Climate Change Reconsidered
National Public Radio (NPR) recently ran an article discussing the results of a poll it conducted claiming that Americans are suffering from extreme weather events due to climate change. Although because of the mainstream media’s claims the public may be under the impression that every weather event is due to climate change, this impression is wrong. Data demonstrate no trend of increasing extreme weather events, mainstream media assertions to the contrary. The public, most of which does experience one or more instances of extreme weather each year, is being misled to believe climate change is making weather worse. Polls are no replacement for facts in science, and science has measured little if any climate change impact on weather.
An NPR article titled “You’ve likely been affected by climate change. Your long-term finances might be, too,” written by NPR “Science Desk” reporter Rebecca Hersher, discusses the results of a recent poll conducted by NPR. NPR sampled Americans views concerning about their perception of weather events from the last five years.
“More than three-quarters of adults in the United States say they have experienced extreme weather in the last five years, including hurricanes, wildfires, floods and heat waves, the survey found,” Hersher writes “And most people who suffer major weather damage or financial problems do not receive money from the federal government.”
Setting aside the issue of how expensive weather damage to homes and businesses can be, which Climate Realism has previously explained cannot be blamed on climate change (here, here, and here, for example), the connection between incidences of extreme weather and climate change that NPR is trying to make lacks a basis measurable evidence.
It is not surprising at all that people living across a large country composed of many ecoregions experience a wide variety of weather conditions. Every region experiences extreme weather at one time of another, and some place somewhere will most likely be experiencing some form of extreme weather at any given time. Extreme weather events are common throughout all of history and are entirely natural in origin. What is unusual are extended periods of extreme weather absences, like the record low in tornadoes in 2018, 2020, and 2021 as detailed by Climate Realism here. Another example is the absence of strong hurricane landfalls from 2005 to 2017—nearly 12 years without a Category 3 or greater hurricane in the United States
NPR’s article also says that “[p]eople who experience extreme weather are also more likely to consider climate change a crisis or major problem.” A group of peoples beliefs about the causes of a particular extreme weather event are not evidence of a causal connection, except in their own mind—in this case, an idea likely fostered by years of alarmist, inaccurate corporate media reports asserting that the two are linked. What the poll does seem to be measuring is the unscientific impact of climate alarmist propaganda on Americans. When every weather event is breathlessly blamed on climate change in the media, as Climate Realism constantly reports and refutes, is it any wonder?
Other polls that incorporate topics besides climate change show a less alarming picture. Americans consistently rank climate change as pretty low on the concern-totem-poll, for example see this recent Gallup survey about American environmental concerns discussed at Climate Realism, here. In that poll, drinking water pollution was ranked as Americans’ top concern, while climate change or global warming ranked dead last.
Continuing to beat the drum, NPR says “[t]he results underscore how ubiquitous and dangerous climate change is for Americans, as the hottest part of the year gets underway, and people across the country gird themselves for another year of severe hurricanes, floods, fires, and heat waves.”
Regarding heat waves, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s U.S. Climate Reference Network data do not show a trend of increasing maximum temperature anomalies, seen in the figure below. Even as the media reports on high temperatures in parts of the Midwest, the Northeast and Northwest coasts recently experienced unusually cold springs, as discussed at Climate Realism here, and here.
The American public may believe that their weather woes are caused by the nebulous specter of climate change, but that doesn’t mean they are correct. Extreme weather is natural and should be expected and prepared for. NPR and the legacy media should be ashamed of themselves for pushing polling data as some kind of proof of the impact of climate change. What they actually show is that their misleading coverage of weather is having a negative impact on Americans’ understanding of the natural world and the present known facts about climate change.
https://climaterealism.com/2022/06/npr-public-opinion-polls-arent-proof-of-climate-change/
*********************************************CO2 Coalition files amicus brief in 5th Circuit Court
CO2 Coalition Tells Court Carbon Regulation “Scientifically Invalid”
President Biden’s Social Cost of Carbon rule is “scientifically invalid and will be disastrous for the poor people worldwide, future generations and the United States,” according to a court brief by two physics professors at Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the CO2 Coalition.
Filed today with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the amicus curie brief said, “There is overwhelming scientific evidence that fossil fuels and CO2 provide enormous social benefits.” It asked that the rule be enjoined from further use pending outcome of a hearing by a trial court.
