Climate Update Compendium.

[WTPUSA]

Sent From A Friend;

"Enough with climate-change scare tactics. They hurt people, possibly more than they will suffer from climate change. In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists warn of too much focus by the scientific community on unlikely worst-case scenarios...Simultaneously, IPCC reports also overemphasize catastrophic scenarios, as does broader discourse...Alarmism, they explain, leads to impossible goals of ending all fossil fuel consumption by mid-century, social disarray, and mental health problems.”-- Colorado Springs Gazette

 liberal-media platforms’ daily drip, drip, drip of demonstrably false or grossly exaggerated claims about potential harms from climate change. Children’s psyches are being horribly scarred as climate catastrophism has created whole new category of psychological disorder, "climate grief," generated by fearmongering politicians, activists, and the liberal media. Meanwhile, slavery, child labor, and environmental destruction are the foundations of the green energy technologies being pushed to replace fossil fuels to prevent climate disaster. PNAS states Surveys show the overemphasis on apocalyptic climate projections has resulted in 45% of the world’s youth feeling climate change is negatively affecting their lives, and because of that, approximately 40% of the youths surveyed say they are considering not having children. That is truly tragic.

All the available evidence suggests the future for humans and the environment will be better than the past. Climate alarmists exaggerate the rate of recent warming and the risks of extreme weather to motivate radical political actions. The Earth’s climate does change, and will continue to do so, and it is wise to meet this change with realistic mitigation efforts. An overcorrection imposed by world governments, like banning fossil fuels, is likely to cause far more harm and destruction than climate change itself.

And yet another study, this time by Italian physicist Gianluca Alimonti and others, entitled: A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming, published in The European Physical Journal Plus found "…on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet” 
Several conclusions of the journal article:
• Hurricanes: The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: "it is premature to conclude human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity."

• Tornadoes: "… strong to violent tornadoes … show no increase over time."

• Floods and Droughts: This increase in global precipitation: "… does not translate into an increase in intensity or frequency of floods.… there is no evidence that the areas affected by the different types of drought are increasing.”

 

Meanwhile,  The United States Climate Reference Network, established in 2005 to provide overall continental U.S. temperature data" using state-of-the-art triple redundant instruments in pristine locations unaffected by human activities," has recorded no warming trend since the system was established 18 years ago. In addition, satellite data shows temperatures are no higher now than they were at their modern peak in 1998, and since 1979 they display only a 0.11℃ warming per decade, which is less than predicted and certainly no emergency.

 

=====

 

A survey by Fairleigh Dickinson University to get scientists’ thoughts on climate change found the percentage of earth scientists who believe anthropogenic climate change will "significantly harm" people’s standard of living in our lifetimes is far lower than previously reported: 59%. 40% of those surveyed were either unsure whether any harm would occur, thought climate change might cause slight harm, or believed climate change would result in a slight or significant improvement in the lives of people living today.

The term "significant harm" is a far cry from the term ‘crisis’ that is often employed by climate activists and the liberal media.

Fairleigh Dickinson surveyed 400 people who hold at least a bachelor’s degree in the academic fields most pertinent to the climate debate, including meteorology, climatology, physics, geology, and hydrology. 95% of the respondents fell into the categories of meteorology (72%) or climatology (23%), so physicists and geologists, among others, were underrepresented. 24% of those surveyed had advanced degrees in their respective fields, 6% had Ph.Ds.

 

Those surveyed said extreme weather events such as hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires have increased significantly—41%, slightly —46%. This shows, however, not that extreme weather has in fact worsened, but that the perception of many scientists has been skewed by media coverage, anecdotal claims, and the influence of their colleagues—sources vastly different from hard data and research which show just the opposite(1).  Of those surveyed, it seems more-seasoned professionals have more-moderate opinions on the effects of climate change: their responses were more consistent with existing data, in contrast to the more-extreme, alarmist views of younger respondents. Of scientists over 50 years old, just 38% were convinced severe weather events have increased. Years of indoctrination have succeeded in programming younger, less-experienced climate scientists into believing humans are causing a climate catastrophe even though the data say otherwise.

What this poll confirms is that in thinking about extreme weather events, scientists often don’t follow the scientific method or the established rules for scientific forecasting as laid out by Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong, who wrote: "… dire predictions are not, however, the result of scientific forecasting; rather, they are the opinions of experts. Expert opinion on climate change has often been wrong. … Climate scientists now use computer models, but there is no evidence that modeling improves the accuracy of predictions. For example, according to the models, the Earth should be warmer than actual measurements show it to be.”

The Scientific Method requires that we engage in science by testing and analyzing theories according to objective data rather than asking for a show of hands(2). Science is not universally done by the scientific method. Demand for largess brings highly dysfunctional hyper-competitiveness among researchers and institutions resulting in corner cutting, pursuing quantity rather than quality, dependence on patronage, ideological bias and distortion of research aims and honestly completed results.

 

"Science is as fallible as any other human activity, influenced in similar ways by outside interests and conflicts of interest...an academy-industry-government—special interest organization complex... The unintended consequences of long-term damage to the integrity of science followed from the enormous confusion of federal funds.”—Henry  H. Bauer, prof Emeritus, Virginia Polytech.


1. Official data from the US government and international sources show the frequency of hurricanes has slightly declined in recent years, and they have not become more severe. Data also shows wildfires have decreased over the past century. Instances of extreme drought and tornadoes also remained unchanged or slightly declined. Concerning harm to humans, studies like one recently published in The Lancet show human deaths related to temperatures have declined significantly over the past 30 years, and human mortality related to climate has declined during the last hundred years of climate change.

2. Many outsiders as well as devoted propagandist for science contribute to the conventional wisdom that peer review is the gold standard guaranteeing the accuracy and reliability of published scientific conclusions. Peer review is a very fallible process. Many reviewers simply take shortcuts and recommend according to the prestige of the author or the institution. Often peer review means not rocking the boat, not being contrarian. Thus, the majority view, often called the scientific consensus, that is, groupthink, has become increasingly hegemonic, in effect unquestionable dogma. Valid dissenting views are labeled heretical, or denialist; those who persist with such views lose prestige, status, access to grant money, and other resources along with experiencing increasing difficulty in getting their work published, even losing their job and career.

===

Meanwhile, at Climate Etc., climate scientist Judith Curry notes at least some of her colleagues are being forced by facts to reduce their estimates of expected warming from a doubling of CO2, their estimates have been cut in half over the past 5 years. There is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario. The IPCC AR6 provides very meager fodder to support claims that scientists have underestimated the impact of warming. Apart from sea level rise, which is unambiguously associated with global warming, there is no prima facie reason that extreme weather events would worsen in a warming climate. Observational evidence, provided that you go back at least to 1900, shows that nearly all horrible, recent weather and climate disasters have precedents in the 20th century and hence "detection" is very challenging. Climate models are not fit-for-purpose to simulate extreme weather events, let alone to attribute them to human caused warming.

"Anyone, including me, who has built their understanding on what level of warming is likely this century on that RCP8.5 scenario should probably revise that understanding in a less alarmist direction.”--David Wallace-Wells, liberal media climate pundent.

 

===

 

We’re in an electricity crisis, with reliable power plants shutting down far faster than they are being built. And yet the EPA plans to make things much worse with 7 policies that gravely threaten 10-20% of our reliable capacity in the next 7 years.  Policies to prevent a climate disaster that will never arrive will produce worse harms than any climate change itself. 

• Our lives depend on ultra-reliable electricity 

• America’s grid is in its most fragile state in decades, electricity shortages are now routine throughout the US.
Federal Electric Reliability Commission (FERC) Commissioner Mark Christie: “We’re heading for a reliability crisis.”

• The root cause of the reliability crisis is America is shutting down too many reliable power plants that produce electricity when needed in the exact quantity needed. And it is attempting to replace them with unreliable solar and wind.

• Solar and wind can go near zero, using them as replacements for reliable power plants doesn’t work. For example, Texas’ February 2021 disaster was caused by solar/wind disappearing and inadequate investment in reliable power plants and their weatherization.

• The most shutdowns over the past 10 years have occurred with reliable, resilient coal plants.  When coal plants were at retirement age and replaced more cheaply by gas plants, shutdowns made sense. But most coal was retired early, at great cost—and not sufficiently replaced.

 

America’s coal electricity generation capacity  is currently over 20% of our reliable capacity. If we lose any more coal plants without reliable replacements, we could easily see grid collapse.

 

For the next 7 years, according to Energy Information Administration, and due to government rules/laws: 72 gigawatts of announced reliable power plant shutdowns and only 26 gigawatts of additions. This is really bad. But the biden plans to make it far, far worse.

