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. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Truly Orwellian!
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
Truly Orwellian!
And sure enough:
Other links follow to NASA and NOAA. Nowhere on the first page is there any independent source of information.
Dear RSPB, it’s simple. Protect birds. Oppose things that kill birds.
From Climate Scepticism
By JIT
How do you get a charity whose raison d’être is keeping birds safe to endorse the wholesale destruction of those self-same birds? It’s a question I found myself asking in response to a comment by Ray Sanders on Notalot a fortnight ago.
Ray linked to two Guardian articles, the first an opinion piece by the RSPB’s CEO Beccy Speight, and the second a response to it from someone at Sizewell C.
Here’s some of what Speight said in her piece:
Make no mistake: our natural world is in crisis, and we are far beyond the point where words alone will fix it. For proof, you need only look to the annual Big Garden Birdwatch, which has shown a catastrophic decline over the past 14 years. And if you look for them in late spring, you’ll see that nightingales, turtle doves and swifts have almost vanished from our skies.
I would hazard here that most of us see swifts, while few indeed see turtle doves or nightingales. That’s by the by. Speight could have picked a third bird that is genuinely rare. She didn’t.
So the publication of today’s more detailed route map to delivery [the environment plan] is positive – but its policies must permeate through all aspects of government. Last year alone we saw approval of the Sizewell C nuclear plant, which will be built on top of one of the UK’s most important wetland nature reserves.
A quite extraordinary phrasing, I think you’ll agree: “Last year alone…” implies a list is beginning. But Speight only finds one thing to object to: Sizewell C – which is in fact being built next to, not “on top of” Minsmere.
Protected areas must be more than lines on a map. We have seen protected areas declared on land and at sea, but without the funding needed to restore, maintain and improve their condition, these spaces won’t reach their potential.
Send money now. Wild places do not need money. They need leaving alone.
At our own farms and on the land of the farmers we work with, we have seen how encouraging wildlife can lead to reduced use of pesticides as well as allowing natural pollinators to thrive.
I’m afraid this is the wrong way about. Reduce pesticides and get more wildlife. You don’t get more wildlife and then reduce pesticides, because the wildlife dies.
The commitment to support landowners who set aside 10-15% of their farmland for nature by 2030 is welcome – but the plan will need to be much more ambitious to deliver this. Developing nature-based solutions to the climate crisis and protecting land and marine habitats will also be vital.
Whoops – now suddenly Speight casually drops in that fateful term, “climate crisis.” There is no “climate crisis.” Point to where it is described as such in the IPCC’s AR6. You can’t, because, as pointed out by Joe Public in a comment here, they didn’t. This is not the language of a serious person (see my previous article on alarmist language). And the CEO of the RSPB should be a serious person.
Above all we must see measurable progress by 2030. Not flattening the curve, but progress. This means a fully realised plan for how we will protect 30% of our land and seas, with assurances that these spaces will not just be given a certain status on paper, but will actively work to help nature’s recovery.
Why would we protect 30% of our land and seas? We don’t protect 30% of our people from crime. Altogether a singularly bland and partly wrong comment by Speight, who if she cared about birds, should be spitting feathers.
What about the pushback from Sizewell C? This comes from Julia Pyke – director of financing and economic regulation. First Pyke criticises the characterisation of Sizewell C being “on top of” Minsmere – as mentioned above, it’s next door. “On top of” is imprecise vernacular. Then Pyke claims that habitat creation will lead to a 19% net gain in biodiversity via the Sizewell C project. They are going to turn some arable land into wetlands, so they might well have a point.
Then:
The RSPB themselves state that the greatest threat to nature is climate change. We agree. That is why we need to stop burning fossil fuels by developing an affordable, low-carbon energy mix mostly made up of renewables and nuclear, including Sizewell C.
Just when I was agreeing with her, she had to go and drop that little hand grenade. I didn’t know what the RSPB thought was the greatest threat to nature – more on that in a moment. But “we agree” tells me that Pyke knows as little about the topic as Speight.
If the RSPB thinks climate change is so serious, they should be supporting Sizewell C. The fact that they aren’t is telling. We need energy, so where do RSPB propose we get it from while balancing the need for energy to be low-carbon and the needs of the birds they exist to protect? (The clue’s in their name.) Of course wind turbines are out, and the only viable alternative is… nuclear.
Not so fast. Speight opposes Sizewell C, and by implication, the RSPB does too. Does it oppose wind farms? With the honourable exception of their (lost) battle against Neart na Gaoithe, my answer was no. But I thought I would search the RSPB’s site for a policy position on wind turbines. Here’s what I found under “Policy Spotlight”:
Powering Healthy Seas
Powering Healthy Seas is an RSPB report looking at how we can work in harmony with nature as we expand offshore wind. Experts in wind energy and conservation come together to painting a picture [sic] where seas are full of life and energy sources are secure and sustainable.
I couldn’t quite believe what I was looking at. When I clicked to read the report, things only got worse. The full title of the report, dated last August, is
Powering Healthy Seas: Accelerating Nature Positive Offshore Wind
If you are wondering now whether “Nature Positive” and “Offshore Wind” belong next to one another in the same sentence written by the RSPB, me too. How has a charity whose only job is to protect birds (clue still being in the name) managed to twist itself into this particular pretzel?
The contents of the report are as bad as its title suggests. Here’s another horrifying juxtaposition on the contents page:
In the Foreword, Kerry ten Kate (RSPB trustee and Chair of Conservation Committee) says this:
We are at a crossroads for nature and for the climate. To achieve net zero and national energy security, we need rapid decarbonisation, leaning heavily on renewable technology and particularly on offshore wind.
Dear Kerry, you don’t know what you are talking about, and for that reason you shouldn’t be anywhere near any Conservation Committee, let alone be its Chair. You are endorsing the wholesale destruction of birds. You are supposed to be protecting them.
This report, Powering Healthy Seas: Accelerating Nature Positive Offshore Wind, is a collaborative effort between industry and conservation groups.
You mean a collaborative effort between an industry that kills birds and a charity created to protect them. Message received.
I’m not going to dwell on the contents of this report. Read it for yourself if you have a strong stomach. You could summarise it by saying that it acknowledges that wind turbines are terrible for birds, but that there is a “climate emergency,” so offshore wind is necessary, so we’re going to do all these other things (a “Nature Positive” approach) to make sure that the pressure on birds goes down in sum. Unfortunately the only premise that makes any sense is that wind turbines are terrible for birds. The rest is nonsense. You cannot justify any generation technology that kills birds UNLESS there is no viable alternative that DOESN’T kill birds. [We have seen that the CEO opposes Sizewell C.] Thus, even if we WERE in a “climate emergency,” a BIRD CHARITY could still advocate nuclear energy, and not hitch its wagon to a technology that KILLS BIRDS. And this “Nature Positive” approach of theirs lists a lot of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with wind turbines – like removing rats from islands – which we should be doing anyway. I suppose the argument here is that the funding for such schemes will come from wind farm developers. Nevertheless, it is nothing short of pathetic.
It’s very simple for the RSPB, or it should be. If the question is “Wind farm?” the answer is “No. Nowhere, never, not while we still draw breath, not while we live to prevent harm to the beautiful and amazing feathered animals we share this planet with.” The RSPB should hate wind farms like Ahab hated the white whale. They should fight them on sea and land, everywhere. There are no excuses, no exceptions and no grey areas. There are no right places to site wind farms. The wrong place is the sky. No amount of carbon dioxide “savings” from wind power can outweigh the direct losses from the birds it kills.
The RSPB, we note, has more than a million members. I judge that its members hope and believe that the RSPB exists to protect birds and that their subs contribute to that aim. Therefore, by endorsing wind farms, the RSPB is betraying its members.
Remember in the Foreword Kerry ten Kate mentioned the report was a collaborative effort? This is from the Acknowledgements:
We have worked with RenewableUK in the development of this report, taking on board their views and advice to refine its key messages, and for which we are very grateful.
RenewableUK sounds like a fairly bland organisation, doesn’t it? Who they? The wind industry’s trade association, which exists to promote wind power. At least they know what they’re for.
Oh, and then:
This publication has been produced with the financial contribution of European Climate Foundation.
Now, I doubt that a report produced with the wind power trade association could ever have come out with my opinion about offshore wind. I also doubt that ECF would have funded it unless they thought they were going to get an answer that was acceptable to them. Cynical of me, I know. The ECF’s funders include the bland-sounding Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, as well as all the usual billionaires. CIFF has also funded XR, and the Centre for Climate Integrity, which exists to litigate against fossil fuel companies. [Useful info on these groups at influencewatch.org]
The RSPB also lists a suite of organisations that endorse their report:
These organisations have also betrayed their members. When it comes to wind power, they should be getting their nails out. Instead, they’re getting their tongues out.
Dear RSPB, it’s simple. Protect birds. Oppose things that kill birds.
Dear Ms. Speight, you are the CEO of the RSPB. The ‚P‘ stands for Protection, not Prevention. If you genuinely care so much about carbon dioxide emissions, endorse nuclear power.
A photo of a beautiful not-dead gannet, with kind permission of Adrian R Yallop. The photo of the not-alive gannet was by YT. On the horizon, too small to see, is the Sheringham Shoal windfarm. Coincidence? I did not undertake a post mortem, so perhaps.
UN bureaucrats and mostly left wing politicians are pushing to rebuild a societal sense of “shared reality”, by shutting down climate skeptics and other online voices they deem to be “misinformation”.
From Watts Up With That?
Essay by Eric Worrall
UN bureaucrats and mostly left wing politicians are pushing to rebuild a societal sense of “shared reality”, by shutting down climate skeptics and other online voices they deem to be “misinformation”.
Internet for Trust Conference discusses guidelines for online platforms
23 February 2023 Culture and Education
The first-ever conference to discuss draft global guidelines for regulating digital platforms ended on Thursday in Paris with a call to uphold the right to seek and receive information in the face of rising disinformation online.
More than 4,300 people participated in the Internet for Trust Conference, organized by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which will launch the guidelines in September.
The three-day event marked the latest phase in the global dialogue to develop regulatory solutions for social media to improve the reliability of information and promote human rights online.
“The blurring of boundaries between true and false, the highly-organized denial of scientific facts, the amplification of disinformation and conspiracies – these did not originate on social networks. But, in the absence of regulation, they flourish there much better than the truth,” UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay warned in her opening speech.
She urged countries to act together so that information remains a global common good, stating that “only by taking the full measure of this technological revolution can we ensure it does not sacrifice human rights, freedom of expression and democracy.”
…
In his message to the Conference, the Brazilian President, who is known as “Lula”, recalled the violent attacks last month against democratic institutions in his country.
“What happened that day was the culmination of a campaign, initiated much earlier, and that used lies and disinformation as ammunition,” he said.
“To a large extent, this campaign was nurtured, organized, and disseminated through digital platforms and messaging apps. This is the same method used to generate acts of violence elsewhere in the world. It must stop.”
…
The UNESCO chief closed the conference by urging all countries to join its efforts to transform the internet into a tool which is truly at the service of the public and that helps assure the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek and receive information.
…Read more: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/02/1133827
President Lula da Silva of Brazil, who was one of the headline speakers, is an ardent advocate of shutting down narratives he thinks are disinformation. In 2018 Da Silva was convicted of corruption and money laundering. Da Silva’s conviction for corruption was overturned in 2021, after the Supreme Court ruled the evidence against him was inadmissible because the prosecutor was biased.
Da Silva blames “disinformation” for the protests which rocked his nation in the wake of the 2022 presidential election, “disinformation” spread by people who accused Da Silva of rigging the election.
The article above does not explicitly mention climate change, though they mentioned “highly organised denial of scientific facts”. The UN has made it pretty clear they consider climate skepticism to be disinformation, so I think we’re pretty safe assuming climate skepticism is part of the set of free speech the UN wants shut down.
Rampant disinformation is delaying climate action
Climate disinformation is shared widely online, seeking to sow division and delay climate action. We need to fight back and flood the feeds with reliable, accurate information, writes UN Under-Secretary-General Melissa
…Read more: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/rampant-disinformation-delaying-climate-action
The USA and Canada have also run their own attempts to shut down “disinformation”, like Biden’s short lived “Disinformation Governance Board”, and Canada’s Bill C-11, an ongoing legislative attempt to restrict online free speech.
I’m actually encouraged by these frantic efforts by mostly left wing politicians and UN bureaucrats to use coercion to regain control of the narrative, because I see it as evidence they are losing. Across the world people are increasingly doing their own research. Those who crave power over our lives don’t seem to like the conclusions empowered free people are drawing from the evidence.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the first-ever certification Friday of a small modular reactor design, a big step in the process of developing a new generation of new and more flexible nuclear reactors.
From STOP THESE THINGS
As the energy source of the future, safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power hardly needs an introduction. Power-starved Germans have re-embraced it; the French have been powered by it for nearly 60 years.
Altogether, there are 30 countries where you’ll find nearly 450 nuclear reactors currently operating – as well as the Germans and French – Americans, Canadians, Japanese and Chinese are well aware of the benefits of nuclear power. Another 15 countries are currently building 60 reactors among them.
Nuclear power output accounts for over 11% of global electricity production. But all that power is generated at scale. Whereas, what promises to change the way that nuclear energy is produced and distributed is much smaller, and the Americans are leading the charge.
Jeremey Beaman reports on how NuScale Power has won not only the confidence of US regulators, but a contract to build America’s first 50MW, SMR power plant at DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory.
First Small Modular Reactor Gets Certification From Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington Examiner
Jeremy Beaman
20 January 2023
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the first-ever certification Friday of a small modular reactor design, a big step in the process of developing a new generation of new and more flexible nuclear reactors.
The NRC approved the reactor design from NuScale Power, making it the first SMR design to be certified by the regulator and only the seventh reactor design cleared for use in the United States.
“SMRs are no longer an abstract concept,” said Kathryn Huff, assistant secretary for nuclear energy at the Department of Energy. “They are real, and they are ready for deployment thanks to the hard work of NuScale, the university community, our national labs, industry partners, and the NRC.”
NuScale is one among many nuclear energy companies working to re-imagine the legacy nuclear reactor technologies developed in the 20th century by scaling them down, with one leading motivation being to make the construction of nuclear power plants more cost-effective.
The company, which was awarded a contract to build an SMR power plant on-site at DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory, celebrated certification of the design Friday of its advanced light-water reactor. The reactor uses power modules that each can generate 50 megawatts of electricity.
By comparison, the two new reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia are each rated at 1,250 megawatts.
The Biden administration has prioritized the advancement of new nuclear technologies, as well as the preservation of existing and operating power plants.
The Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats’ new green energy and healthcare spending law, offers a mix of tax incentives to nuclear power generators and funding to produce the uranium necessary to fuel advanced reactors.
Some in the nuclear sector, as well as members of Congress in both parties, have called for the NRC to be reformed due to the delays in certifying new reactor designs and licensing new construction.
The agency began operations in 1975 with a single mandate to ensure public safety. Some reform proponents say Congress needs to give it another mandate to enable commerce.
Before Friday, the commission’s last new reactor design to be certified was in September 2019.
The NRC has not licensed a new nuclear installation from start to finish in its history. When Georgia’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 come online, they will be the first.
Washington Examiner
More evidence emerges that modern rates of sea level rise are approximately 20-50 times slower than natural rising rates occurring during deglaciations.
From NoTricksZone
By Kenneth Richard on 23. February 2023
In tropical areas coral reef fossils form terraces, or flat surfaces bordered by ascending sloping surfaces. Terraces are formed at or near sea level, so their relative geological presence can be interpreted as reliably precise proxies for past relative sea levels.
A new study uses fossilized coral evidence from terraces and the elevation of beach rock relative to today to discern sea levels were higher than present from about 7,500 years ago until about 1,500 years ago. Specifically, sea levels were 2.2 to 2.4 meters higher (highstand) than today from 5,500 to 4,200 years ago.
The primary reason sea levels were so much higher was that the Earth’s surface was significantly warmer than it is today throughout most of the last 10,000 years. The water that has in recent centuries been locked up in ice sheets and glaciers on land inhabited ocean basins as recently as a few thousand years ago.
Sea level rise rates of 45-80 mm/yr
Frederikse et al. (2020) and Frederikse et al., 2018 assessed the global rates of sea level rise were effectively the same for the entire 1900 to 2018 period (1.56 mm/yr−¹) as they were from 1958-2014 (1.5 mm/yr−¹). So, about 1.5 mm/yr−¹ is the modern sea level rise rate.
Compare this current value to the rates of sea level rise in the past 20,000 years, or when sea levels rose 120 m out of the last glacial maximum (LGM).
About 14,700 years ago (Meltwater Pulse [MWP] 1A) the seas rose at rates of up to 80 mm/yr−¹, or 8 m per century. This is more than 50 times faster than today’s rates. About 9,000 to 10,000 years ago, sea level rise rates were still 45 mm/yr−¹.
The ocean covers 71% of the globe and drives average temperatures;
From Science Matters
By Ron Clutz
The best context for understanding decadal temperature changes comes from the world’s sea surface temperatures (SST), for several reasons:
HadSST is generally regarded as the best of the global SST data sets, and so the temperature story here comes from that source. Previously I used HadSST3 for these reports, but Hadley Centre has made HadSST4 the priority, and v.3 will no longer be updated. HadSST4 is the same as v.3, except that the older data from ship water intake was re-estimated to be generally lower temperatures than shown in v.3. The effect is that v.4 has lower average anomalies for the baseline period 1961-1990, thereby showing higher current anomalies than v.3. This analysis concerns more recent time periods and depends on very similar differentials as those from v.3 despite higher absolute anomaly values in v.4. More on what distinguishes HadSST3 and 4 from other SST products at the end. The user guide for HadSST4 is here.
The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST4 starting in 2015 through January 2023. A global cooling pattern is seen clearly in the Tropics since its peak in 2016, joined by NH and SH cycling downward since 2016.
Note that in 2015-2016 the Tropics and SH peaked in between two summer NH spikes. That pattern repeated in 2019-2020 with a lesser Tropics peak and SH bump, but with higher NH spikes. By end of 2020, cooler SSTs in all regions took the Global anomaly well below the mean for this period. In 2021 the summer NH summer spike was joined by warming in the Tropics but offset by a drop in SH SSTs, which raised the Global anomaly slightly over the mean.
Then in 2022, another strong NH summer spike peaked in August, but this time both the Tropic and SH were countervailing, resulting in only slight Global warming, later receding to the mean. Oct./Nov. temps dropped in NH and the Tropics took the Global anomaly below the average for this period. After an uptick in December, temps in January 2023 dropped everywhere, strongest in NH, with the Global anomaly further below the mean since 2015.
A longer view of SSTs
The graph above is noisy, but the density is needed to see the seasonal patterns in the oceanic fluctuations. Previous posts focused on the rise and fall of the last El Nino starting in 2015. This post adds a longer view, encompassing the significant 1998 El Nino and since. The color schemes are retained for Global, Tropics, NH and SH anomalies. Despite the longer time frame, I have kept the monthly data (rather than yearly averages) because of interesting shifts between January and July.1995 is a reasonable (ENSO neutral) starting point prior to the first El Nino.
The sharp Tropical rise peaking in 1998 is dominant in the record, starting Jan. ’97 to pull up SSTs uniformly before returning to the same level Jan. ’99. There were strong cool periods before and after the 1998 El Nino event. Then SSTs in all regions returned to the mean in 2001-2.
SSTS fluctuate around the mean until 2007, when another, smaller ENSO event occurs. There is cooling 2007-8, a lower peak warming in 2009-10, following by cooling in 2011-12. Again SSTs are average 2013-14.
Now a different pattern appears. The Tropics cooled sharply to Jan 11, then rise steadily for 4 years to Jan 15, at which point the most recent major El Nino takes off. But this time in contrast to ’97-’99, the Northern Hemisphere produces peaks every summer pulling up the Global average. In fact, these NH peaks appear every July starting in 2003, growing stronger to produce 3 massive highs in 2014, 15 and 16. NH July 2017 was only slightly lower, and a fifth NH peak still lower in Sept. 2018.
The highest summer NH peaks came in 2019 and 2020, only this time the Tropics and SH were offsetting rather adding to the warming. (Note: these are high anomalies on top of the highest absolute temps in the NH.) Since 2014 SH has played a moderating role, offsetting the NH warming pulses. After September 2020 temps dropped off down until February 2021. Now in 2021-22 there are again summer NH spikes, but in 2022 moderated first by cooling Tropics and SH SSTs, then in October to January 2023 by deeper cooling in NH and Tropics. The graph shows the warming spikes since 2015 lifted the Global anomaly by about 0.2C above the mean since 1995.
What to make of all this? The patterns suggest that in addition to El Ninos in the Pacific driving the Tropic SSTs, something else is going on in the NH. The obvious culprit is the North Atlantic, since I have seen this sort of pulsing before. After reading some papers by David Dilley, I confirmed his observation of Atlantic pulses into the Arctic every 8 to 10 years.
But the peaks coming nearly every summer in HadSST require a different picture. Let’s look at August, the hottest month in the North Atlantic from the Kaplan dataset.
