Polar Bears and Coral Reefs Are Doing Just Fine

We live on a beautiful planet, filled with a dizzying assortment of interesting creatures and living organisms. The vast majority of people want to see that life flourish, so it is no wonder that particularly attractive species like cute (usually) polar bears and colorful corals are often used to promote climate alarmism.

Corals and polar bears are two very different kinds of animals in all ways but one: climate alarmists love to claim they are particularly threatened by the modest warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age. Those claims are false.

For coral reefs, changes in ocean pH and temperature can cause bleaching, and sometimes death. Therefore, a change over time in both of those variables due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) supposedly will lead to mass elimination of corals around the world.

It is true that sudden changes in temperature and other water conditions can cause bleaching, which occurs when the symbiotic algae that gives coral structures their color is killed or jettisons itself. However, what is not true is that this phenomenon always or even usually leads to coral death. In reality, decades of research have shown that corals often bounce back from these events, including in cases where scientists had previously labeled the reef as a total loss.

Such was the case with Coral Castles reef, which was bleached by a 1998 El Niño event. When scientists returned to take another look in 2015, they were stunned to find it thriving. This occurred despite the fact that they had predicted the reef would take 100 years to recover. Later, the researchers stated in a press release that “[o]ur projections were completely wrong.”

Coral polyps, the anemone-like animals that actually build the reef structure, can struggle in “too much” heat. But corals typically thrive in warmer waters, not cold, and have survived for the past 60 million years through periods where temperatures and carbon dioxide levels were far higher (and lower) than they are today. The vast majority of corals exist in tropical or subtropical waters, near the equator, and rather than disappearing, have been expanding their range slightly towards the poles amid recent modest warming trends.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR), subject of frequent climate alarmist propaganda, is also doing fine. Recent bleaching events, especially around 2012, in the GBR were hailed as the permanent end of the reef by climate doomsayers. However, the GBR had other plans. In 2022, the GBR saw the highest coral extent on record.

That’s the tropics; now we put on the long underwear and look to the far North, to probably the most famous animal poster child for the supposed threat of climate change: the polar bear.

Polar bears are threatened, we are told, because summer sea ice is melting, and soon the polar bears will not have access to their traditional hunting grounds and prey. This sounds like common sense, but even common sense is sometimes wrong, as with the polar bears.

Far from dying off from a little warming, polar bear numbers have substantially increased since the 1960s, when they were protected from overhunting. Recent estimates put their population somewhere around 32,000 individual bears, three times as many as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service counted in the 1960s. While some subpopulations have seen declines, new subpopulations are still being discovered. Polar bears have survived during periods of Earth’s history when summer sea ice was basically nonexistent, like during the much warmer Eemian period, about 125,000 years ago.

Photographs of starving, sickly bears circulated in the media are intentionally misleading. They are meant to paint a picture that is very different than reality. Data show that polar bears are carrying more fat into the winter months than they did in decades prior, and they have better rates of cub survival and more stable litter sizes. The overall outlook for polar bear welfare looks highly promising.

In short, real-world data show that both polar bears and coral reefs are doing far better than alarmists would have you believe is the case based on flawed climate models. Stick to the data, and you will find good news for animal and nature lovers everywhere.

https://heartland.org/opinion/polar-bears-and-coral-reefs-are-doing-just-fine/

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

Convincing Proof That NET ZERO Is An Utter Waste Of Resources

Peter J. Morgan writes: 21 February 2024

Let us never forget that the term Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was deliberately morphed by its promoters to become “Climate Change”. This was a deliberate obfuscation, and now people, who should know better, use the term ‘climate change’ when they mean ‘the changing climate’ brought about by natural forces, not more atmospheric CO2.

Just over three and two years ago respectively, Physicists Prof. Emeritus Dieter Schildknecht and Coe et al. (David Coe, Dr Walter Fabinski and Dr Gerhard Wiegleb) independently calculated from fundamental physics and the HITRAN database of spectroscopic properties of gases, that the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide is only 0.5 Celsius degrees, which is one-sixth of the IPCC’s ‘best estimate’ (read ‘best guess’). (The climate sensitivity of a greenhouse gas is defined as the increase in Earth’s mean temperature caused by every doubling of the atmospheric concentration of that gas.)