When considering any changes to regulations of our power plants, which are already clean enough that we have some of the highest air quality in the world, EPA, which is supposed to do “benefit-cost analysis,” should factor in the existential risk of an unreliable grid. The consequences of an unreliable grid are catastrophic for the EPA’s focus, human health and environmental quality, killing via lack of heating and air conditioning, preventing water treatment, disrupting emergency services, and by making us all poorer—poverty being the worst thing for health. biden has used the EPA to threaten as many coal plants as possible by pushing rules that totally violate “benefit-cost analysis”—yielding tiny health benefits while costing us a reliable grid.

If our grid is riddled with reliability problems now, what will it look like when we lose 20% of our already-insufficient reliable electricity generation?

The secret to the EPA getting away with wrecking our grid is to pass innocent-sounding “health” rules specifically designed to shut down as many coal plants as possible, while totally denying the huge economic and health consequences of an unreliable electric grid.

 

The innocent-sounding names of the EPA’s 7-pronged attack on the grid:

• Grid attack 1: The Coal Combustion Residuals Rule (CCR)
This rule addresses a legitimate, but not urgent, issue: higher standards for coal waste disposal. CCR has a deliberately impossible compliance timeline for coal plants, threatening to shut down 42 GW of capacity.

• Grid attack 2: The “Good Neighbor” Rule
This rule sets ozone levels that many coal power plants can’t afford to comply with and will therefore have to shut down over. This makes no sense; ozone levels are low in the US.

• Grid attack 3: The “Regional Haze” Rule
This goal is to restore “natural visibility” to certain national parks and wilderness areas by 2064, is being used to try to shut down coal plants today. This makes no sense—except to satisfy an anti-coal agenda.

• Grid attack 4: “Effluent Limitations Guidelines”
 Biden is threatening to create more costly rules again.

• Grid attack 5: “Clean Energy” “replacement rule”
BObama’s “Clean Power Plan” was struck down by the Supreme Court, Biden is working on a “replacement rule.” sure to lead to more shutdowns when we can least afford them.

• Grid attack 6: “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards”
US mercury emissions are small and have been falling for decades. Now EPA is preparing stricter rules, falsely claiming huge net benefits.¹

• Grid attack 7: New “PM 2.5” regulations
Although “particulate matter 2.5” has been decreased to low levels, despite increasing fossil fuel use, Biden is working on more stringent rules that are likely to shut down even more coal plants when we can least afford it.
• biden’s “New Source Review” considers an existing, upgrading plant a “new” plant that  must follow every rule for new power plants. This perversely encourages plants not to make individual upgrades.

Biden will have to continue advancing his agenda through executive action. In the meantime, world coal use increases, and CO2 emissions keep rising, but weather events stubbornly refuse to get more extreme. In reality, an increasing population with longer average lifespans only improves humanity's rate of discovering new resources to use and technologies to improve lives. Plus, environmental stewardship will improve as a result

 

====

 

Plans for massive offshore wind farms that biden hopes will power as many as 10 million American homes by 2030 are starting to wobble. The New Jersey utility Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), which owns 25% of the project, said it was considering pulling out of Ocean Wind . If constructed, Ocean Wind 1 will be the largest offshore wind facility located 13 miles offshore from Atlantic City. It would generate 1.1 gigawatts, enough for 500,000 homes. PSEG Chief Executive Ralph LaRossa said high costs and construction delays were forcing the company to reconsider its participation in the project. Majority shareholder Orsted Offshore North America admitted that inflation and supply chain problems were forcing changes to the company’s near-term offshore wind plans. New England utility Avangrid Inc. said its similarly sized Commonwealth Wind project was no longer viable because of higher costs and supply chain woes, The Spanish energy company which owns Avangrid, told Massachusetts its 1.2-gigawatt Commonwealth Wind project is economically infeasible under current power-purchase agreements.

The problem with offshore wind is that it costs a lot in both capital and labor.  For the public, the problem is intermittency and expense: it often cannot supply the promised power, and it is the highest-cost source of electricity. That means residents will get hit with even-higher prices and greater likelihood of blackouts.

Oh, and by the way, there is no evidence whatsoever Ocean Wind 1, Commonwealth, or the numerous other politically motivated wind boondoggles will decrease climate change in the slightest. The best thing for consumers would be if all the biden regieme’s grand schemes for offshore wind power fail.

>