The AMO Index is from from Kaplan SST v2, the unaltered and not detrended dataset. By definition, the data are monthly average SSTs interpolated to a 5×5 grid over the North Atlantic basically 0 to 70N. The graph shows August warming began after 1992 up to 1998, with a series of matching years since, including 2020, dropping down in 2021. Because the N. Atlantic has partnered with the Pacific ENSO recently, let’s take a closer look at some AMO years in the last 2 decades.
This graph shows monthly AMO temps for some important years. The Peak years were 1998, 2010 and 2016, with the latter emphasized as the most recent. The other years show lesser warming, with 2007 emphasized as the coolest in the last 20 years. Note the red 2018 line is at the bottom of all these tracks. The heavy blue line shows that 2022 started warm, dropped to the bottom and stayed near the lower tracks. Note the strength of that summer’s warming pulse, in September peaking to nearly 24 Celsius, a new record for this dataset. January 2023 starts similar to 2022.
Summary
The oceans are driving the warming this century. SSTs took a step up with the 1998 El Nino and have stayed there with help from the North Atlantic, and more recently the Pacific northern “Blob.” The ocean surfaces are releasing a lot of energy, warming the air, but eventually will have a cooling effect. The decline after 1937 was rapid by comparison, so one wonders: How long can the oceans keep this up? If the pattern of recent years continues, NH SST anomalies will likely decline in coming months, along with ENSO also weakening will probably determine a cooler outcome.
Footnote: Why Rely on HadSST4
HadSST is distinguished from other SST products because HadCRU (Hadley Climatic Research Unit) does not engage in SST interpolation, i.e. infilling estimated anomalies into grid cells lacking sufficient sampling in a given month. From reading the documentation and from queries to Met Office, this is their procedure.
HadSST4 imports data from gridcells containing ocean, excluding land cells. From past records, they have calculated daily and monthly average readings for each grid cell for the period 1961 to 1990. Those temperatures form the baseline from which anomalies are calculated.
In a given month, each gridcell with sufficient sampling is averaged for the month and then the baseline value for that cell and that month is subtracted, resulting in the monthly anomaly for that cell. All cells with monthly anomalies are averaged to produce global, hemispheric and tropical anomalies for the month, based on the cells in those locations. For example, Tropics averages include ocean grid cells lying between latitudes 20N and 20S.
Gridcells lacking sufficient sampling that month are left out of the averaging, and the uncertainty from such missing data is estimated. IMO that is more reasonable than inventing data to infill. And it seems that the Global Drifter Array displayed in the top image is providing more uniform coverage of the oceans than in the past.
USS Pearl Harbor deploys Global Drifter Buoys in Pacific Ocean
Here’s Where a Rare “Triple Dip La Niña” Might Drop the Most Snow This Winter Ski Mag
The unusual weather phenomenon might result in the snowiest season in years for some parts of the country.
The long-range winter forecast could be good news for skiers living in the certain parts of the U.S. and Canada. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that the chance of a La Niña occurring this fall and early winter is 86 percent, and the main beneficiary is expected to be mountains in the Northwest and Northern Rockies.
If NOAA’s predictions pan out, this will be the third La Niña in a row—a rare phenomenon called a “Triple Dip La Niña.” Between now and 1950, only two Triple Dips have occurred.
Smith also notes that winters on the East Coast are similarly tricky to predict during La Niña years. “In the West, you’re simply looking for above-average precipitation, which typically translates to above-average snowfall, but in the East, you have temperature to worry about as well … that adds another complication.” In other words, increased precip could lead to more rain if the temperatures aren’t cooperative.
The presence of a La Niña doesn’t always translate to higher snowfall in the North, either, as evidenced by last ski season, which saw few powder days.
However, in consecutive La Niña triplets, one winter usually involves above-average snowfall. While this historical pattern isn’t tied to any documented meteorological function, it could mean that the odds of a snowy 2022’-’23 season are higher, given the previous two La Niñas didn’t deliver the goods.
Lovers of the Scottish countryside and wild places, read it and weep.
From Climate Scepticism
By MARK HODGSON
I am truly blown over by the Scottish Government’s Onshore wind policy statement 2022, which contains astonishing levels of illogicality and dubious assumptions. The obvious failings of the document are legion – certainly on too great a scale to keep this analysis within reasonable bounds if I were to dwell on them all – so instead I will dip in and out, highlighting some of the most obvious nonsense, and leaving the interested reader to explore the original document if desired.
Ministerial Foreword
This is written (or at least signed off) by Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy & Transport, and it’s fair to say it sets the tone for the nonsense that follows. It commences on a contentious note:
The world is facing a climate emergency with the impacts of climate change already being felt across the globe. From floods in Pakistan to drought across Europe and last winter’s serious storms, the damage that unmitigated climate change can cause is already clear to see.
Given that the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Working Group 1 nowhere (not even in its Summary for Policymakers) uses the phrase “climate emergency” (nor “climate crisis”, for that matter) it seems rather strange that the opening paragraph of a government policy statement should set the policy framework by reference to terminology beloved (and, in this context, arguably invented) by the mainstream media rather than by the international experts who pontificate on this topic at great length on a regular basis.
The second paragraph is arguably even stranger, given the wealth of fossil fuels available to the Scottish government if only they decided to permit their exploitation and use (as the SNP part of the Scottish government coalition used to urge only a few short years ago when claiming that these fossil fuel riches provided the basis for their desired Scottish independence). Here’s the second paragraph:
Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the resulting extraordinary rise in the price of fossil fuels, in particular gas, demonstrates that continuing to rely on commodities that are subject to global price shocks is no longer an option.
Admittedly that was written in 2022, but one assumes that such matters as important as national energy policy (and the statements that apply to them) are kept under regular review by politicians and their advisers. Presumably, then, they have noticed that a gas price which peaked at over £7.00 per therm in late August 2022 is sitting as I write this at just over one-sixth of that peak, at 121.2p per therm. Of course that fall in price might not be permanent, and it doesn’t of itself render void the claim that it might be unwise, say, to put all one’s eggs in the basket of products that might be subject to price shocks, but it does cast doubt on the argument that continuing to rely (at all) on such products “is no longer an option”.
Having recognised the tendentious nature of those opening two paragraphs, the next sentence (which is of critical importance, underpinning as it does the whole policy statement) offers up a shocking non-sequitur:
That is why we must accelerate our transition towards a net zero society.
I find that form of words to be a curiously inelegant and unhelpful way to express the reasoning (such as it is) behind the Scottish government’s energy policy. We aren’t told what “that” is, and are left to draw the inference that the reason(s) is/are as set out in the two preceding paragraphs, namely the dubious claim that the world is facing a climate emergency and the equally dubious claim that because fossil fuel prices spiked for a relatively brief period on the back of a sudden and irrational warlike move by a Russian politician who will not be in post for ever, energy policy that relies on fossil fuels is therefore “no longer an option”.
Given that the UK as a whole is responsible for around 1% of the world’s ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, and given that Scotland’s population is around one-twelfth of the UK’s population, one has to wonder on what basis the elimination of fossil fuel use by Scots responsible for around one twelve-hundredth part of the global total is expected to play any part in resolving the global “climate emergency”. Given the cost and inconvenience associated with an accelerating transition to net zero, one might have hoped to see a detailed analysis of the nature of the Scottish climate emergency (rather than a vague reference to floods in Pakistan, drought in Europe and serious winter storms) and an explanation as to how Scottish net zero policies can stop these things from happening, espcially in the face of rising fossil fuel use elsewhere in the world – you know, a bit of real global context. And one might expect an explanation as to why it is deemed unwise to use one’s own fossil fuel resources, given an issue with potential “global price shocks”.
Sadly, as we will see, no such analysis is forthcoming. On the contrary, next we are told that:
...we must go further and faster to protect future generations from the spectre of irreversible climate damage.
Once again, the crucial piece of reasoning and explanation is missing. Even assuming that Scots people (or the human population and fauna and flora of the entire planet) are facing “irreversible climate damage”, we aren’t told how Scottish net zero will stave this off. Of course, the reason why we aren’t told this is because whatever the Scots do, it won’t make any difference to anything.
Nor is the significance of Scotland’s 2030 targets explained (hit that date and all will be well? Miss it and face climate armageddon?), but we are told that “…continued deployment of onshore wind will be key to ensuring our 2030 targets are met.” Hilariously (at least, it would be funny were the implications of such nonsense not so serious) we are told that “onshore wind is a cheap and reliable source of zero carbon electricity.” Reliable? 2021 wind drought, anyone? Cold, still, spells in the depth of darkest winter (when solar generation produces very little and the need for energy is acute) and the wind turbines stay stubbornly still?
Cheap? Well, this is the claim:
Despite being excluded from the previous two auction rounds, onshore wind achieved the second lowest overall strike price across all technologies at the Contract for Difference Allocation Round 4, at £42.47 per MWh, which is around 45% lower than it cleared during Allocation Round 1 in 2015.
True, so far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far. There is not a single wind farm in the UK, let alone in Scotland, generating electricity at a price of £42.47 per Mwh, nor anything like it. Contracts for Difference aren’t really “contracts” in the traditional sense of the word, rather they are one-way options, and wind farm owners aren’t exercising the options at low strike prices when they have the option of taking the market price instead. Why does the foreword engage in this piece of legerdemain, instead of acknowledging the practical reality of wind energy pricing?
And so another set of dubious opinions are stated as fact:
Onshore wind has the ability to be deployed quickly, is good value for consumers and is widely supported by the public.
Maybe it is widely supported by the public who don’t understand its cost, unreliablity, unpredictability, and implications for the electricity grid and who don’t have to live anywhere near a wind farm, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And what about local democracy? People who live near the proposed sites of wind farms tend not to be so keen, and their objections tend to be ignored.
And then we get the final insult:
…it is also vital that this ambition [meeting net zero targets] is delivered in a way that is fully aligned with, and continues to enhance, our rich natural heritage and native flora and fauna, and supports our actions to address the nature crisis and the climate crisis.
Well, when are you going to start doing that? The apparent lack of awareness of the damage caused to Scotland’s ecology and environment by wind farms, and of the opposition to them by groups who value their local environment and care about flora and fauna, is staggering.
And that’s just the first page…
Ambitions and Aspirations
This section does at least have the merit of recognising that Scotland’s net zero plans will:
…see a substantial increase in demand for electricity…[which] will at least double within the next two decades. This will require a substantial increase in installed capacity across all renewable technologies.
Given that we are told that the net zero strategy will operate “across all sectors, including heat, transport and industrial processes” the idea that demand for electricity will only “at least double” in the next two decades strikes me as an heroic assumption, but then that is what we are told the National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios says. Feel free to take a look. I’ve just spent ten minutes looking for that information there, and failing to find it.
However, I have found my way to the DUKES data provided by the UK government, including chapter one of its report on UK energy statistics for 2021. This tells us that:
With net imports up [in 2021], the UK increased its use of fossil fuels. The main fossil fuel sources in the UK are coal, gas and oil. In 2021, the share of primary energy consumption from fossil fuels increased to 78.3 per cent from the record low of 76.8 per cent in 2020, whilst that from low-carbon sources decreased to 19.4 per cent from the record high of 21.2 per cent last year due to reduced nuclear and renewables output…
In other words, renewables and nuclear combined (i.e. “low-carbon” sources of energy) provided only 19.4% of the UK’s energy needs in 2021 (remember the 2021 wind drought I mentioned above). If all sectors of the economy are to be “decarbonised” in accordance with net zero plans, then it looks to me as though electricity production will need to be five times higher than it currently is. Even allowing for the possibility of new technologies reducing demand for energy and even assuming that Scotland is further down this road than the rest of the UK, a claim that the demand for electricity in Scotland will only “at least double” over the next two decades looks ridiculously optimistic. Especially given that in Scotland the net zero zealotry of the government there has committed to an earlier net zero date than in the rest of the UK:
The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 (the Act) was passed by Scottish Parliament in September 2019. The Act commits Scotland to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 at the latest, and also sets two interim targets to reduce emissions by 75% by 2030 and by 90% by 2040.
Leaving all that to one side, what then are the Scottish government’s ambitions and aspirations? They are to build on 8.7GW of installed capacity (NB, always remember that nameplate capacity and actual production are very different things) in Scotland as of June 2022, noting that up to 11.3GW of further capacity, spread over 217 potential projects will facilitate a „minimum installed capacity of 20 GW of onshore wind in Scotland by 2030„.
Lovers of the Scottish countryside and wild places, read it and weep.
The Scottish government tells us in this section that it:
is committed to achieving our climate change targets in a way that maximises the economic and social benefits of a just transition to a net-zero economy.
We are told that achieving this will require a collaborative approach, and to facilitate that, an Onshore Wind Strategic Leadership Group (SLG) is to be formed (oh good, another QUANGO – we don’t have enough of them, do we?). It will be tasked with identifying “solutions to key deployment challenges, establish opportunities to maximise benefits to Scotland, and foster a collaborative spirit across the sector, while aiding a just transition.”
I suppose I should be grateful to find recognition that there will be key deployment challenges, but don’t ask me to run this SLG – I can already see that its tasks are mutually inconsistent, especially given that it must also drive GVA (not defined, but I assume this stands for Gross Value Added). And I certainly wouldn’t want to be responsible for keeping order among the people who are to be involved:
…government representatives, onshore wind industry leaders, Scottish Renewables, relevant Scottish Government agencies and Supply Chain representatives and a body representing issues affecting local communities.
In fact, given the next paragraph, definitely count me out:
However, any future sector deal should reflect Scottish Government ambitions around supply chain, skills, increased deployment of onshore wind, community benefits and shared ownership, and positive biodiversity outcomes. It is crucial that the principles of a just transition are actively applied across the sector and that the benefits of the increased deployment of onshore wind are felt by all of Scotland’s citizens, especially in the communities that host developments.
That’s just not going to happen, is it?
For good measure, there are to be aspirations for the proportion of women to be employed in the onshore wind sector, at the same time. Fair enough, not a bad aspiration at all, but combined with everything else they are to be tasked with? Something will have to give.
This section makes a lot of the right noises, but really doesn’t engage with the single simple fact that building wind turbines in wild places is damaging to the environment. It even has the effrontery to talk about maximising the environmental benefits (sic) to Scotland. And, as is the case with stated UK government policy, it seeks to persuade us that mutually incompatible objectives will all be met:
The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring Scotland’s citizens have access to affordable, low carbon and renewable energy whilst tackling the climate and nature crises in tandem.
Reference is made to the Scottish government’s Land Use Strategy. Then we get another pie-in-the-sky statement of mutually inconsistent objectives:
As Scotland moves towards a net zero economy there will need to be significant land use change from current uses to forestry and peatland restoration. This needs to happen alongside ensuring space for other essential activities such as food production, renewable energy generation, including onshore wind, and the protection and enhancement of habitats and biodiversity.
Does this represent a faint stirring of awareness that onshore wind farms to date have often destroyed trees in extraordinary numbers (almost 14 million was the number quoted in 2020) and damaged peat, or are Scottish government ministers and officials in some strange state of denial as to the environmental damage caused by onshore wind farms to date?
Much is then made of the claim that degraded peat:
accounts for around 15% of Scotland’s total net emissions. Reversing degradation through peatland restoration is therefore central to mitigating and adapting to the linked climate and nature crises.
This claim is followed by the statement that peatland restoration is the way forward, despite the admission of yet another failure of the Scottish government to achieve its objectives:
Against our target to restore 250,000 hectares by 2030, we have delivered 57,500 hectares to date at an average annual rate of 5,700 hectares in recent years. This is below our annual goal of at least 20,000 hectares, and there are many reasons for this, not least that peatland restoration is a sector in its infancy and is building delivery capacity.
Don’t worry, seems to be the message, we’re getting there by “building delivery capacity”. Given the Scottish government’s track record over a whole area of policy issues, I doubt that any real progress will be made here. Ferries, anyone?
Bizarrely, given the repeated statements about the importance of peat, we then learn this:
We recognise, however, that the peatland impacts of onshore wind farms can be significant and we must balance the benefits from onshore wind deployment and the impacts on our carbon rich habitats. This includes being aware that there is potential for development in an area of deep peat to have a net negative carbon impact.
The Scottish government therefore commits to convene and expert working group (will that be yet another taxpayer-funded QUANGO?) and to
assess the operation of, and if necessary update or replace, the carbon calculator. The Scottish Government will ensure that adequate tools and guidance are available to inform the assessment of net carbon impacts of development proposals on peatlands and other rich carbon soils.
That would be the carbon calculator that has come under serious criticism of late and in respect of which a Scottish Government spokesperson said they “note the limitations” of the payback calculations, but said the calculator still provided “the best available means” to get figures in a “consistent and comparable format”.
This section (about the importance of peat) concludes with this solemn assurance:
By assessing the net carbon impacts of proposed developments on carbon-rich soils and peatlands we will ensure that planning and consenting regimes result in the right projects in the right places, with all applications considered on a case-by-case basis within the relevant planning regime.
Well, it would be a start, but it would also be a first. I trust that the Scottish people will hold them to that commitment.
Woodland is next up and we are told:
Creating new forests and woodlands is an important tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For each hectare of forest and woodland created, it is estimated that, on average, seven tonnes of CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere each year. The Climate Change Plan includes a commitment to increase forest and woodland cover in Scotland from around 19% now, to 21% by 2032, and our 2020 update to the Climate Change Plan set out ambitious targets to incrementally increase woodland creation from 12,000 hectares per year in 2020/21, up to 18,000 hectares per year by 2024/2025….Protection of existing forestry, as well as expansion, is integral to our climate change targets. Woodland removal should be kept to a minimum and where woodland is felled it should be replanted. These aspects of Scottish Government policy, detailed through the Control of Woodland Removal Policy have formed part of the considerations for relevant onshore wind developments for more than a decade. This proves that the protection of forestry and the promotion of onshore wind already co-exist.
Proves? How is that consistent with the destruction by windfarm developers of almost 14 million trees to 2020, especially if this policy has been in place for more than a decade? Perhaps the reality is that policies, plans and aspirations count for nothing once the process of putting the wind turbines in place begins.
Aspiration and reality do seem to be in conflict, but not in the Looking-Glass world inhabited by the Scottish government:
Onshore wind will remain an essential part of our energy mix and climate change mitigation efforts, and the resolution of the balance between its deployment and biodiversity interests requires careful discussion and planning at a local level. As the rate of onshore wind deployment increases in the coming years, we see a great opportunity for wind energy developments to further contribute significantly to our biodiversity ambition. By proactively managing intact habitats and the species they support, restoring degraded areas and improving connectivity between nature-rich areas, onshore wind projects will contribute to our climate change targets and help address the biodiversity crisis.
Landscape and visual amenity are dealt with next. There is an admission that as wind turbines become ever larger and as there more and more of them to meet the government’s targets, “[t]his will change the landscape.” Whilst that is admitted, what is not admitted is that it will change the landscape for the worse. Yet such an acknowledgement is implicit in the recognition that wind energy is not supported in National Parks and National Scenic Areas. Ominously, however, “[o]utside of these areas, the criteria for assessing proposals have been updated, including stronger weight being afforded to the contribution of the development to the climate emergency…” In other words, the dice have just been loaded still further in favour of wind farm developers, because the reality seems to be that while the Scottish government recognises the serious adverse visual impact of wind turbines, it doesn’t really care:
Our Revised Draft NPF4 recognises that significant landscape and visual impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy, and makes clear that where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered to be acceptable.
Finally in this section there is a recognition that noise, especially from the ever-larger turbines increasingly being used, can be a problem. The Scottish government notes that the current standard (ETSU-R-97) is being reconsidered by the UK government as possibly being no longer appropriate, given the increasing size of turbines, yet we are told:
Until such time as new guidance is produced, ETSU-R-97 should continue to be followed by applicants and used to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments.
And it might be argued that all the Scottish government can do is to wait and see if a new standard is put in place, though in reality there are two other alternatives. Given the centrality of onshore wind to its plans and the rapid growth in the size of turbines (with associated increased noise) the Scottish government could commission its own review rather than waiting for the UK government to do so. Or it could require new planning applications to be put on hold unless the proposed turbines are below a certain size, until the UK government review has been carried out. Neither option, it seems, has been considered. Locals (whether human or our furry and feathered friends) will just have to grin and bear it.
This section is one where I have little to say, save that the experience of local communities might not fit with the Scottish government’s belief as to how these matters play out. For instance, this statement might ring hollow to many:
It remains vital that developers act as ‚good neighbours‘, working in tandem with local communities, communicating over the course of a wind farm’s life and building good relationships. This should allow concerns to be addressed as they emerge, empower communities to engage positively with the development, and secure community enhancements.
Not living in Scotland, nor next to a wind farm, it isn’t really for me to comment further; rather it is for those affected (whether they feel the effect is positive or negative) to have their say.
I have already commented sceptically above on the claims made for Contracts for Difference (CfDs) in reducing costs. Despite the fact that not a single wind farm has been commissioned at the lowest CfD rates “achieved” recently, the Scottish government continues to proclaim that CfDs have driven costs down for consumers (at a time when costs have never been higher). Paradoxically, even so, they tell us this (which doesn’t sound like a recipe for positive progress):
Whilst the CfD is critical for delivering support to deployment at low cost to consumers, the pressure to reduce capital costs has had significant impacts on the domestic supply chain, with suppliers greatly reducing margins or losing contracts altogether. This is a result of the CfD scheme’s effectiveness in reducing developer bids and technology costs. The Scottish Government recognises that this pressure has had some negative effects on the domestic supply chain and investor confidence.