Further, Coe et al. calculated that the climate sensitivity of methane is 0.06 Celsius degrees, and that of nitrous oxide is 0.08 Celsius degrees. IMHO, all four physicists deserve to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics, for proving that carbon dioxide is insignificant as a greenhouse gas, and in Coe et al.’s case, that methane and nitrous oxide are, too. In truth, CO2 is essential to all life on Earth, and is not a pollutant, despite the fact that in their ignorance, greenies and the MSM ignorantly and persistently claim that it is. Far from being a major problem necessitating that mankind’s emissions of that gas be drastically curtailed, more of it would be beneficial in feeding an increasing global population, whilst simultaneously reducing the need for irrigation and pesticides.

Water vapour, which is ever-present naturally, and is absolutely out of the control of mankind, is the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas. Earth’s water cycle is in truth the omnipresent grand air conditioner and atmosphere cleanser. The lead author of Coe et al., David Coe, has calculated that it will take about 250 years from now for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to double from today’s 420 ppm to 840 ppm, by which time Earth’s mean temperature will have increased by only 0.5 Celsius degrees above what it would have been had the atmospheric concentration of CO2 remained constant at 420 ppm.

That in no way means that earth’s mean temperature will have increased by 0.5 Celsius degrees over those 250 years – it may actually have decreased due to natural causes overwhelming the tiny warming effect of CO2. Nobody knows enough to make accurate predictions of it. Thus there is no climate crisis and there never will be.

Earth’s climates are forever changing due to natural causes that overwhelm the effect of increasing carbon dioxide. Thus NET ZERO is an utter waste of resources, for ZERO EFFECT.

Before anybody can legitimately claim that Physicists Schildknecht and Coe et al. are wrong, they must follow the long-established norms of physics and provide proper scientific refutations of both the Schildknecht and Coe et al. papers.

Note 1: Neither the Schildknecht paper nor the Coe et al. paper has ever been refuted.

Note 2: The Legal Profession regards what an expert says as being evidence, whereas the Engineering Profession regards that as being merely opinion (otherwise known as testimony). To the Engineering Profession, experts’ opinions are not evidence unless they are based on verifiable physical evidence. Many Court judgements have been flawed because of the failure of the Legal Profession, which includes the Judiciary, to grasp these important facts.

Note 3: Nobody has ever provided any verifiable physical evidence that carbon dioxide – let alone the tiny fraction of it produced by mankind – causes any significant global warming. Not the IPCC. Not the Royal Society. No state meteorological office. No climate scientist. All they have is the output of computer models based on false assumptions.

Note 4: The government of China, knowing all this, is building new coal-fired electricity generating capacity at a rate of more than 1000 MW (Huntly-size) every week. India also knows all this and is striving to outdo China’s build rate. More CO2 reduces plants’ need for water and is beneficial to plant growth. More CO2 is therefore helping to green our planet.

Note 5: Australasia (i.e., New Zealand and Australia) emits just under 1% of all the world’s GHGs. Cutting Australasia’s emissions to zero – if indeed that were possible, which it isn’t – would not make a measurable difference to global mean temperature. Instead.

https://principia-scientific.com/convincing-proof-that-net-zero-is-an-utter-waste-of-resources/

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

Look to Germany to See America’s Future Under the Green Energy Agenda

Germany’s gross domestic product has been falling since the third quarter of 2022, causing fears of the first 2-yearlong recession since the early 2000s. German farmers are openly protesting new climate regulations that would raise the price of diesel fuel, vital for tractors and farm machinery. This discontent is mirrored by the general public, which is opposed to higher energy costs that drag down the economy. Recent polls show a significant shift in public opinion that’s increasingly opposed to the coalition government.

Unlike the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate, where invariably one party secures a ruling majority, multiple German parties must form a coalition to reach the required 50%+1 majority threshold.

Currently, the Green Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the Free Democratic Party comprise this coalition. The latest polls show all these parties polling far below their 2021 election results while the more right-leaning parties, such as the Christian Democratic Union and the Alternative for Germany, are surging in popularity.

The recent economic slowdown has resulted in widespread political discontent, and the core of the slowdown has been disastrous energy policy.

Instead of the government focusing on making energy affordable, it has continued its commitment to the “Energiewende”—the “Energy Transition”—a government project aimed at radically shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. One of the project’s stated goals is to increase the use of renewable energy sources to 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2045.

Germany’s closure of its nuclear plants in April 2023 has made achieving net-zero targets significantly more challenging, given that nuclear power is capable of generating substantial amounts of carbon emissions-free electricity. The economic effect of these decisions is palpable for ordinary people, who feel it each month when paying their energy bills.

According to the most recent data published by the German Federal Statistical Office, consumers have been paying an average of 46 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity. For comparison, the average price of electricity in the United States during December was just under 13 cents per kWh.

Cost disparities can also be seen in the price of gasoline. At the fuel pump, German consumers pay an average price of $7.23 per gallon, compared to $3.33 in America.

These high energy costs are slowing other aspects of the economy, leading to dramatic losses in purchasing power for consumers and threatening to make production unprofitable for many companies. In addition, small businesses and farmers, which rely on electricity and fertilizers to operate, respectively, have been hit extremely hard by these recent price increases.

In addition, the slowdown in global trade is profoundly affecting Germany’s export-centric economy, exacerbating the overall economic decline. Unfortunately for Germans, recent economic forecasts do not offer much hope either. Economists predict the economy to grow only by around 0.2% in 2024.

Large German companies have already taken notice and acted accordingly. Around 67% of German companies have moved at least some operations abroad, citing high energy prices and inflation as their main reasons for leaving. This wide-scale deindustrialization is especially prevalent for the mechanical engineering, industrial goods, and automotive sectors—the backbone of the German economy.

The tipping point came in February, when the famous family-owned dishwasher manufacturer Miele announced that it would cut thousands of jobs and move production to Poland. Luxury car manufacturer Porsche initially planned on building a new car battery manufacturing plant domestically and then switched gears by announcing plans to open the proposed plant in America. Both the lack of future investment and deindustrialization create a snowball effect, worsening the situation.

Widespread dissatisfaction with Germany’s green policies should be a lesson for America. At the heart of the problem is Germany’s failure to allow for the energy industry to create affordable energy for its citizens. For years, the anti-business green energy agenda has decreased carbon emissions but increased the economic crisis. Germany’s experience shows that America needs a sound energy policy, not the arbitrary climate goals the current administration is pursuing.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/08/lesson-america-green-policies-crush-german-economy/

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

Unachievable at any cost

Political blindness in Western Austraia

Two weeks ago, we got a taste of the brave new world of renewable energy. Victoria’s grid collapsed on a hot and windy afternoon. 530,000 homes were left without power, train lines were shut down, schools and businesses had to close their doors, phones couldn’t be used even for emergency calls, and hundreds of sets of traffic lights were out of order.

The same fate awaits Western Australia unless it reverses course on its ideological determination to pursue Net Zero.

In June 2022, the WA state government announced its plan to close all coal-fired power stations (Collie, Muja, and Bluewaters) in the state by 2030 as part of a commitment to an 80 per cent emissions reduction target by that year.

This will result in the removal of two-thirds of the WA network’s current electricity supply.

The justification for this policy was the ‘overwhelming uptake of rooftop solar’, adding that, ‘…an estimated $3.8 billion will be invested in new green power infrastructure in the South West Interconnected System (SWIS), including wind generation and storage, to ensure continued supply stability and affordability. This investment is expected to pay for itself by 2030-31 relative to the status quo of increasing electricity subsidies.’

A detailed analysis conducted for the IPA by Senior Research Fellow Kevin You, former General Manager of Generation at Western Power Mark Chatfield, and this correspondent, demonstrates that this plan is neither feasible nor achievable at any cost.

Our research shows that the cost to replace coal-fired power generation will be far more than the already huge sum of $3.8 billion – it will be far greater than even 10 times that amount.

WA’s vast size means that it is geographically isolated, not only from the rest of the country, but internally. Therefore, it cannot be connected to a national energy grid, as is the case with states on the eastern seaboard. It must – and does – produce and rely on its own energy. Therefore, the huge fluctuations that arise from taking out coal in the main network cannot be addressed by relying on other states.

In the southwest of the state, there has been an historical reliance on coal, but WA also has abundant energy in the form of gas.

Following the discovery of large gas reserves in the mid-1970s on the North West Shelf, the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBP) was constructed. It is one of Western Australia’s most critical pieces of energy infrastructure.

The pipeline was privatised under the Court government in 1998, however, the easement surrounding the pipeline was not privatised. In fact, it was enlarged to accommodate potential future expansions to the gas pipeline’s transmission capacity.

Until now, gas has been able to back up the increasing move to solar and wind. The state’s domestic gas reservation policy, which requires gas exporters to set aside 15 per cent of reserves for domestic use, has been considered a key to avoiding the energy shortages and price rises seen in the east.

However, the warning signs are already there that the WA government’s Net Zero energy policy will not provide the stable, affordable, reliable power its proponents claim.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) in a recent report suggested WA could face electricity blackouts as soon as 2025 unless it fills a forecast shortfall in energy supply.

This report is the first time AEMO has given a forecast that takes into account WA’s commitment to transitioning off coal-fired energy by 2030, which it says would strip an estimated 1,366 MW of power generation out of the system.

Unfortunately, the WA public is not being told of the true costs of the WA government’s 2030 renewable energy feel-good dream. There is the real threat that Western Australians will not be able to keep the lights on or turn on the air conditioning when they need to.

A key finding of our analysis is that by phasing out coal by 2030 and without expansion of the DBP, even if:

wind capacity from today is trebled

battery capacity is increased nine-fold

the state’s solar capacity is doubled

Greater Perth and the Wheatbelt still risk blackouts close to four months in a year.

Our analysis shows further that, theoretically to maintain the network in the absence of coal and gas, there would have to be a massive overbuild of renewables, requiring approximately:

50 batteries, with a total capacity of 5000 MW, (currently one battery is in service)

8,000 MW of solar factories, currently at 180 MW

12,000 MW of wind factory capacity, currently at 1,040 MW

4,134 MW of rooftop domestic solar capacity, currently it is 2,406 MW

Once transmission easements, poles and wires are added in, we calculate the total cost to be – not $3.8 billion – but more than $52 billion, which is equivalent to over 130 per cent of budgeted general WA government spending for the financial year ending 2024.

This can only result in ever-increasing energy bills for ordinary Western Australians. As far as we can tell, no thorough cost-benefit analysis has been done of the government’s plan, especially in relation to battery production and storage.

Consider also the destruction of the environment – and much of the state’s available arable land – by plastering its landscape with solar panels and wind factories.

All in a reckless pursuit of emissions reduction. Let’s not forget that Australia is responsible for just over 1 per cent of the world’s emissions.

Less than one-fifth of that 1 per cent comes from WA, and about 6 per cent of that one-fifth of the 1 per cent comes from WA’s coal-fired power stations.

Therefore, shutting them down would contribute to reducing roughly 0.013 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.

For $52 billion, the money would be better spent keeping coal-fired power stations open for the foreseeable future and in the meantime expanding the DBP and buying gas, which is the only way to avoid blackouts while sensibly reducing emissions.

If WA wants to avoid what happened in Victoria, its government must abandon its ideological fantasy of Net Zero, which, as our research shows, is unachievable at any cost.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/unachievable-at-any-cost/

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

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

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