The lawsuit before the appeals court — the State of Louisiana versus Biden — seeks to stop the use of “temporary rules” that are implemented by presidential order. The Biden administration’s SCC rule directs regulators to include the purported projected “global cost” of every ton of carbon dioxide emissions from a wide array of projects where federal funding or approvals are needed, from transportation, to housing, to energy and infrastructure.
The academicians named in the brief are Dr. William Happer, chairman of the CO2 Coalition and professor emeritus of Princeton University’s Department of Physics; and Dr. Richard S. Linden, professor emeritus in the MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences and a CO2 Coalition member and past chairman.
The brief says that a district court’s preliminary injunction should be reinstated because the technical document supporting the SCC and President Biden’s executive order imposing the regulation “are scientifically invalid and will be disastrous for the poor people worldwide, future generations and the United States.”
“Reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not consensus, government opinion, peer review or manipulated data,” says the brief. The brief says the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted essentially the CO2 Coalition’s view of what constitutes valid science.
However, the brief notes, predictions supporting an SCC — particularly climate forecasts generated by computer models — have regularly failed the test of real-world observation. Meanwhile, the brief says, supporters promote an SCC on the basis of claims of a consensus, the favoring of governmental opinion over scientific challenge, endorsements by peers, the manipulation of some data and the omission of other information.
A glaring omission in the administration’s proposed regulation are the benefits of carbon dioxide and of the fossil fuels whose burning in the generation of electricity and industrial processes emit the gas.
“There is overwhelming scientific evidence that fossil fuels and CO2 provide enormous social benefits for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the United States, and therefore it would be disastrous to reduce or eliminate them,” the brief says.
The brief notes that warmth and moderately higher carbon dioxide levels in recent decades have correlated with an overall greening of Earth and record crop harvests. The document shows that per capita gross domestic product has increased over the last 2,000 years from a few dollars to approximately $7,000, closely tracking the increased use of coal, oil and natural gas in recent centuries.
The brief says that the president’s order violates a congressional directive requiring that benefits as well as costs be included in environmental considerations and that it exceeds the president’s authority by unilaterally creating new law.
The CO2 Coalition, based in Arlington, Va., is an organization of approximately 95 scientists and researchers engaged in educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to people’s lives and the economy.
https://co2coalition.org/media/co2-coalition-tells-court-carbon-regulation-scientifically-invalid/
**********************************************GREENIE ROUNDUP FROM AUSTRALIA
Three articles below
Divisive Greenies put reconciliation in peril
PM Albanese spoke well to the matter but the flag is a side-issue. The hopelessly impractical Greenie climate policies are the big issue. And the Greens now have substantial representation in both houses of parliament so those policies matter.
The temptation for the Left is to ally with the Greens as both of them wish destruction on us. So we can only hope that Albo gets enough support for saner policies from the conservatives to resist that temptation
Anthony Albanese says the push for reconciliation risks being undermined by the refusal of Greens leader Adam Bandt to stand in front of the Australian flag.
The Prime Minister said every parliamentarian should be proud to stand in front of the national flag, urging Mr Bandt to “reconsider his position and work to promote unity and work to promote reconciliation”.
“Reconciliation is about bringing people together on the journey that we need to undertake.
“It is undermined if people look for division rather than look for unity,” Mr Albanese said.
The criticism of the Greens escalated further on Wednesday after the party’s First Nations spokeswoman, Lidia Thorpe, said she was only in the parliament to “infiltrate” the “colonial project”.
Incoming Northern Territory Country Liberal Party senator Jacinta Price said Governor-General David Hurley should investigate whether there were grounds to dismiss Senator Thorpe from parliament. “I think she has nothing but contempt for the Australian people and she doesn’t respect the position she is in,” Ms Price said.
“I personally feel that the Governor-General should take a closer look at what her real intentions are and consider whether this is possible grounds for dismissal.
“She doesn’t see herself as an Australian, she doesn’t see herself as being represented by the Australian flag. Therefore she is not the right person to be in a position to represent the Australian people nor does it indicate she has Australia’s best interests at heart.”
Indigenous leader Warren Mundine said he was “flabbergasted” by Senator Thorpe’s comments.
“She is carrying on like she is in a five-year-old’s spy game,” Mr Mundine said.
“I just shake my head at these people. We have got so many problems with Indigenous communities … They have got to have jobs and businesses operating, and education.
“So is she there to blow the place up? It is just bizarre.”
