easily come in at 500kg.'
*******************************************
A green hydrogen fantasy in Australia
Green hydrogen is to renewable energy enthusiasts what gold was to ancient alchemists: the universal panacea that frees the human soul from disease and corruptibility and transports it to a perfect and everlasting state. They believe it holds the key to turning dilute, fickle sources of energy, such as solar and wind, into something vaguely useful.
That is the view of Andrew Forrest, a miner turned born-again renewable energy entrepreneur. Forrest’s company, Squadron Energy, is Australia’s biggest player in weather-dependent renewable energy. He is on record as predicting that renewables could squeeze coal out of the market by the end of the decade. But the real breakthrough will come with the development of green hydrogen, which, he claims, is Australia’s greatest resource.
“To make it, all you need to do is run electricity through water,” he told a Clean Energy Council summit in 2021. Water is the easy part. Generating the eye-watering quantity of electricity needed is a more formidable challenge.
Let’s assume global demand for hydrogen reaches 300Mt by 2050 and that the green energy superpower Australia is going to become produces one-15th of that total, as an influential Deloitte report suggests is possible. That would require about 900TW of electricity, which is roughly 3½ times Australia’s current annual output. The absurdity of the numbers sends green hydrogen into dreamy land even before we confront Forrest’s insistence that we do it with two hands tied behind our back.
For Forrest, the only genuinely green electricity is generated by weather-dependent renewable energy. The Minerals Council canvasses carbon capture and storage as an option but Forrest reckons that would be cheating.
Yet no amount of Forrest’s spin can overcome the iron law of energy density. Coal requires 25 square metres to generate a megawatt of electricity. A modern small modular nuclear reactor requires less than one square metre. A wind turbine plant typically requires more than 2000 square metres per megawatt, which means that even in a country as vast as Australia, the supply of available land is quickly exhausted.
In Queensland, where Squadron Energy is investing billions of dollars, wind and solar developments are being pushed beyond the boundaries of farmland into native scrub. In a rational world, Apple’s announcement last week that it was pulling out of a deal to purchase energy from Squadron’s proposed wind plant in the Upper Burdekin would be the beginning of the end for unreliable renewables.
An environmental assessment, released in December, found that 769 hectares of koala habit would be destroyed if the development goes ahead. It would involve the clearance of 662ha of Sharman’s rock wallaby habitat, 709ha of greater glider habitat and 754ha of habit that provides sanctuary for the red goshawk.
That a wind turbine development should even be considered on such a sensitive site shows how desperate the sector has become. Pushing renewables in such far-flung territory adds considerably to the cost. It requires wide roads to be cut through hillsides and the bulldozing of native tree, plus extra transmission lines.
The sheer weight of minerals needed for the construction of wind and solar plants brings other challenges, as Siemens Energy chief executive Christian Bruch acknowledged. “Never forget, renewables like wind roughly need 10 times the material (compared to) what conventional technologies need,” he said. “If you have problems on the supply chain, it hits wind extremely hard.”
Squadron’s Upper Burdekin development was already looking less profitable after it was forced to reduce the number of turbines from 139 to 80. Add to that the opprobrium foisted upon it by Apple’s withdrawal and the project looks to be in trouble. The kind of hydrogen Forrest is proposing is only green in the sense that it is technologically unripe.
Current international demand is so low as to be effectively non-existent compared to our exports of natural gas and coal. If international demand starts to accelerate, what’s to stop others cornering the market? The competitive advantage will belong to the jurisdiction with the cheapest electricity, and that’s not going to be Australia.
It’s little wonder that many with an eye on the capital markets are wondering if green hydrogen will ever get off the ground. In February, a meeting of federal, state and territory industry ministers called for the 2019 green hydrogen strategy to be “revised and refreshed” in the light of international developments.
President Joe Biden’s absurdly misnamed Inflation Reduction Act offers $US580bn of incentives for green innovation. Guy Debelle, a former Reserve Bank deputy governor, warned that Australia is at risk of being left behind by countries with generous subsidies, lower renewable energy costs and closer access to major industrial markets. He said the government would have to devote at least $15bn in public funds to counter a global hydrogen “subsidy arms race”.
A head somewhat cooler than the one sitting on the shoulders of the federal Energy Minister might conclude that this isn’t a fight Australia needs to be in. It would be better to focus our attention on the green economy games we can win; lithium, for example, where we are the world’s largest exporter; rare earths, where we’re the world’s second-largest producer; or cobalt, where we rank third.
Arriving at that conclusion, however, requires clear strategic thinking, indifferent to headlines and uncontaminated by hype. Policy formation in the 24-hour media cycle rarely happens that way
***************************************
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)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment