Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow.
Don`t worry there is no significant man- made global warming. The global warming scare is not driven by science but driven by politics. Al Gore and the UN are dead wrong on climate fears. The IPCC process is a perversion of science.
They do it every year. Climate alarmists try to make you believe that your future holidays won’t be “cheery and bright” due to climate change allegedly wiping holiday food off the table.
Heartland Institute Vice President Jim Lakely talks with Senior Fellow Anthony Watts about yet another round of annual attempts by the “mainstream media” to make us feel guilty about enjoying the holidays because we are supposedly damaging the climate.
An article in the Indianapolis Star (Indy Star) titled, “’Will we have water when we need it?’: How Indiana utilities are preparing for climate change,” says utilities are concerned climate change will cause water shortages for Indiana’s growing urban populations and for agricultural use. However, data from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. government, and Indiana’s own Purdue University show Hoosiers have nothing to fear: As climate has changed, water has become more abundant not less.
“Utility planners are worried about finding enough water to supply a growing Indianapolis because of climate change,” writes the Indy Star. “Across Indiana, from Evansville and Bloomington to Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, city engineers are predicting a greater demand for water while grappling with widespread contamination in the state’s lakes and rivers.”
In addition, the Indy Star story goes on to claim summer drought risk and the threat of extreme heat is growing.
Water contamination is not caused by climate change. It is an engineering problem that improved and expanded water treatment facilities can address.
Concerning drought and extreme heat, while they are climate related issues, objective data show the number and severity of droughts have declined across the Midwest, including in Indiana, as the earth has modestly warmed. And, there is limited evidence extreme heat has or will cause an increase in heat related illnesses or deaths. By contrast, the reduced number of days in which people face extreme cold should result in fewer temperature related deaths in Indiana, and shorter winters should boost crop yields.
As reported in Climate at a Glance Drought, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows droughts have become less frequent and severe in the United States over the past century. Indeed, in 2017 and then again in 2019, records were set for the smallest amount of the United States experiencing drought. Globally, the IPCC reports increasing precipitation in mid-latitude locations, and no detectable decrease regarding the rest of the globe.
Also confounding the Indy Star’s claims that drought, particularly summer drought, is increasing is a report from Purdue University which shows, average annual precipitation across Indiana has increased 5.6 inches since 1895, which includes a 0.19 inches per decade increase in summer rainfall.
Data from NOAA and the IPCC should lay to rest any fear that the increased rainfall will cause more flooding in Indiana. As Climate at a Glance Floods reports, NOAA’s records indicate a relatively flat trendline for flooding since 1895. And the IPCC says it has “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods, going so far as to admit to having “low confidence” in even the “sign” of any changes. The latter point means it is just as likely climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe as that it is making them more frequent or severe.
Nor, contrary to the Indy Star’s expressed fears are the number of days with extreme heat growing in Indiana. Climate at a Glance: U.S. Heatwaves, cites data from NOAA showing heatwaves are far less severe in recent decades than was the case during the 1930s – nearly 100 years of global warming ago. Indeed, the majority of each state’s all-time high temperature records, including Indiana’s — 116℉ on July 14, 1936 —, were set during the first half of the 20th century. Also, the most accurate nationwide temperature station network, implemented in 2005, shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005.
While droughts, extreme heat, and flooding are not increasing, contrary to the concerns raised in the Indy Star’s story, the number of extremely cold days have declined, as have the incidents of late frost. Indeed, Purdue reports extreme cold events are declining, projecting that by midcentury, the northern third of Indiana will experience on average only six days per year below 5°F, down from 13 days in the past. In addition, the growing season is expanding with the frost frost-free season having expanded by nine days per year statewide since 1895.
The latter two points are important because data consistently shows cold weather causes or is correlated with far more instances of illnesses and deaths than hot weather. For instance, an article published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W. R. Keatinge and G. C. Donaldson noted, “Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
And a shorter winter also means a longer growing season, an important fact to consider for Indiana, which ranks 10th in total agricultural output in the United States, contributing $31.2 billion directly to Indiana’s economy and directly providing jobs to more than 107,500 workers in the state.
In short, whatever water quality or shortage threats Indiana’s utilities are facing, contrary to the Indianapolis Star’s reporting, they have nothing to do with climate change. Concerning water availability and extreme weather, things are improving, not worsening, in Indiana.
Fundamental to science is measurement. It is a way of objectively assessing something, anything, even the state of a coral reef, even of an individual coral. Historically coral growth rates were measured by coring the really old massive Porites.
Like tree rings in temperature forests, the massive old Porites can be cored to see the banding and from this it is possible to calculate coral calcification rates which are a measure of the growth rate of individual corals.
Peter Ridd has been asking for some quality assurance of so many of the measurements relating to Great Barrier Reef health, including coral growth rates. Key Australian institutions have responded by stonewalling, and in the case of James Cook University, actually sacking him. After two rounds in the federal courts his appeal against his dismissal is finally going to the High Court of Australia. While the lawyers are preoccupied with Peter’s rights, or otherwise, to academic freedom and freedom of speech, my concern is whether Peter is actually telling the truth when he says that the Great Barrier Reef is resilient and definitely not dying from coral bleaching, though there is a problem with the integrity of the science.
Most media reports, based on extensive aerial surveys by his one-time colleague Terry Hughes, conclude that the reef is variously 50% or 60% dead from coral bleaching as a direct consequence of global warming.
These media reports do not consider coral growth rates, but rather the area of coral that Professor Hughes has measured to be bleached, with an inference being that this will all die.
Terry Hughes and Peter Ridd can’t both be right. How can they have come to such different conclusions regarding the health of the Great Barrier Reef? Is the reef half dead, or not?
My working hypothesis is that Terry Hughes’ claims the reef is half dead, are not objective because there is a flaw with his particular survey method. his method is detailed in the technical literature, I’m specifically referring to his paper in Ecology published in 2018 entitled ‘Large-scale bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef’.
Science is not a truth. It is a way of getting to the truth via some method or other that often involves measurement. Sometimes scientists get the method wrong, and so they come up with answers that are also wrong. Sometimes the wrong answer pleases because it is politically correct.
Could it be that in surveying from an aeroplane at such a high altitude (150 metres), and then ground truthing only with respect to a particular reef habitat-type known as the ‘reef crescent’, Professor Hughes has inadvertently recorded a wrong answer?
Marine scientists, and anyone with experience diving coral reefs, knows that there are distinct ecological zones at coral reefs. The reef crest, as the name suggests, is the highest part with corals in this habitat often exposed at low tides, sometimes rained-on, and during storms and cyclones this is the part of the reef that will be most likely smashed by big waves. Not surprisingly this habitat/area of a coral reef may be totally devoid of live coral or the coral may be more stunted, and sparse. At the same reef there may be healthy corals in the lagoon and back reef to the leeward side of the crest, and also corals growing down the front slope, even around the perimeter of the crest if it is a flat-topped platform. So, in only surveying the crest, the scientist/Terry Hughes could come away with the impression the reef is dead, when it is actually teeming with life – just not at the reef crest.
Professor Hughes specifically states in his 2018 article that underwater surveys were conducted to assess the accuracy of aerial surveys using five 10 x 1m belt transects placed on the reef crest. There is no suggestion that he distinguished between the different reef habitats.
I tested my hypothesis that Professor Hughes’s methodology is wanting at Pixie Reef just yesterday. We put my drone Skido into the air and took photographs at 5, 10, 20, 40, 100 and 120 metres of altitude at the reef crest, reef lagoon and reef front slope. Following are photographs just at 5 and 120 metres and just from the crest and lagoon at Pixie Reef. If I can get a large collection of these type of photographs together from different reefs, they could form the basis of a note for publication about measurement and the importance of measuring different habitat types at the same reef if the idea is to understand the health of the entire reef ecosystem, not just the reef crest.
A photograph taken at 120 metres altitude of the reef crest is quite different from a photograph of the reef lagoon taken at exactly the same altitude. At 120 metres altitude parts of the reef crest looks rather barren, perhaps bleached. Hughes has mostly concluded that the Great Barrier Reef is 60% bleached from 150 metres.
The rather large white circular objects in the lagoon photograph from 120 metres up are massive Porites. The type of coral that Peter Ridd would like AIMS to core, so we had an objective measure of coral growth rates back 100s of years.
The photograph of the reef crest from 120 metres altitude was taken by the drone (Skido of course) lifted vertically from 5 metres to 120 metres. This is what the same reef looked like at just 5 metres. There are live corals but no massive Porites or even red Gorgonians, though both exist in abundance at Pixie reef but would have been excluded from a 10 metre belt transect across the reef crest, because they only exist in a different habitat type at this same reef.
A photograph taken at 5 metres from above a section of reef lagoon shows plate corals, presenting as toadstools which seems most appropriate given this is Pixie reef. I didn’t find any pixie’s though, and the toadstools are actually plate corals on top of dead coral. Of course, the Great Barrier Reef is but a thin veneer of living coral growing over at least five previous now extinct reef systems.
So much thanks to Stuart Ireland for taking me to Pixie Reef.
**** The image at the very top of this blog post is of me/Jen swimming over the top of a 7 metre wide Porites at Pixie Reef on 25th November 2020. This is the type and size of coral that Peter Ridd would like to think was still being cored by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), as an objective measure of coral growth rates. AIMS used to core these old corals, to get an idea of climate change back hundreds of years. This coral could be more than 400 years old, with annual bands that can be measured at the scale of one year, year on year perhaps back 300 or 400 years to calculate an annual growth rate. So, from the one coral we could (if they cored it) see if growth rates have increased or decreased year on year, or not.
Any change is bad? according to a new study, warming in cold climates or cooling in warm climates increases the risk of animals getting sick, which in turn increases human exposure to dangerous new pathogens.
Global warming likely to increase disease risk for animals worldwide
Date: November 23, 2020 Source: University of Notre Dame Summary: Changes in climate can increase infectious disease risk in animals, researchers found — with the possibility that these diseases could spread to humans, they warn.
Changes in climate can increase infectious disease risk in animals, researchers found — with the possibility that these diseases could spread to humans, they warn.
The study, conducted by scientists at the University of Notre Dame, University of South Florida and University of Wisconsin-Madison, supports a phenomenon known as “thermal mismatch hypothesis,” which is the idea that the greatest risk for infectious disease in cold climate-adapted animals — such as polar bears — occurs as temperatures rise, while the risk for animals living in warmer climates occurs as temperatures fall.
The hypothesis proposes that smaller organisms like pathogens function across a wider range of temperatures than larger organisms, such as hosts or animals.
“Understanding how the spread, severity and distribution of animal infectious diseases could change in the future has reached a new level of importance as a result of the global pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, a pathogen which appears to have originated from wildlife,” said Jason Rohr, co-author of the paper published in Science and the Ludmilla F., Stephen J. and Robert T. Galla College Professor and chair of the Department of Biological Sciences at Notre Dame. “Given that the majority of emerging infectious disease events have a wildlife origin, this is yet another reason to implement mitigation strategies to reduce climate change.”
Divergent impacts of warming weather on wildlife disease risk across climates
Jeremy M. Cohen1,2,*, Erin L. Sauer1,2, Olivia Santiago1,†, Samuel Spencer1,†, Jason R. Rohr
Climate change alters disease risks
Climate change appears to be provoking changes in the patterns and intensity of infectious diseases. For example, when conditions are cool, amphibians from warm climates experience greater burdens of infection by chytrid fungus than hosts from cool regions. Cohen et al.undertook a global metanalysis of 383 studies to test whether this “thermal mismatch” hypothesis holds true over the gamut of host-pathogen relationships. The authors combined date and location data with a selection of host and parasite traits and weather data. In the resulting model, fungal disease risk increased sharply under cold abnormalities in warm climates, whereas bacterial disease prevalence increased sharply under warm abnormalities in cool climates. Warming is projected to benefit helminths more than other parasites, and viral infections showed less obvious relationships with climate change.
The researchers’ inference that distress experienced by animals during unusual weather conditions can tell you anything about the impact of climate change seems dubious.
Why would animals which withstand seasonal temperature variations in the 10s of degrees will suddenly all sicken because of a rate of climate change which can barely be detected?
Even on the edge of the tropics where I live Winter is around 5-10C colder than Summer.
A proportion of animals are always at the edge of their range, they continuously move about and probe new ranges. It seems a big leap to infer that the gradual global warming we are experiencing would significantly increase the number of animals experiencing range distress. Global warming of 0.1C / decade is the climatic equivalent of moving South a few miles every year. Even a mouse can out walk climate change.
Deluded climate miserablists discover the infinite money tree, which their doom-laden dogmas demand, doesn’t exist. The tidal wave of debt now coming in takes precedence over far-fetched assertions about human-caused weather events. – – – Outraged climate activists are blaming Rishi Sunak, the UK Chancellor, of eroding Boris Johnson’s plans for a ‘green industrial revolution’.
In his so-called Spending Review, Rishi Sunak, the UK Chancellor, yesterday announced that Britain’s ‘economy emergency has only just begun’ and that it will negatively affect Britain’s finances for decades to come.
Obviously, Sunak hardly mentioned the climate issue at all.
The Spending Review and its relegation of green issues to the bottom of priorities confirms reports that the Treasury is at odds with Boris Johnson’s green hobby horse.
Ten days ago, the Observer reported about the growing row about Boris’s green agenda.
Fast-charging of electric batteries can ruin their capacity after just 25 charges, researchers have said, after they ran experiments on batteries used in some popular electric cars.
High temperatures and resistance from fast charging at commercial stations can cause cracks and leaks, said the engineers from the University of California, Riverside.
The team charged one set of discharged lithium-ion batteries using the same industry fast-charging method found at motorway stations.
The researchers also charged a set using a new fast-charging algorithm based on the battery’s internal resistance, which interferes with the flow of electrons. The internal resistance of a battery fluctuates according to temperature, charge state, battery age and other factors. High internal resistance can cause problems during charging.
The algorithmic charging method – known as internal resistance charging – is adaptive, learning from the battery by checking its internal resistance during charging. It rests when internal resistance kicks in, to prevent loss of charge capacity.
For the first 13 charging cycles, the battery storage capacities for both charging techniques reportedly remained similar. After that, however, the industry fast-charging technique caused capacity to fade much faster – after 40 charges the batteries only had 60% of their storage capacity.
At 80% capacity, rechargeable lithium-ion batteries have reached the end of ‘use life’ for most purposes. Batteries charged using the industry method reached this point after 25 charging cycles, while batteries charged with internal resistance charging were good for 36 cycles.
“Industrial fast-charging affects the lifespan of lithium-ion batteries adversely because of the increase in the internal resistance of the batteries, which in turn results in heat generation,” said doctoral student and co-author Tanner Zerrin.
Even worse effects came after 60 charging cycles using fast industry charging. Electrodes and electrolytes were exposed to the air, increasing the risk of fire or explosion. High temperatures of 60ºC accelerated the damage and the risk.
“Capacity loss, internal chemical and mechanical damage, and the high heat for each battery are major safety concerns,” said researcher Mihri Ozkan.
Internal resistance charging reportedly resulted in much lower temperatures and no damage.
“Our alternative, adaptive, fast-charging algorithm reduced capacity fade and eliminated fractures and changes in composition in the commercial battery cells,” said researcher Cengiz Ozkan.
The technique could be used to improve safety and lifespan of car batteries.
The researchers have applied for a patent on the algorithm, which could be licensed by battery and car manufacturers. In the meantime, the team recommended minimising the use of commercial fast chargers, recharging before the battery is completely drained, and preventing overcharging.
It is not clear how fast the “fast chargers” are which the study tested. They talk of motorway service station standards, which in the UK tend to be 50KW. I don’t know if the US is much different.
However, their trials suggest two hour charging, which would imply 50KW as well.
If so, this will be a huge blow for anybody who needs to use public chargers regularly. You may be able to get away with the occasional rapid charge when you go on a long trip. But for those unable to charge at home, or who travel long distances regularly, anything slower than 50KW is a non starter.
Below is the chart from the study, showing how rapidly the battery capacity deteriorates. Even algorithmic charging method (IR) loses capacity quickly as well, dipping well below the 80% benchmark after about 40 cycles.
This whole saga highlights how electric cars are being pushed forward with no thought about the consequential problems.
In the normal world, technologies only take off once the obstacles have been resolved.
According to news reports, large parts of £billions in subsidies paid by UK households for the construction of the Dogger Bank offshore wind farm will go to factories in Poland and Belgium.
The contract for manufacture and supply of monopiles and transition pieces has gone to Smulders, the Belgian subsidiary of Eiffage Métal, as part of a consortium with Sif (a Dutch company specialised in offshore foundations).
As a result approximately 260,000 tonnes of steelwork for first two phases of the Dogger Bank offshore wind farm project in England will be produced in Smulders’ facilities in Poland and Belgium.
The contract is subject to financial close on the two phases, which is expected soon.
The Dogger Bank wind farm, a joint venture between SSE Renewables and Equinor, will be erected in the North Sea, 130km off from the Yorkshire coast of England. At 3.6 GW, it will be the largest offshore wind farm in the world, and is being developed in three phases: Dogger Bank A, B and C.
The first two phases, Dogger Bank A and B, will require 190 foundations in total. Each foundation comprises a monopile and a transition piece in water depths varying from 18 to 63 metres.
For this contract, Smulders will manufacture the secondary steel of the transition pieces, and will assemble, coat and test the fully equipped transition pieces. Sif will manufacture and supply the monopiles and primary steel for the transition pieces, and marshal all foundation components.
Production in Smulders’ facilities in Poland and Belgium will begin in May 2021. The assembly, which will be done at the Belgian Hoboken facility, is scheduled to last approximately 10 months. The first phase, Dogger Bank A, is expected to be operational in 2023.
A new analysis by Drs. Wijngaarden and Happer (2020) suggests the “self-interference” saturation of all greenhouse gases in the current atmosphere substantially reduces their climate forcing power.
At the current concentrations, the forcing power for greenhouse gases like CO2 (~400 ppm) and CH4 (1.8 ppm) are already saturated. Therefore, even doubling the current greenhouse gas concentrations may only increase their forcings “by a few percent” in the parts of the atmosphere where there are no clouds. When clouds are present, the influence of greenhouse gases is even further minimized.
While the “consensus” model view is that doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm results in a surface forcing of 3.7 W/m², Wijngaarden and Happer find doubling CO2 concentrations from 400 to 800 ppm increases climate forcing by 3 W/m². This warms the surface by 1.4 K as it “hypothetically” cools the upper atmosphere by 10 K.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (when positive feedback with water vapor is included) is identified as 2.2 K, which is only a 10% different than multiple other analyses.