We are told that the Scottish government (in line with the UK government) “expects” “developers to make every effort to support the domestic supply chain…and to ask developers to provide UK content estimates for their projects as part of the Supply Chain Plan questionnaire.”
But expecting and asking isn’t the same as insisting, and in the absence of insisting via a contractual obligation, why would they developers do anything other than carry on as they have so far? Where did all the green jobs go indeed. Which leads us neatly in to the next section:
We are told that:
By capitalising on Scotland’s strengths in energy, natural capital, innovation and our skilled workforce and universities, we can set Scotland at the forefront of growing global markets.
Well, maybe, or maybe not. We are also told:
The recent Onshore Wind Prospectus suggests that approximately 17,000 jobs and the equivalent of £27.8bn in GVA could be achieved in Scotland if we are able to deploy an additional 12GW by 2030.
But suggesting is not the same as achieving, and even the Scottish government has to admit, somewhat sheepishly, that:
We recognise that, at present, the Scottish manufacturing supply chain for the wind industry is weak.
Yes indeed, and that is after decades of wind farm developments.
Almost incredibly, this section also suggests that wind farm developments will boost tourism. Ignoring the views of locals who know what is going on in their areas, we are instead rather pompously told:
The Scottish Government is aware that some communities in Scotland are concerned that the deployment of onshore wind can have a negative effect on tourism. Current evidence suggests that whilst there may be discrete impacts in some cases, this is not the general rule….We consider the effect that onshore wind farms can have on local and national tourism as a significant opportunity to cultivate a ‚people and place‘ approach and provide economic opportunities in areas that may otherwise be overlooked.
As noted in both the 2017 Onshore Wind Policy Statement, and the 2021 draft Onshore Wind Policy Statement (dOnWPS), wind turbines have the potential to impact aviation operations, including, but not limited to, impact on aviation radar.
Gosh, that sounds rather serious! Don’t be silly. It’s as nought compared to the climate crisis:
…the pace of deployment necessitated by the climate emergency means we must find a way to alleviate these impacts in an effective, efficient and timely manner. It is also important that solutions are cognisant of the cost of deploying renewable energy, particularly given the need to focus on both security of supply and low-cost generation, given the current international and economic situation.
Magic wand time?
The first technical consideration alluded to in the policy statement is that associated with wide loads. There will be more of these, and they will presumably be ever wider, as turbines grow in size. The problem is in fact considerable, and the Scottish government recognises it (though inevitably dismisses it, by assuming that the problem will be solved by the setting up of a series of working groups). Here is the problem:
As we increase the volume of onshore wind in Scotland…we will increase the volume of turbine components which must be conveyed to site. Abnormal Indivisible Loads are, by definition, a load being carried on a public road which exceeds a defined length, and hence could prove hazardous. Given the nature of wind turbine components, the movement of these parts will frequently trigger the Abnormal Indivisible Loads requirements.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, any abnormal load movement on public road in Scotland must be escorted by a specially trained police officer. This puts additional pressure on both Police Scotland and hauliers, as well as the wind energy sector’s ability to deploy at scale in Scotland.
In order to meet our legally-binding net-zero targets, it is estimated that 3400 turbines will be installed in Scotland between now and 2030, this is the equivalent of a new turbine being installed every day between 2025-2030. Given this, and the significant issues surrounding the transportation of components, this issue has been brought into fresh focus, as we consider it could have serious implications on the delivery of our renewable energy pipeline and subsequent threat to our 2030 net-zero targets.
There is another, associated, problem:
The Scottish Government is aware of the related, but separate issue of „oversail“, when turbine components „oversail“ the boundary of a road and enter the airspace of private land at pinch points along the delivery route. The financial compensation paid to landowners is becoming increasingly substantial, and as we deliver the 3400 turbines between now and 2030 the financial implications of this issue has become more pressing.
But not to worry:
The Abnormal Loads Legislative Reform Sub-group will consider matters of land-ownership and oversail as part of their overall work package.
Just before leaving this section, it’s worth returning to the question of turbine noise (as the Scottish government does here in the context of a Ministry of Defence (MoD) seismological monitoring station at Eskdalemuir.
The array’s operation can be compromised by excessive seismic noise in the vicinity, which can be produced by wind turbines operating around the array.
And so the MoD has issued a direction which
…advised that any sites within 50km of the array would require consultation with MoD before determination. This 50km radius is often referred to as the ‚consultation zone‘.
Within the consultation zone there is an existing hard no-build area at a radius of 10km from the array – no application for windfarms can be made closer than this due to the unacceptable impact they would have at this distance.
Needless to say, no such protection is offered to local residents living within anything like those distances from proposed wind farms.
So great are the issues, so many are the problems, that a rational person might sit down and question the wisdom of these plans.
Delivering our ambition of 20 GW of onshore wind by 2030 will create demands on our electricity infrastructure. New developments will need to connect quickly to Scotland’s distribution and transmission networks. Networks must be able to invest quickly and ahead of need in order to ensure swift and efficient connections for onshore wind developments.
The ‚connect and manage‘ system has supported significant growth in clean, low-cost renewable capacity. However, the misalignment between rapidly increasing constraint costs and the long lead time for transmission investment is placing increased risk on consumers in an already challenging landscape.
National Grid Electricity System Operator, the GB Electricity System Operator, has identified the need for over £21bn of investment in GB transmission infrastructure to meet 2030 targets. Over half of this investment will involve Scottish Transmission Owners SSEN and SPEN.
Another obvious issue with the plan to build ever more windfarms in Scotland, is that they will be remote from many of the consumers of the electricity generated. In a sane world, this might be considered a relevant factor. But not in the world of net zero and the Scottish government:
In a net zero world, it is counterproductive in the extreme to care more about where generation is situated than what type of generation it is. A new approach is needed here, rather than small modifications to methodologies. We will continue to raise this with Ofgem and the UK Government and push for a fairer solution that recognises the renewable capability of Scotland.
Common sense doesn’t seem to enter into any of this. The next section talks about security of supply, but doesn’t begin to address the problems. Instead, counter-factually and almost incredibly:
We believe that onshore wind can play a greater part in helping to address the substantial challenges of maintaining security of supply and network resilience in a decarbonised electricity system.
Conclusion
Reality doesn’t intrude. Instead:
Deployment of onshore wind is mission-critical for meeting our climate targets.
So that’s that. Needless to say, I disagree profoundly.
This was interesting. Solar ran about level for about five years, decreased for some twenty years or so, and then increased after that.
From Watts Up With That?
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, the endless curiosity of my monkey-mind led me to some interesting datasets over at KNMI. They’re a variety of meteorological measurements made in Holland since 1964. I noticed that they have global solar radiation data, so I plotted that up to see the variations. I overlaid it with the CEEMD residual, which is what is left after the various cyclical variations have been removed. The CEEMD residual shows the overall trend of the data. (For more information on CEEMD analysis see my post “Noise-Assisted Data Analysis.)