On Tuesday night, Senator Thorpe said both the flag and the parliament “does not represent me or my people”.
“It represents the colonisation of these lands. And it has no permission to be here. There’s been no consent,” Senator Thorpe told Network Ten’s The Project.
“I’m there to infiltrate.
“I signed up to become a senator in the colonial project and that wasn’t an easy decision for me personally, and it wasn’t an easy decision for my family either to support me in this. However, we need voices like this to question the illegitimate occupation of the colonial system in this country.”
RSL Australia president Greg Melick said Mr Bandt’s action on the flag was disrespectful to Australian service personnel and veterans. “The RSL condemns the actions of Mr Bandt in the strongest possible terms,” he said.
“Australians have served under our national flag, irrespective of their race, religion or political views, and it and all our present and past service personnel deserve the highest respect.
“Mr Bandt’s move was disrespectful to all these people and the RSL rejects it as unfitting of a member of our national parliament.”
Labor Left senator Tim Ayres said Mr Bandt’s flag policy was “some of the most empty gesture politics”.
“University, Trotskyite-sort of politics,” Senator Ayres told the ABC.
“There ought to be a bit of growing up around the place and a bit of self-reflection is absolutely in order for Mr Bandt and his colleagues.
*******************************************
Energy reality is now biting hard
Turning a blind eye to the limits of "renewables" no longer works. We may be getting close to their practical limit
Energy crises have a useful ambiguity to them. Each crisis creates an opportunity for everyone to claim that, ‘It would never have happened if we’d just done what they said all along!’
Everyone, that is, except the people who actually did do what they said – they have to sit down and explain why it was both unforeseeable but will resolve if we just continue doing what they say.
Reality always wins. Politicians can argue, investors can throw around money, and journalists can spin dramatic headlines. Energy does not care.
What we knew was coming
Several years ago, I attended a Lunch & Learn by the CEO of the Clean Energy Council. He put up a slide listing all the Australian coal-fired power stations that would be reaching the end of their design life in the next thirty years. It looked something like this:
He then put a question to the group: ‘Why wouldn’t we replace these with the cheapest form of energy available?’ It sounds obvious. At the time, a wind farm had been approved with an agreed price of only $55/MWh, which is a very low cost.
The problem with this argument (as I previously pointed out here) is that you may be paying less for wind and solar, but you aren’t getting the same thing. Coal-fired power stations not only provide energy, they provide available capacity when the wind isn’t blowing, frequency stabilisation, and a single connection for a large energy supply.
If we replace them with wind then we need wind farms, but we also need energy storage, frequency control systems, multiple connections – some of those with long transmission lines.
I challenged the speaker with expensive reality after his presentation. He replied, ‘Yes, but nobody knows the cost of those things.’ How is that an acceptable answer? If nobody knows the cost, you can’t just assume it is zero. That is beyond moronic, it is flagrantly dishonest.
Here is a useful bit of information – the larger the portion of supply that comes from wind and solar, the more supplementary infrastructure is required.
When renewables are supplying less than 20 per cent of total capacity, their shortcomings can be accommodated elsewhere in the electricity network. Above this, they begin to create significant issues.
South Australia had to install a battery, synchronous condensers, additional backup generation, and relies heavily on its connection to the rest of the NEM through an interconnector. The Grattan Institute report Go for net zero showed that even achieving 90 per cent renewable would be significantly easier than 100 per cent.
For this reason, after attending the IEA lunch, my conclusion was this: For now, we may be able to replace the coal generation we have lost with a combination of renewables, supplementary infrastructure, and other flexible backup generation (i.e. gas-fired open-circuit generators). So far we have indeed handled the closures of one-third of our coal plants, equivalent to about 20 per cent of energy supply.
This is unlikely to continue.
The sheer volume of energy that we will need to displace is large. The question is not whether the network can handle more renewables, but where they will even be installed and whether they can be built fast enough.
Eventually, the storage problem will be revealed as just that – a problem. We may have to hold our noses and build more coal-fired generators. If we aren’t willing to do that then the only remaining compromise, as conservative commentators have been saying forever… may be to build some nuclear power plants.
Yet the clear and loud objective of the clean energy council (which is a lobby) and many other parties, is to ensure this doesn’t happen. Their firm belief is that we can replace our fossil fuel generation with renewables. Worse, however, the attitude of many is that if they directly oppose coal-fired power, then they will force the change that they want.