Figure 1. Monthly Dutch solar radiation, January 1964 – January 2023
This was interesting. Solar ran about level for about five years, decreased for some twenty years or so, and then increased after that.
Next, I looked at the Dutch surface temperature, in the same manner.
Figure 2. Monthly Dutch surface temperature, January 1964 – January 2023
Fig. 2 shows a general slow rise in temperature over the period in question.
Now, my choice of these two datasets was not random. Remember that the central paradigm of modern climate science is the very simplistic view that changes in temperature are a linear function of changes in downwelling radiation.
Me, I think that’s nonsense. I know of no other complex chaotic system with that kind of simple input/output relationship … but that’s what mainstream climate science claims. I discuss this idea in my post entitled “The Cold Equations“.
So … here’s the relationship between solar radiation and temperature in Holland. In both cases, I’ve used the CEEMD residuals.
Figure 3. Monthly Dutch surface temperature, January 1964 – January 2023
Hmmm … not exactly a linear relationship. It starts with solar radiation dropping and temperature rising … and then that relationship reverses.
Hmmm indeed.
Now, this is just solar radiation. Unfortunately, the KNMI data doesn’t include downwelling longwave radiation. However, we have that data from the CERES dataset for the period from March 2000 to February 2022. Over that time the downwelling longwave radiation in Holland decreased by -5.0 W/m2.
And this in turn gives an overall (longwave + shortwave) sensitivity for that shorter time period of … 0.1°C per W/m2 … go figure.
Can we draw any overarching global conclusions from this analysis? No way. It’s just one small country … however, it does show that over the last ~60 years, there are many more things that affect the temperature of Holland than just downwelling radiation.
My best to all.
w.
My Usual Request: When you comment, please quote the exact words that you are discussing. This avoids endless misunderstandings.
Don’t miss a minute of The Heartland Institute’s 15th International Conference on Climate Change, taking place February 24-25 in Orlando, Florida.
From ClimateRealism
Don’t miss a minute of The Heartland Institute’s 15th International Conference on Climate Change, taking place February 24-25 in Orlando, Florida.
All of the presentations are streaming live on three streams — one for the plenary sessions in the Patrick J. Michaels Ballroom; one for Panel A in the Jay H. Lehr Room; and one for Panel B in the Walt Cunningham room.
WATCH THE STREAMS BELOW, or watch on Heartland’s YouTube Channel
Plenary sessions for Friday:
Breakfast Keynote – 8:00am – 9:45am ET
This plenary meal session includes a keynote presentation by Patrick Moore.
Lunch Keynote – 1:00pm – 2:10pm ET
Ian Plimer is a geologist and will give a science presentation. Marlo Oaks is the treasurer of the state of Utah. He will be speaking about his efforts in his state to fight ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) efforts.
Dinner Keynote – 6:30pm – 8:00pm ET
Alex Epstein will speak about energy policy. Ken Haapala of SEPP will present the Frederick Seitz Memorial Award to Christopher Essex. Craig Rucker of CFACT will present the Dauntless Purveyor of Climate Truth Award to a mystery guest.
Panel A for Friday:
Panel 1A – 9:00am – 10:30am ET
Taking the Temperature of Global Temperatures
Anthony Watts will discuss how the U.S. temperature data has been hopelessly corrupted; Willie Soon, Ph.D., will speak about the effect of the sun on global temperatures, and how that is not taken well-enough into account; and Joe Bastardi will speak about the effect of the oceans on global temperatures.
Panel 2A – 10:45am – 12:15pm ET
Understanding What’s Really Happening to the Climate
Judith Curry, Ph.D., will give a presentation (remotely via video) titled “Climate Uncertainty and Risk”; Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., will give a presentation titled “Updated Climate Sensitivity and the Social Cost of Carbon”; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., will give a presentation titled “Actual Climate vs. Policy.”
Panel 3A – 2:30pm – 4:00pm ET
Is Climate Science Scientific?
We examine the flaws in climate models. Tom Sheahen will explain the need to apply the Scientific Method to modeling. Howard Hayden will point out the glaring numerical inconsistency between AR-6 climate models and physical reality. Ken Haapala will discuss the impact of IPCC’s continuing errors.
Panel 4A – 4:15pm – 5:45pm ET
Green Agenda’s Impact on People
Donna Jackson will speak about how “environmental justice” for communities of color is a scam; Bob Carlstrom will speak about the impact higher “green energy” costs have on the poor and the elderly; Margaret Byfield will speak about the Biden administration’s “30×30” agenda and its impact on land owners
Panel B for Friday:
Panel 1B – 9:00am – 10:30am ET
Consequences of Scarce Energy
Vijay Jayaraj will give a presentation titled “Green or Blood Red”; Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D., will give a presentation titled “Biden, not Putin, to Blame for High Energy Prices”; and Marc Morano will give a presentation titled “The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown.”
Panel 2B – 10:45am – 12:15pm ET
Defeating ESG (Environment, Social, Governance)
Jason Isaac will give a presentation that gives an overall explanation of ESG, its goals, and its unintended consequences; Paul Watkins will talk about fighting ESG efforts on the state level; Marlo Lewis will give a presentation that has yet to be determined.
Panel 3B – 2:30pm – 4:00pm
Is Climate Science Scientific?
Ronald Stein will give a presentation titled, “We’ve had 200 years to Replace Fossil Fuels: The Elephant in the Room”; Linnea Lueken will give a presentation titled, “Why ‘Big Oil’ Pushes ‘Green Energy’”; Alex Epstein will give a presentation titled, “Global Human Flourishing Requires Much More Energy.”
Panel 4B – 4:15pm – 5:45pm ET
Unworkable Climate ‘Solutions’
Steve Milloy will give a presentation titled “Net Zero is Unachievable and Will Kill People”; Kevin Dayaratna will give a presentation titled “The Unsustainable Costs of Biden’s Climate Agenda”; and Ben Lieberman will give a presentation titled “The Global War on Air Conditioning.”
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts.
He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues.
He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Part of Venice’s vast network of canals has run dry after unusually low tides and drought conditions.
From Science Matters
By Ron Clutz
Gondolas stranded in the canals while tourists gawk in shock!
Tyler Durden reports at zerohedge Gondola Service Halted In Venice As Famous Canals Run Dry. Excerpts with my bolds.
Part of Venice’s vast network of canals has run dry after unusually low tides and drought conditions. The floating city is built in the middle of the Venetian Lagoon at the head of the Adriatic Sea in Northern Italy. Dried-up smaller canals mean some gondolas and water taxis are stranded.
Venice is usually prone to flooding, but a combination of factors, including lack of rain, a high-pressure system, a full moon, and water currents, have led to dried-up canals, according to Reuters.
Italian rivers and lakes are suffering from severe lack of water, the Legambiente environmental group said on Monday, with attention focused on the north of the country.
The Po, Italy’s longest river which runs from the Alps in the northwest to the Adriatic has 61% less water than normal at this time of year, it added in a statement. –Reuters
Several pictures and videos have been published on Twitter, showing dried-up canals.
Hold on! Stop the Presses.
Revised headline: Climate Change Sucks Water Out of Venice Canals!!!!
Why, California’s Oroville Dam, of course.
You must be logged in to post a comment.