Last year, when the International Energy Agency released its first Net Zero by 2050 report, it said the following: ‘There is no need for new investment in fossil fuel supply in our Net Zero pathway.’
In the pathway, there were two milestones for 2021: ‘No new unabated coal plants approved for development’ and ‘no new oil and gas fields approved for development’. Considering the two energy crises that have occurred in 2022 – oil and gas shortages and coal shortages – they appear to be getting what they wanted.
The Australian energy stalemate
The future of our existing fossil-fuel assets has been topical for a long time. Back in 2017, it raised its head with the announcement of the closure of Liddell. You may recall that several conservative politicians (Tony Abbott, George Christensen, etc.) fought for Liddell to remain online and tabled nationalising it as a means to force its sale rather than closure. This was based on a kind of compromised view – if we are not going to build any new coal power, then at least we must try to get our current coal power to last as long as possible, to reduce the shock to the system.
Some green idealists, however, responded with the opposite aim. They desire to close the coal plants as fast as possible to fulfil their primary goal – leaving coal in the ground. The most notable manifestation of this view is Mike Cannon-Brookes’ recent actions. Having earned billions from software development, he tried to team up with a Canadian investment company Brookefields to purchase AGL. The stated aim was to accelerate coal power-plant closures.
AGL rejected his bid, and the board advanced a demerger proposal. The demerger would result in two companies, only one of which would hold all the coal generation assets. AGL has been responsible for building and managing a large number of renewables projects all around Australia, yet because they also own coal assets, they are demonised and considered untouchable for green investment. In response, Mike Cannon-Brookes bought 10 per cent of the company and sent a letter to the rest of the shareholders asking them to vote against the demerger. The board gave up the plan for the demerger, and several board members announced their impending resignations.
AGL is in an unworkable position – no one wants to invest in their work. At the same time, as a major generator, they have obligations to the market operator. They are required to retain generation capacity or replace capacity that they remove, without compromising grid stability.
Further evidence of the stalemate that has existed in the energy business over the last few years is the Kurri-Kurri project. When the federal government realised that the NEM would need more generation capacity once Liddell closes, they were essentially forced to construct the new Kurri-Kurri power plant themselves, because the private sector wouldn’t do it. It should have been the safest investment around – critical infrastructure with government backing. And yet the political and social climate has everyone terrified of putting money into fossil fuels.
The project has faced continuous negative media, including Matt Kean.
Hopefully, the projects detractors can now feel egg dripping off their chins. The current energy crisis is clear evidence that additional generation capacity will be welcome and possible not even enough (SA’s state-owned diesel generator has certainly been getting a workout over the last month!)
Machines don’t suddenly fail the day that they reach their design life. Power plants are really just giant engines, similar to the one in your car. Imagine you were driving your car continuously for 50 years. Would you expect it to start needing maintenance at the end of that? Eventually, your car would need so much care that the maintenance costs would exceed the value that the car returns, and you are better off getting a new one.
Currently, we have two simultaneous crises. The first is international. The entire world is facing a fuel availability crisis caused simultaneously by the after-shocks of the Covid pandemic (demand recovered at a rapid rate after the pandemic) and the Russia-Ukraine war. This has been exacerbated by some government policies and a hostile investment climate. The latter two issues work together in a negative feedback loop stoked by green activists – the more government policy is hostile, the more reluctant everyone is to invest. This international energy problem is felt mainly through the current high prices.
The second crisis is local. The energy market operator reports on reserve capacity. This is the amount of additional electricity generation that is available to the market if needed. If reserve capacity becomes less than the two largest generators in the system, this is called a Loss of Reserve (LOR) level 1 event. This means that if we had a sudden shutdown of our two largest generators, the system would have insufficient capacity to meet demand.
If capacity goes below the single largest generator, this is called a LOR 2, and means that losing the largest generator could trigger a supply shortfall. LOR 3 occurs when there is an insufficient reserve, and the operator expects to have to trigger intentional blackouts for load-shedding.
This local crisis is only tangentially related to the international one. It occurred mainly because some ageing infrastructure had issues and needed to shut down. As can be seen on the following graph, Bayswater, one of the largest suppliers to the system, lost two generators between June 7-9, reducing it to a third of its registered capacity (one of them came back online just two days ago). Since late May, Liddell has been running only 2 of its 4 generator trains. Gladstone in Queensland is also operating well below its registered capacity.
Writers for The Guardian, RenewEconomy, many journalists at the ABC, and probably every Teal Independent, argue that the current crisis proves that coal is the problem. After all, the coal infrastructure is to blame, so we wouldn’t have these issues if it wasn’t there, right? But the current issue is being caused by only a partial supply shortfall of coal power. What if we lost it all?
At the risk of repeating myself, I must stress: wind and solar can’t solve this problem. 100 per cent supply shortfalls of solar are a daily occurrence. It’s called nighttime. Supply shortfalls of wind are a weekly occurrence at least. The NEM was operating on only 1 per cent wind just two days ago. Comparing solar/wind supply with coal is to make a category error. One cannot replace the other until we have bulk energy storage infrastructure, which currently, simply, does not exist.
Conclusion
Last year, the IEA ‘Net Zero’ roadmap received two different receptions. Some perceived it as what it claimed to be: a pathway for Net Zero 2050. Where the report said that all government, people, private sector across the whole world would have to ‘work together’ to ‘act immediately’, they believed that this is what must surely happen because Net Zero by 2050 is the only option.
Others (like me) received the report as a clear statement that Net Zero by 2050 is doomed. When it listed seven things that would all have to happen in order to achieve Net Zero by 2050, and all of them were virtually impossible, and on further inspection, its assessment of the state of technology was even optimistic… It didn’t look like a roadmap to a place this planet is going anytime soon. In my view, unless a significant technological advancement comes along, we will not be achieving Net Zero by 2050.
The current buzzword is ‘the energy transition’. Note the definite article ‘the’ – it is spoken about as if it is a fact, and yet it is not a transition driven by natural causes. Any natural drivers for change – such as scarcity or competitiveness of new technology – are many decades away. This is a transition that requires a forced change. Hence, the persistent focus of its proponents on government action and divestment.
Yet this is our power supply that they are messing with. When there are supply shortfalls in the electricity market, people die. And they don’t die in twenty years due to global temperature rises, they die tomorrow. Unlike the ‘climate emergency’, electricity supply shortfalls actually meet the definition of an emergency.
If Australian billionaires and investors wish to effect an energy transition, then they are free to build the technology needed to do it. They can build batteries and develop tidal technology, geothermal, or solar, they can support better housing insulation, they can make hydrogen or ammonia or biogas, they can make electric vehicles… They can do whatever floats their boats. But until they have, they need to stop demonising and sabotaging the infrastructure that already exists and is keeping us alive.
That’s the reality, and reality always wins.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/06/energy-reality-bites-hard/
************************************************Australia: The greenest lemmings in the world?
Viv Forbes
Australia’s new ALP/Green/Teal government has a Zero Emissions plan, putting them on track to be the victor in the Great Green Lemming Race.
America’s John Kerry was previously a strong contender to win the Great Green Lemming race, but he was given a stiff handicap by United Nations organisers due to America having access to reliable coal, oil, gas, hydro, and nuclear power, not to mention plus cross-border pipelines and power lines.
Biden is trying to close these loopholes. Literally.
Eight nations have withdrawn from the Green Lemming Race. Russia has joined China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Iran, and Turkey in forming a new and powerful G8. This hard-headed group ignore Net Zero dogma unless that suits their business plan. The G8 members have diverse reliable energy supplies – oil, coal, gas, hydro. and nuclear. They use wind and solar primarily for virtue-signalling or to earn billions making and selling millions of green toys to Net Zero Lemmings like us.
Europeans were disqualified from the Great Green Lemming Race when they were caught cheating. They pretended to run on intermittent energy from windmills and sunbeams, but whenever these failed they quickly filled the power shortfall with reliable energy from French nuclear, Scandinavian hydro, Polish and German coal, Iceland geothermal, North Sea natural gas, and (sanctions permitting) Russian gas, oil, and coal.
Australia has ageing coal plants (marked for demolition), wildly unstable supplies of disruptive and intermittent green electricity, oodles of gas (but unwelcome in local markets), and abundant uranium for export (but none for local nuclear power). Australia is also a remote island with no extension cords to neighbours with reliable energy. They remain a clear favourite in the Great Green Lemming Race.
Sometime soon, at dinner time on a cold still night, the Aussie winners of the Great Green Lemming Race will be acclaimed by widespread blackouts and a failing economy.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/06/the-greenest-lemmings-in-the-world/
***************************************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)
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment