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.
Australia has had a mild summer, a mild year, but that’s a reason for another meaningless “hottest” headline. “Millions across NSW suffering through hottest day over two summers“.
Everything is a PsyOp now: even the weather maps are on fire
Australia has had a mild summer, a mild year, but that’s a reason for another meaningless “hottest” headline. “Millions across NSW suffering through hottest day over two summers“. So outback New South Wales finally gets an average warm summer day and the climate map makes it look like a nuclear meltdown. Since when was 35 degrees C a shade of heat so hot it was black? (That’s 95F).
To put this in perspective, the town of Cobar near the centre of the map made it to 37C today (98.6F). But a few years ago the average temperature for the whole month of February was 37C. Any Cobar resident who feels like 37C is unusually warm, moved there this morning.
If newspapers were not paid agents or religious acolytes for the cult of climate change the headlines would have said “finally a last blast of summer warmth after two cold years”. But that doesn’t sell solar panels.
Call it color inflation. The value of any color is shrinking. Satellites show Australia hasn’t warmed at all in the last ten years, but the headlines and artwork still look the same. Back then, it was a different kind of PsyOp. In 2013, the BOM announced climate change had made Australia so hot they needed to change the color scale of their maps so they could add “purple heat” for a prediction of over 50 degrees C (a temperature that didn’t even happen). Now, 40C is the new 50C and what was an average day in 2020 in January for Bourke is now a purple holocaust. (40C is 104F and 50C is 122F).
To be fair the BOM has the same color chart it had then, and the new radioactive maps are made by some other agency, NCA NewsWire or Stormcast, whoever they are. But the BOM says nothing about this, and the media are happy to play deceptive color tricks on their hapless audience.
“88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. It is noteworthy that no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size. These results show that atoll and island areal stability is a global trend, whatever the rate of sea-level rise.”
Despite what we hear from the media and climate activists, hard scientific findings show that Pacific and Indian Ocean island nations are doing just fine…not at all sinking away.
Sea level rise alarmists are hip deep in exaggeration. Image: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
IPCC high-end sea level predictions for 2100 are “highly erroneous”.
Global warming alarmists like to claim that Pacific island nations are on the verge of disappearing – due to rising sea levels caused by polar ice melting due to global warming, which in turn supposedly is caused by rising concentrations of “heat-trapping” trace gas CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.
These coral reef island nations risk going under real soon, unless we wean ourselves from fossil fuels soon, they say.
Coral reef island nations are emerging, not disappearing
But yesterday Kenneth here presented a new paper appearing in Nature, (Kench et al., 2023), which looks at whether the coral reef islands are in fact seeing unprecedented and undergoing accelerating physical changes that risk outrunning human adaptation measures. The authors analyzed the dynamics of a Maldivian reef island at millennial to decadal timescales.
The researchers found that “island change over the past half-century (±40 m movement) is not unprecedented compared with paleo-dynamic evidence”.
Nothing unusual is happening. The global data suggest that almost all islands are in fact growing, and not disappearing under water like climate alarmists mistakenly believe.
“Recent shoreline changes (±40 m/50 years) are ‘dwarfed’ by the shoreline changes (±200 m/100 years) that occurred throughout previous centuries,” the study’s authors write.
89% of all the globe’s islands are stable, or growing!
Moreover, just 4 years ago, another peer-reviewed publication appearing in a renowned journal found similar results: 89% of the globe’s islands and 100% of large islands have stable or growing coasts! According to Duvat, 2019:
“88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. It is noteworthy that no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size. These results show that atoll and island areal stability is a global trend, whatever the rate of sea-level rise.”
Moreover, Khan et al (2018) found: “Prediction of 4–6.6 ft sea level rise in the next 91 years between 2009 and 2100 is highly erroneous.”
There is no evidence supporting claims that rising CO2 and global warming increases the spread or intensity of wildfires. The intensity and spread of the destructive Marshall Fire was governed by the flammability of the grassland and the winter winds.
Not enough politicians are honestly educating the public about the science of climate change and wildfires.
Senator Whitehouse has pushed climate misinformation mostly offering conspiracy theories that argue skeptical science is fabricated & paid for by the dark money of fossil fuel companies. He compares skeptics to a “ventriloquist’s wooden painted dummy” and controlled by fossil fuel companies. In his numerous “Time to Wake Up” speeches, senator Whitehouse has fear mongered wildfires as evidence of a climate crisis, such as highlighting Colorado’s most destructive Marshall Fire.
Now as the chairman of the senate’s committee on the budget, he pushes speculation on the extreme cost of climate change. This March 9th 2023 his committee focuses on wildfires.
I was being considered to be one of the expert witnesses for that hearing but did not make the final cut. So, instead I’ll present what I had prepared for broader public consumption. I’m an ecologist and environmentalist, free of any fossil fuel manipulation, so I’m titling my contrasting presentation “Time to Learn Some Science”.
There is no evidence supporting claims that rising CO2 and global warming increases the spread or intensity of wildfires. The intensity and spread of the destructive Marshall Fire was governed by the flammability of the grassland and the winter winds.
In winter, the vegetation is dead or dormant, so moisture content reaches its seasonal low.
The Marshall Fire was a grass fire. Grasses become highly flammable in just hours of dry weather. Grasses become highly flammable independent of climate change. The Marshall Fire was not evidence of a climate crisis!
The Marshall Fire was ignited by humans.
Human ignitions have expanded fire season into the coldest seasons, making deadly fires less predictable. Natural lightning fires are more predictable in the summer months of the more limited lightning season.
Like the Marshall Fire, humans caused California’s most deadly fire, the Camp Fire, due to faulty electrical apparatus in October. Also in October, faulty electrical caused California’s 4th most deadly fire, the Tubbs Fire.
Electrical sparks ignited California’s 2nd largest fire, the Dixie Fire as well as its 9th largest, the Thomas Fire. A mere spark from a stake hitting a rock in a grassy pasture ignited a section of the 3rd largest fire, the Mendocino Complex Fire. An escaped campfire caused the 12 largest, the Rimm Fire And a highway accident caused the 14th largest, the Carr Fire.
As grass fires are want to do, the Marshall Fire went from ignition to an out-of-control state in less than one hour
Despite strong winds, temperatures were below freezing, and relative humidity was above average, conditions not considered to be worrisome fire weather. So, the National Weather Service did not issue a red flag warning that day.
However, the drying Chinook Winds were strong enough that a no-burn restriction was rightfully issued. Strong winds will carry an escaped fire into human habitat with devastating speed.
California’s Santa Ana & Diablo winds have similarly spread California’s worst fires. All these winds peak in winter as cold air flows down the mountains. Any global warming should reduce these winds.
Fires require high amounts of energy to ignite and spread.
It is well proven that increasing CO2 from burning fossil fuels adds about 2.4 W/ m2 of energy. But that cant ignite even a paper fire.
In contrast, 3,400 W/m2 will ignite grassy vegetation in seconds.
It is also well proven that grass fires emit about 35,000 W/m2 of energy.
Depending on the vegetation density, that’s 10 times more energy than what’s needed to sustain a grass fire.
Thus, the added energy from CO2 adds only 0.007% to the energy that a fire emits So, the added energy from CO2 is insignificant regards the drying and spread of a fire.
Once a grass fire ignites a house, the house generates so much heat its ignites neighboring houses causing a fire siege that destroyed this whole community. Studies of burning furniture find a burning mattress alone releases nearly 4 million watts of heat.
In contrast to Whitehouse’s call for a CO2 safety zone, a defensible space is created only by removing any vegetation that carries a fire too close to one’s home. Only then can a reasonable wildfire safety zone be realized.
The introduction of Eurasian cheat grass over 100 years ago, has enabled increased fire ignitions and created more pathways carrying fire into shrubland, forests and rural towns. Cheat grass creates a dense carpet of highly flammable fuel that dies and dries by June and cheatgrass’ spread is one correlate with the disproportional number of fires in the west.
If the senator wants to minimize deadly fires, the budget committee should consider more support for restoring native vegetation.
The deep rooted, native perennial grasses that cheatgrass replaced, produce moist live foliage through august and create a mosaic of grassy clumps and bare ground that slows the spread of fires.
Similarly, in forest habitat, money would be best spent increasing prescribed burns and forest thinning to create a mosaic that again reduces wildfire spread.
Fires were far more common in the early 1900s when CO2 was lower and temperatures were cooler as demonstrated by the Oregon Department of Forestry. Likewise, fires were far more common throughout the American southwest during the Little Ice Age.
Fire suppression policies that began 100 years ago and were meant to save forests, instead caused forest fuels to accumulate, unintentionally resulting now in more intense and devastating fires
Lightning is the cause of natural fires. Despite a lightning strike raising air temperatures by 50,000 F, a strike usually doesn’t ignite living trees due to the trees’ high moisture content and the lightning’s short duration. Lightning is also less likely to start a fire when accompanying rainstorms.
Interestingly, California accounts for 31% of all of America’s burnt area from lightning, despite having one of the lowest densities of lightning strikes.
However dry lightning is more common in the arid western USA and is another correlate explaining the disproportionate number of fires in the western USA.
Accordingly, California’s largest fires were due to a summer swarm of dry lightning strikes in 2020. Dry lightning caused California’s all time biggest recorded fire, the August Complex Fire, in addition to causing the 4th and 6th largest fires.
In contrast, Florida is hit by 50 times more lightning strikes per square mile. Yet, although California is just 3 times larger, California’s burnt area is 20 times larger than Florida’s, despite both states being equally affected by rising CO2.
This difference correlates with the fact that California has the least amount of summer precipitation during lightning season while Florida has the most. Thus, it’s California’s Mediterranean climate that makes it naturally prone to dry lightning, drier fuels, and larger wildfires.
A Mediterranean climate’s dry summers happen each summer because a clockwise-spinning high pressure system sets up and diverts moisture-carrying storms northward & away from California inhibiting its summer rainfall.
Although a similar high pressure sets up in the Atlantic, the same clockwise spin drives more rain into the Gulf and east coasts, explaining why the eastern USA has far fewer fires.
The Pacific high-pressure system fades in winter allowing California to receive more rainstorms, but La Nina-like oceans can maintain higher pressures during the winter, resulting in more drought, particularly in California.
La Nina’s are natural. So, CO2 driven models have failed to accurately simulate their occurrence. Scientists are struggling to understand why their models predicted more El Nino-like oceans as CO2 increased, in contrast to the past 40 years of observations finding the pacific has become more La Nina like.
Finally, climate alarmists and mis-informers have been cherry-picking & weaponizing the tragedies of the Marshall Fire & California’s fires, as evidence of global warming catastrophes. However, the global burnt area declined by 25% between 2000 and 2017, again contrary to global warming predictions.
The red areas show where burnt areas have significantly increased, blue significant decreases. All the white areas represent NO trend and reveal neither the USA nor the world show any indication of a growing wildfire crisis or any correlation with rising CO2.
So, indeed wake up America, it is time to learn some science!
An article in Slate suggests that the fact that some locations have experienced winter weather events this year that are unusual for them, is evidence climate change is causing weird weather. This is false.
Unusual weather events have never occurred in predictable patterns, and there is no evidence during the recent period of modest climate change, that extreme weather events are becoming less predictable or weirder, or increasing in frequency.
First, the article contradicts its own headline in the beginning paragraphs:
This winter season has thrown some wild weather our way, from winter storm Elliott to the arctic airmass that consumed New York, and now a major snowstorm is simultaneously hitting the Northeast and California. Climate researchers generally agree this is not normal. So, what’s causing it? Researchers are actively trying to answer that and it’s proving to be complicated.
Global warming may sound like the obvious answer, but it’s not that simple, since the climate naturally operates with a degree of random variability that can also produce strange weather patterns every so often.
In one paragraph, Ali admits that the reasons for unusual weather events are complicated and that researchers are “searching for answers,” only to then in the very next paragraph, suggest climate change is the cause of weather variability. Its not, weather is naturally variable.
Ali obviously doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Weather vs. Climate, the difference between weather and climate is clearly defined.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) defines climate as “…the average weather conditions for a particular location and over a long period of time.” To create a climate record, 30 years of weather data is averaged to create a “normal” climate expectation for a location or region. What we experience on a day-to-day basis are weather events, not climate events. Weather is not climate.
Ali goes on to talk about increased variability of weather due to “…two opposing natural cycles; La Niña, a cool phase, and El Niño, a warm phase.” In that she is correct, these natural patterns in the Pacific Ocean are highly influential on weather, but they don’t represent climate patterns or trends. Either oceanic trend can span anywhere from 1 to 4 years, far short of 30 years needed establish a climate trend.
Ali has missed the fact that in the past few months, the Pacific Ocean has been transitioning from the La Niña cool phase to the El Niño warm phase. During such a transition, weather is even more variable than usual because neither phase is dominant. That alone can explain the weather events deemed “weird” by Ali.
Ali also misunderstands the nature and history of the weather phenomenon known as “The Polar Vortex,” which she also wrongly links to global warming by suggesting a “disrupted polar vortex” is a result of climate change.
“This year’s disrupted polar vortex was the fourth such event in the last six years, which NOAA says is rare and hasn’t been seen ‘over more than six decades of stratospheric observations,’” writes Ali.
The phrase “polar vortex” is often erroneously used by the media to link climate change and severe winter weather events. The polar vortex was first identified as a cause for some instances of severe winter weather events in 1853. Claims that climate change is creating new and more severe polar vortex events are not supported by either observational evidence or computer climate models.
The photo accompanying the Slate headline shows snow in the Los Angeles hills with the Hollywood sign, with the headline suggesting this is weirdly abnormal. A simple check of weather history shows such snow events, while hardly yearly occurrences, have been fairly common.
The article chronicles a number of Los Angeles snowfall events in recent history:
Snow also made appearances in 2019, 2007, 1998, 1987 and 1974, according to Times archives. In 1962, heavy snow fell in the mountains and high deserts and dusted parts of downtown and West Los Angeles before melting quickly.
Perhaps the most famous snowstorm was in January 1949, when several inches piled up in the region over several days. Times articles from that time described 14 inches of snow on Ventura Boulevard near Woodland Hills, a foot in Laurel Canyon and light flurries around the L.A. Civic Center.
Note in 1848, “Several thousand head of cattle were destroyed.” Presumably due to the deep snow and cold. Climate change wasn’t even on anyone’s radar back in 1848, much less in 1974 when the big snowstorm snarled traffic on Interstate 5, as seen in the photo above.
Obviously, such weather events have occurred periodically throughout in Southern California’s weather history. They seem “weird” only to people who ignore history, or who have short memories, or who believe pushing political action to prevent a purported climate crisis, justifies ignoring facts. Based on her Slate story, Ali seems to fall into one or more of those categories.
Without checking history or facts, Slate published a totally erroneous and misleading story, which speaks to the trend of journalism today being more about climate advocacy than it is about reporting the truth about climate.
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.
One of the most frightening aspects of global warming, aka “climate change” is the graphs produced from temperature data for public consumption and trumpeted by an unquestioning and compliant media
One of the most frightening aspects of global warming, aka “climate change” is the graphs produced from temperature data for public consumption and trumpeted by an unquestioning and compliant media. When it comes to measuring climate, in order to actually see any temperature differences over the last century, they must be highly magnified using the temperature anomaly method.
The most often cited global temperature anomaly graph is from the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), showing yearly average temperatures since 1880, as seen in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with base period 1951-1980. The solid black line is the global annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The gray shading represents the total (LSAT and SST) annual uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval and is available for download. [More information on the updated uncertainty model can be found here: Lenssen et al. (2019).] Source: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
To the untrained and uninitiated (i.e. the general public) it looks like Earth’s temperature is on a trajectory for a hot and terrible future.
Sometimes, media outlets such as the daily-doom newspaper known as The Guardian, will take that data and make their own graphs, making them look even steeper and scarier, such their highly statistically amplified graph from their 2019 article as seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Headline and graphical depiction of global temperature by The Guardian in 2019. Note the graph was amplified by using a different baseline for anomaly comparison. NASA GISS uses 1950-1980 as the baseline, where the Guardian used 1850-1900 as the baseline, amplifying the positive anomalies in the near present, because 1850-1900 was a cooler period in Earth’s temperature history.
But in the real-world, people don’t experience climate as yearly or monthly temperature anomalies, they experience weather on a day to day basis, where one day may be abnormally warm, and another might be abnormally cold. Sometimes new records are set on such days. This is normal, but such records are often portrayed by the media as being evidence of “climate change” when if fact it is nothing more than natural variations of Earth’s atmosphere and weather systems. In fact, is doubtful humans would even notice the mild warming we’ve had in the last century at all, given that the human body often can’t tell the difference between 57°F and 58°F in any given moment, much less over a long term.
Essentially, what we know as climate change is nothing more than a man-made statistical construct. You can’t go outside and hold an instrument in the air and say “I’m measuring the climate.” Climate is always about averages of temperature over time. It’s a spreadsheet of data where daily high and low temperatures are turned into monthly averages, and monthly averages are turned into yearly averages, and yearly averages are turned into graphs spanning a century.
But, such graphs used in press releases to the media and broadcast to the public don’t really tell the story of the data honestly. They omit a huge amount of background information, such as the fact that in the last 40 years, we’ve had a series of El Niño weather events that have warmed the Earth; for example, 1983, 1998 and in 2016. The two biggest El Niño events are shown coinciding with temperature increases in Figure 3.
Figure 3. GISTEMP global temperature data, in 12-months running average (anomalies relative to the first 30 years). Source: RealClimate.org
These graphs also don’t tell you the fact that much of the global surface temperature measurements are highly polluted with Urban Heat Island (UHI) and local heat-sink related siting effects that bias temperatures upward, such as the wholesale corruption of climate monitoring stations I documented in 2022, where 96% of the stations surveyed don’t even meet published standards for accurate climate observations. In essence – garbage in, garbage out.
But, all that aside, the main issue is how the data is portrayed in the media, such as The Guardian example shown in Figure 2.
To that end, I have prepared a new regular feature on WUWT, that will be on the right sidebar, combined with the long-running monthly temperature graphs from the state of the art (not polluted or corrupted) NOAA operated U. S. Climate Reference Network and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) satellite derived temperature global record.
Screen Capture of WUWT showing new feature on the sidebar.
In this calculation, the “normal” temperature of the Earth is assumed to be 57.2°F. and that is simply added to the anomaly temperature reported by NASA GISS to obtain the absolute temperature. The basis of this number comes from NASA GISS itself, from their FAQ page as seen in August 2016 as captured by the Wayback Machine.
Figure 4. Screen capture of the NASA GISS FAQ’s page from August 24, 2016 – Source: Wayback Machine
Of course GISS removed it from that page as seen today, because they don’t want people doing exactly what I’m doing now – providing the absolute temperature data, in a non-scary graphical presentation, done in the scale of how humans experience Earth’s temperature where they live. For that I’ve chosen a temperature range of -20°F to +120°F, which is representative of winter low temperature near the Arctic Circle and high summer temperature in many populated deserts, such as in the Middle East.
Figure 5: NASA GISTEMP Data, plotted as a temperature anomaly, using a “normal” temperature of 57.2°F
Figure 6: NASA GISTEMP Data, plotted as absolute temperature, using a “normal” temperature of 57.2°F
Can you tell which graph visually represents a “climate crisis” and which one doesn’t?
Feel free to check my work – the Excel spreadsheet and the calculations are here:
Wind power blades are typically produced with fibreglass and carbon fibre, energy-intensive non-renewable plastics made from petrochemicals that cannot be easily recycled.
I have already mentioned an article that appeared today in The Herald with the heading “Flatpack wood turbines could give wind power a green boost”. Had it appeared a few weeks later I might have assumed it was an April Fool, but evidently it isn’t.
I think it’s worth noting the extent to which the article effectively makes the case against existing wind turbines. It notes a number of problems (compared to which the wooden turbines are supposed to be an improvement).
First, we are told (not that we need to be reminded) that the manufacture of existing wind turbines requires a lot of steel, concrete and plastic, and that this takes a toll on the environment.
Next we are reminded that disposing of them at the end of their lives involves additional problems – “blades made from fibreglass and carbon fibre are particularly tricky to recycle, meaning they tend to end up in landfill.”
We are told that the new lightweight turbine parts are easy to transport, and because they can be slotted together on site, smaller lorries are required. This avoids the need for road closures, and more parts can be delivered in a single journey. The obvious implication is that road closures and roads cluttered with lots of vehicles carrying few (but large and heavy) turbine parts are currently something of a nuisance. That would be an understatement. As I noted in Blown Away, so great is the extent of this problem that the Scottish Government’s Onshore wind policy statement 2022 devotes a whole section to such technical issues, and rather lamely hopes that the problem may be solved by its Abnormal Loads Legislative Reform Sub-group.
Next we are told that engineered wood is stronger than steel at the same weight, so wooden towers are cheaper than those made of steel and allows for the production of ever taller turbines without the need for costly reinforcements. Weren’t we told (incorrectly) that wind power is “nine times cheaper” than gas? Apparently it’s not so cheap, after all (but then we already knew that). Not only is it not so cheap to use steel, but “tower construction costs soar” in that scenario (or so we are now told).
I have always been suspicious of claims made by the renewables industry in respect of “carbon payback” time periods, and now we are told that “a timber wind tower solves a host of environmental issues, including generating 90% less carbon dioxide emissions during construction.” And what exactly are those carbon dioxide emissions? According to wooden turbine manufacturer Modvion, the life cycle emissions from a 110m tall wind turbine tower of steel is approximately 1,250 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
Finally, we are told that “steel towers require hundreds of bolts that need regular inspections”, the implication being that fewer inspections would be required in respect of wooden towers that are held together with glue (I can’t say I’m convinced by that one).
The article also mentions a collaboration between Stora Enso and Voodin Blades, and more can be found about that here. It makes similar points to those above:
Wind power blades are typically produced with fibreglass and carbon fibre, energy-intensive non-renewable plastics made from petrochemicals that cannot be easily recycled. Tens of thousands of ageing blades today end up in landfills. By developing blades with sustainable wood, Stora Enso and Voodin Blades can make the blades lighter and reduce the overall dependency on fossil fuel extraction.
“The wind industry as a key driver towards carbon neutrality needs to become 100% sustainable and environmentally friendly….„
Acknowledgement, at last, that “green” renewable energy isn’t so green, after all. That said, of course, all of the above is in the form of publicity for new kids on the block who wish to break into what has so far been a very lucrative market, what with all the subsidies that have been sloshing around. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it should be taken with a large pinch of salt, but perhaps some healthy scepticism wouldn’t come amiss.
It’s also not clear, despite the attempts to put a positive spin on the sustainability angle, exactly how sustainable wooden turbines might be. Presumably it’s going to involve cutting down a lot of trees, so to that extent its green credentials might be as controversial as those of Drax. As the Herald article tells us:
A spokesperson for Modvion said Scotland with its large supply of Sitka spruce could be well placed to make its own tree-based wind turbines.
“We currently use Scandinavian spruce but any soft wood works, including Sitka spruce. Scotland is very much possible for supplying raw material for wooden towers.”
Who knows if this might represent good news for those of us concerned by the environmental depredations of “green” energy? What it won’t solve is the fundamental problems associated with renewable energy – its unreliability, its unpredictability, its destabilising effect on electricity grids, with associated costs. Nor will it be any kinder to birds and bats, and in all probability it will continue to blight beautiful landscapes, especially as one of the big claims made for wooden turbines is that they will facilitate the use of turbines that are ever taller. In passing, I note that I haven’t read anything about what will go in the foundations. Will they dispense with concrete?
In all probability, if wooden turbines ever come to pass at scale, I fear that their manufacturers will represent just another snout in the subsidy trough, and the problems associated with renewable energy will remain as acute as ever for the end-user of electricity.
Most of the 1100 Pacific and Indian Ocean islands have been growing, not shrinking in size, in the last half century.
Activists convinced humans are able to exert fundamental control over ocean dynamics claim the rates of sea level rise and modern climate change are so rapid and unprecedented that modern changes are dramatically affecting shoreline movement on low-lying islands.
But a new study (Kench et al., 2023) assesses the opposite may be true. Recent shoreline changes (±40 m/50 years) are “dwarfed” by the shoreline changes (±200 m/100 years) that occurred throughout previous centuries. Globally, here is nothing “unprecedented” about what has been occurring with reef island shoreline dynamics in recent decades.
Of the global database of 1,100 Pacific and Indian Ocean reef islands, the “dominant mode of response has been the expansion of islands on reef surfaces (>53%)” over the last half-century. Only 0.3% (3 of 1,100) of islands have experienced “total loss.” Similarly, Duvat (2019) found 89% of 709 global-scale islands have been either stable or growing in size since the 1980s.
Of the islands sampled for the study, none are older than 1,400 years. Before then, they were submerged beneath the sea due to the much higher sea levels of the past.
Tom Nelson interviewed David Dilley last month and the video is above. For those who prefer reading I provide below a transcript from the closed captions, along with the key exhibits from the presentation.
Synopsis: Between the two oceans cooling down and the natural global cooling cycle coming down we’re going to see a big dip in the temperatures worldwide during the next 10, 15 years. The cold cycle’s going to take about 20 years to bottom out. We’re going to be in an extremely cold period during that time, colder than the 1960s and 50s here in the United States. So it’s going to be very cold.
TN: I have David Dilly here, and David could you tell us a little bit about yourself?
DD: I’m a meteorologist, climatologist, for which I have about 52 years of experience, and I’m still trying to figure that out because I’m only 30 years old. But but I’ve been in the business a long time. I was a weather officer in the Air Force in the National Weather Service. Then I left to set up my own company called Global Weather Oscillations; the easiest way to remember it is global weather cycles.com.
So we’re going to take a look today at something that NOAA is really talking about: the Carbon Dioxide and Climate Cycles.
They’re just talking about today’s carbon dioxide values as far as the fossil fuel is concerned. You’re not going to see this out there anywhere on the web. It’s 78% of the atmospheric gases is nitrogen of all things, 21% is oxygen, 0.9 is argon that is 99.99 percent the atmospheric gases.
That doesn’t leave much that’s just about all of what we call dry air. To be non-dry air includes the greenhouse gases. The greenhouse gases now are variable regarding how much of it is water vapor how much of it is carbon dioxide. Water vapor is anywhere from one to four percent of the atmospheric gases, that’s quite a bit. It can be zero percent of the Arctic and Antarctic because that’s a desert, but it can be all the way up to four percent. So one to four percent we’ll say.
Carbon dioxide of all things it’s a trace gas it’s less than .05%, a lot less than than water vapor. less than .05 now to put it in perspective, let’s just look at the greenhouse gases here and what we see is water vapor we’re gonna do the average of it two percent that’s 20 000 parts per million.
Natural carbon dioxide what I’m going to show you later on in the presentation is 380 parts per million.
Now NOAA and the IPCC say it (natural CO2) is down around 285 parts per million, we’re going to show you that’s false.
And so the natural is point zero four percent of the atmospheric gases, while fossil fuel I’m going to show you it’s only 35 parts per million; that’s point zero zero four percent or four one thousands of a one percent. And do you think that can cause climate change?
Of course not. We go down to Vostok in the Antarctic and there is a very deep frozen lake where they drill down fifteen thousand eight five hundred and eighty eight feet down to the bottom. That’s a long ways down over 500 000 years. So I take core samples and with the core samples they figure out how how much it is carbon dioxide what the temperatures are.
These are approximate, but what they they get from a core sample is a an estimate of the temperatures and carbon dioxide during the past 500 000 years.
If we go back say 450 000 years, the red line is temperature. So what happened, we came quickly just in a few thousand years out of a deep Ice Age into a interglacial warm period. You can see the temperatures really slid up and the ice cores estimate the carbon dioxide to be right around 280 parts per million.
Then we slide down out of the warm period into a deep Ice Age and you can see that the carbon dioxide is actually staying up high there. If carbon dioxide caused global warming, why did the temperatures drop; it does not make sense.
Eventually the carbon dioxide goes down because it’s being absorbed by the oceans. The oceans keep absorbing it over the course of a hundred thousand years. Then when you come up on your next interglacial warm period 338 000 years ago, the temperature goes up and the carbon dioxide is released from the oceans back into the atmosphere. And you can see the carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise and actually when you hit the peak of the temperature back 338 000 years ago, the carbon dioxide does not Peak out until 7000 years later. It takes quite a while but carbon dioxide peaked out at 298 parts per million. But look at that temperature then dropping quickly into an ice age while carbon dioxide is at its peak.
That’s proof right there the carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.
As we come over on the right hand side of the graphic this is about 18 000 years ago. It’s 11 000 years ago we came out of the glacial period, we warmed up quickly, we got up to about to 190 parts per million.
Then we started to take records in Hawaii in the 1950s and the instruments there said: Wow, all of a sudden now we’re up to 412 parts per million. We’ve never been that high before. This is what we’re going to investigate: what is going on with the glacial periods and also the core samples. This is a graphic of the carbon dioxide. The peak of The inter glacial warm periods is every 120 000 years ago we’re going back 800 000 years.
Now do we have other research that will confirm what I’m saying. This is about a year ago and they’ve been adding papers to it and this corrects NOAA’s calculations of the rise in carbon dioxide since 1850. It’s in a radiation safety Journal Health physics journal and this is the name of the paper itself. The authors are professors of radiological Sciences.
They’re retired and that’s a big thing because if you’re not retired, if you’re at a university, you can’t do research like this because of federal grants and everything. You have to wait until you’re retired and then you can do real science when they were working they were at the department of physics at University of Massachusetts. It’s Kenneth Skrable, George Chabot, and Clayton French and here is what they found.
This is extremely important. Since 1850 the red here is saying the increase due to fossil fuel, and they’re showing all of that is the increase due to fossil fuel. Now how do we determine that well up on a high mountain in Hawaii we have a infrared spectrometer since 1958 it’s been been taking measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However three Isotopes of Carbon are 12, 13 and 14. and the spectrometer is taking the total of all three. It’s not separating what is natural from what is fossil fuel.
Because the ice core samples say we’ve never been above 300 parts per million NOAA is assuming that the rise above 300 parts per million is all fossil fuel.
An assumption is all it is. It’s assumed by trying to take averages of how much CO2 is taken back in by the oceans how much of it is a given not from industry. Taking those assumptions some physicists made a formula to determine how much is fossil fuel and how much is natural going back all the way back to 1750. These red lines again are what NOAA says is the increase by fossil fuel.
Well their formula separates the carbon 12, 13 and 14 to determine what is what and this is their findings as I switched everything over to green. Green is the natural increase in carbon dioxide all the way up to 1958. Now remember it’s a paper going back to 2018, but it says the increase has been from 280 parts per million up to 408 and NOAA says it is all from fossil fuel. This research paper says No, it is nearly 80% natural just like what I showed on my formulations, eighty percent natural, onlyabout 20% industrial. That’s not enough to cause climate change.
Now I’m going to show you one last paper that will also verify the findings and this is using a different method fossilized plant leaflets and as you can see in this picture there’s little cells in there they call these stomata cells which are like the lungs in a human being.
So they look at the fossilized plant leaflets and unlike the ice core samples where you’re taking an average over one thousand or four thousand years, the fossilized plant leaflets can give you the exact year going back the past thousand years so you can determine each year what is going on.
So the stomata cells are like the lungs in a human being or in animals but he’d found that if the leaflet has a lot of stomata cells it means a lot less carbon dioxide in the air at that time. When CO2 is plentiful, plants don’t need more oxygen lung power to get the carbon dioxide; if it has fewer cells that means there was a lot of carbon dioxide in the air.
And the beautiful thing about plant life taking in carbon dioxide is the byproduct is oxygen which we drastically need. What the plant stomata cells show during the past 1200 years: back in 800 A.D it says we were way up to 375 parts per million natural carbon dioxide and then dipped way down to 325 in one thousand A.D. Then it dipped way down to 230 and it dipped up down, up down, up down up, down. In year 2010 it was up at 375 parts per million.
Let’s look at the plant stomata that could be pretty darn real and also if you take a mean value of the plant stomata over the course of a thousand years you come out 301 parts per million. The main value of ice cores over a thousand year period 297 parts per million really darn close to being the same as now. Let’s take the plant stomata readings of the atmospheric carbon dioxide and overlay it onto our global warming and cooling Cycles during the past 1200 years.
We have had six global warming Cycles during the past 1200 years as noted here in the red. This is back around 850 A.D and then you can see it cools down then we warm up again, cool down warm up cool way down and so on for six global warming cycles. People don’t talk about that but we have had six of them.
When we overlay the plant stomata atmospheric carbon dioxide, guess what: We see a perfect fit. The high values in carbon dioxide peak on global warming cycles, so that brings a lot more credibility into the plants stomata cells for recording carbon dioxide.
So putting it all together we since 1850 NOAA and the IPCC say that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is 100% due to fossil fuel and human activity. The three studies I just showed you and the corrections I made on the ice core samples all show it’s 80% natural rise. Far too little fossil fuel effects to cause climate change, it is almost all natural.
Here we are today over here on the right the average is a global cooling cycle comes about every 230 years and the global cooling cycles last for a good 100, 150 years. So here we are right now, average for the return of the global cooling cycle is 230 years and the last global cooling cycle began in 1794. Add 230 to that and you calculate the year 2024.
This is 2023. so we should be sliding into a global cooling cycle, a natural global cooling cycle.
And we have signals that it is beginning. Global warming Cycles begin in the Arctic and the Antarctic when they warm up over the course of 20, 30 years or so. And as the Arctic and Antarctic warm up there’s less cold air available through the mid-latitudes. So over time the mid-latitudes warm up so that’s where global warming spreads.
In the next phase, global cooling also begins at the Arctic and the Antarctic.
What has happened just this past year, the spring and summer in the Arctic was the coldest on record. You had that during a global warming period, so that’s a signal that the Arctic is drastically cooling down. In 2021 the Antarctic had the coldest winter on record. How you have two records like that if you’re not sliding into global cooling?
There’s more cold air available and it’s going to cool down the mid-latitudes and that starts our global cooling cycle. And we’re coming into that right now. Winter 2020 was a third coldest January and February on record from Alaska through Central Northern Canada into Greenland. Antarctica as I indicated winter of 2021 coldest on record. Arctic 2022 coldest spring and summer on record since 1958, and the most Arctic Ice extent in 8 to 16 years.
The real main point is carbon dioxide increase is mainly natural, it is not causing a global warming cycle. It’s a natural global warming cycle and we’re sliding back into a natural global cooling cycle.
TN: If you had to make a prediction what would you think of the cooling between now and 2050. Do you think it will cool between now and 2050 are you fairly confident?
DD: Actually we’re going to see a pretty good cool down here into January. The whole atmospheric circulation is beginning to change the La Nina out in the Pacific is now fading it’s going to be gone here by mid to end of January, and we can see changes in the atmospheric circulation going on now. The cold air in Canada is going to start making its way down more into the United States during late January.
For this year we do see the drastic change and what we’re going to see really well through 2050 or so. The IPCC and NOAA say that the oceans are going to rise anywhere from eight to 26 inches during that time period. I say it may rise an inch, maybe not even that much because we’re going into a global cooling cycle now. The poles are cooling down.
Pacific Ocean has phases going back to the year 1580. For past 500 years we’ve seen these warm phase and cold phase Cycles in the Pacific Ocean which last for anywhere from about 25 to 40 years. The Pacific has been in a 40-year warm cycle which ties the record going back uh 500 years. Pacific is sliding into a cold or a cool phase ocean water cycle, and that’s going to help to cool down ,especially up around Alaska. And the Atlantic Ocean will be going into a cool phase of its own right after 2030 or so.
Between the two oceans cooling down and the natural global cooling cycle coming in we’re going to see a big dip in the temperatures worldwide during the next 10 to 15 years.
The global warming cycle took about a 20-year period to peek out warming from about the year 2000 up to about 2021 so it took 20 years to hit the peak; the cold cycle is going to take about 20 years to bottom out also at the coldest and that’s going to be around 2040 or so. Unitil the late 2030s so we’re going to be in an extremely cold period during that time, colder than the 1960s and 50s here in the United States.
TN: Is there any sort of a simple explanation as to what causes that 230 year cycle that you mentioned?
DD: The simple explanation is our glacial periods and interglatial periods become about every 120 000 years are due to the Earth path around the Sun; where the Earth swings out further away from the Sun and also the tilt of the earth also changes.
New data out is showing that we’ve actually been cooling down during the past five to six years. So this is all looking like we are already going gradually into a global cooling Cycle. But we’re going to see a more dramatic change in the cooling cycle.
What NOAA and IPCC are doing, their science is political science while we’re looking here today at real science. There’s a huge difference. Keep your eyes open the next few years and all of a sudden in a few years people are going to be saying: Wait a minute, what are we doing here? We’re down the wrong path we need to wake up.
Comment:
The underlying issue is the assumption that the future can only be warmer than the present. Once you accept the notion that CO2 makes the earth’s surface warmer (an unproven conjecture), then temperatures can only go higher since CO2 keeps rising. The present plateau in temperatures is inconvenient, but actual cooling would directly contradict the CO2 doctrine. Some excuses can be fabricated for a time, but an extended period of cooling undermines the whole global warming mantra.
It’s not a matter of fearing a new ice age. That will come eventually, according to our planet’s history, but the warning will come from increasing ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere. Presently infrastructures in many places are not ready to meet a return of 1950s weather, let alone something unprecedented.
Public policy must include preparations for cooling since that is the greater hazard. Cold harms the biosphere: plants, animals and humans. And it is expensive and energy intensive to protect life from the ravages of cold. Society can not afford to be in denial about the prospect of the current temperature plateau ending with cooling.
The claim for the mid-range, long-term warming potential of CH4 is 32 times that of CO2. However, that equivalence is for equal weights of the two gases!
The role of anthropogenic methane (CH4) in global warming is exaggerated. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), as measured at Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO), is above 420 ±0.7 ppmv (parts per million-volume) and is increasing about 2.8 ppmv annually. CH4 has a concentration of about 1.9 ppmv and is increasing about 0.014 ppmv annually. The anthropogenic contribution to the annual CH4 increase is a fraction of the total, probably about one-third, albeit the official estimate was increased in recent years. CH4 has more potential for warming than CO2, but it is effectively gone in about a decade, having a commonly cited long-term impact that is only about 32X that of an equal weight of CO2. Accounting for the CO2 warming equivalence on a mole-fraction basis reduces the equivalence factor to less than 12X. It is the long-term impact we need to be concerned about because of an arbitrary temperature threshold claimed to be threatening our survival after 2050. With CO2 being more than 200X as abundant, even with the greater potential impact of CH4, the Global Methane Pledge will, at most, achieve a 0.58% annualdecrease in CO2-equivalent CH4.
INTRODUCTION
More than 100 member nations, represented at the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, committed to the Global Methane Pledge (GMP). The GMP was created using information provided by Krane (2022) and others; it is a commitment to reduce the estimated 33% of total annual methane (CH4) emissions derived from fossil fuels, by at least 30%, compared to 2020. The intent is to reduce methane emissions because of the claimed greater warming potential of CH4 than CO2.
“…, the most common [metric] is the global warming potential (GWP). This can be used to express a tonne of a greenhouse-gas emitted in CO2 equivalent terms, in order to provide a single measure of total greenhouse-gas emissions (in CO2-eq).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated a GWP for methane between 84-87 when considering its impact over a 20-year timeframe (GWP20) and between 28-36 when considering its impact over a 100-year timeframe (GWP100). This means that one tonne of methane can considered to be equivalent to 28 to 36 tonnes of CO2 if looking at its impact over 100 years.”
Paraphrased from Chapter 8 (Physical Science Basis) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, the GWP of a greenhouse gas is defined as the integrated radiative forcing, over some time interval, resulting from a pulse emission of that greenhouse gas, as compared to an equal mass of CO2. After some caveats about the definitions and utility of the metric, it says, “Thus, the name ‘Global Warming Potential’ may be somewhat misleading, and ‘relative cumulative forcing index’ would be more appropriate.” They continue with, “The GWP has become the default metric for transferring emissions of different gases to a common scale; often called ‘CO2 equivalent emissions’ … The GWP for a time horizon of 100 years was later adopted as a metric to implement the multi-gas approach embedded in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and made operational in the 1997 Kyoto protocol.” This provides precedence for using a 32X multiplier rather than the commonly quoted 85X.
From Figure 1, below, the average annual CH4 emissions-increase over the period January 2018 – January 2022 was 0.014 ppmv. Therefore, the pledged annual reduction in fugitive CH4 would be less than 10% (30% of 33%) of 0.014 parts per million-volume, or 0.0014 ppmv annually. That is, the annual increase in CH4 emissions would decline from 0.014 to 0.013 ppmv. One should probably consider that an upper-bound, considering the history of compliance with IPCC goals.
Assuming that the equivalent long-term global warming potential of CH4 is about 32X that of CO2, the reduction goal would be equivalent to 0.044 ppmv of CO2 (32 x 0.0014). The net annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is about 2.8 ppmv recently, having ranged from about 2.0 to 3.6 ppmv over the last 20 years. [See Fig. 4 in Spencer (2021)]. Thus, the first-order estimate of the reduced warming impact of reducing anthropogenic CH4 would be less than 1.6% of the temperature increase attributed to the net annual CO2 increase. This approximation will be refined further, below. We can use this initial estimate as a sanity check on the refined estimate.
Unlike CO2, atmospheric CH4 does not always increase. As can be seen in Figure 1, above, CH4 concentrations plateaued during the decade from 1999 through 2009. It isn’t certain why that happened. It does suggest that we need to learn more about the CH4 cycle.
As recently as 2017, NOAA dismissed the claim that fugitive emissions resulting from fossil fuels were driving the increase in atmospheric CH4. However, that is inconvenient for the political activity at COP26 and 27. From Figure 1, above, the seasonal range (≈0.023 ppmv), which probably represents the natural emissions, is about twice the annual net increase (0.014 ppmv), which probably represents mostly anthropogenic emissions.
PROBLEMS
A problem is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is reported invariably as parts per million by volume (ppmv). Most commonly, one sees graphs of the increase in CH4 in units of parts per billion by volume (ppbv), as shown in Figure 1. Many people find it difficult to make direct comparisons because the scale used for CH4 inflates the amount subjectively by three orders of magnitude. For clarity and objectivity, CH4 should be reported in the same units as CO2 when comparing the relative warming potential.
Krane (2022) cites a source that claims “Over 20 years, methane causes 85 times more warming than the same amount of carbon dioxide.” There is a problem with this also. Chen and Zou (2022) state that “Based on the assessment in IPCC AR6, the methane perturbation lifetime is about 12 years. Others, such as NASA, claim that the methane is gone in 10 years. While opinions vary on the details, experts agree that CH4 only has a lifetime of about 10-12 years in the atmosphere. CH4 is converted to CO2 and is then counted in the monthly CO2 measurements as part of the CO2 flux. To simplify things, we could assume that most of the impact occurs in the first decade after release; however, our concern should be with the long-term impact. As noted above, the UNFCCC settled on the 100-year time-frame GWP for the 1997 Kyoto protocol.
There is yet another more important problem: Infrared radiation is absorbed by individual molecules of CO2 and CH4. Therefore, the proper measure of the potential warming is the relative number of molecules, or the mole fraction, not the bulk mass (molecular weight).
The claim for the mid-range, long-term warming potential of CH4 is 32 times that of CO2. However, that equivalence is for equal weights of the two gases! The multiplier is a poor choice for comparison because CO2 is more than two orders of magnitude more abundant than CH4 in the atmosphere. As pointed out previously, CH4 and CO2 atmospheric concentrations are reported typically as a volume fraction, not a weight fraction. Because they have different molecular weights, equal molecular concentrations of the two gases do not weigh the same. CH4 has a molecular weight (16.0 g/mole) about 36.4% of CO2 (44.0 g/mole). That is to say, when the equivalent warming potential of CH4 is calculated for the same volumetric concentration of CO2, or molecules in a given volume, the warming potential is significantly less than 32X. Specifically, 1.0 ppmv of CH4 has less than 12 times (11.6X) the long-term warming potential of 1.0 ppmv of CO2, not 32X. Rarely does the news media, or even the climatology community, make this distinction, quoting instead, the equal-mass (weight) equivalences. That makes the problem seem more threatening.
Not surprisingly then, there are some contradictions in a SciTechDailyarticle about methane ‘super-emitters.’ It quotes NASA Administrator Bill Nelson egregiously saying, “Reining in CH4 emissions is key to limiting global warming.” The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently above 420 ±0.7 ppmv. CH4 concentration is currently about 1.9 ppmv, which is equivalent to 22 ppmv of CO2, or about 5.2% of the CO2 concentration.
The recent annual increases in CH4, resulting from all emissions (0.014 ppmv/yr) is equivalent to about 0.16 ppmv/yr of CO2, which is about 5.8% of the annual CO2 increase, and only about a quarter of the average monthly uncertainty in the Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 measurements. Thus, assuming fossil fuels account for about 33% of the total annual CH4 emissions, fossil fuel emissions only account for about 0.054 ppmv CO2-equivalence, or about 1.9% of the annual CO2 increase. Reducing that 1.9% by 30% (1.9% x 0.30% = 0.58%) is not going to limit global warming! It is naive to think so. The expected CO2 -equivalence reduction resulting from the Global Methane Pledge is less than the uncertainty of the measured monthly CO2 concentrations.
SUMMARY
It is disingenuous for climate-change alarmists to focus on the large Absolute Global Warming Potential (AGWP) of CH4 on a weight-equivalence, because CO2 is more than two orders of magnitude more abundant than CH4 on a molecular basis, which is how the concentration and annual flux are reported usually. Furthermore, CO2 and CH4 have not been equally abundant since at least the early-Proterozoic Eon, meaning the last two billion years. Using a molecular basis (parts per million-volume mole-fraction) to account for the lighter CH4 reveals that the annual contribution to warming is a fraction of that claimed for CO2 and, therefore, attempts to reduce warming will have insignificant effects.
The global rate of increase of CH4 was about 0.014 ppmv/yr in 2020. The estimated fossil fuel contribution to that (33%) is 0.0046 ppmv and a 30% reduction of that is (0.30 x 0.0046) 0.0014 ppmv/yr. Converting that fractional flux to its long-term CO2-equivalence (11.6 x 0.0014) gives an annual reduction of 0.016 ppmv/yr. That is, if all nations on Earth were to achieve the pledge made by the 100+ COP26 nation-members, there might be about 0.016 ppmv less CO2-equivalence of CH4 emitted into the atmosphere annually. That is 0.58% of recent annual CO2 increases.
There was a 10% (by weight) average annual decline (monthly maximum decline > 18%) in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns of 2020, with no observable decline in the atmospheric CO2 rate of seasonal increase, seasonal maximum, or net annual increase. [See Spencer (2022)] We have no empirical evidence that a 0.58% decrease in CO2-equivalent CH4 will have a measurable impact. I consider the claim that focusing on reducing CH4 is the “cheapest, quickest way to reduce climate change without roiling the economy,” to be wishful thinking unsupported by the facts.
Approximately one-half to two-thirds of the annual emissions of CH4 are natural and not amenable to reduction by humans. (In fact, the recent movement to re-introduce beaver in locations where they have become extinct may increase CH4 emissions.) Historically, Conference of the Parties (COP) nation-members do not have a good record of achieving their pledges. We would be doing extremely well to decrease all anthropogenic CH4 emissions by half. Perhaps that is why the pledge goal is only 30% of the 33% (≈10%) attributed to fossil fuels. Thus, an expensive, concerted effort to reduce annual anthropogenic CH4 emissions might reduce the CO2-equivalence from 1.9% to about 1.3%. I would not consider that “key to limiting global warming.” The impact is truly lost in the noise.
REFERENCES
Lan, X., K.W. Thoning, and E.J. Dlugokencky: Trends in globally-averaged CH4, N2O, and SF6 determined from NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory measurements. Version 2023-02, https://doi.org/10.15138/P8XG-AA10
Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
CFACT helped lead an effort at Clemson University in South Carolina to determine the opinion of the student body on the issue of coal power in electricity generation. CFACT activists surveyed 985 students and found that a whopping 70% (69.95% to be exact) of students surveyed support the use of coal for electricity in South Carolina.
Clemson University junior and CFACT volunteer Fish Belk poses with his clipboard as he participates in the survey project on campus.
Clemson University students consider CFACT’s survey question about coal power.
CFACT helped lead an effort at Clemson University in South Carolina to determine the opinion of the student body on the issue of coal power in electricity generation. CFACT activists surveyed 985 students and found that a whopping 70% (69.95% to be exact) of students surveyed support the use of coal for electricity in South Carolina.
Specifically, CFACT asked students “Do you support the use of coal to power electricity in South Carolina?” 689 students said “yes,” 145 students said “no,” while 151 students said they were “unsure.”
Across the United States, reliable sources of electricity, such as coal, are being forced to close in the name of ill-advised “Net Zero” policy. Part of the thinking behind this is that many young people supposedly support such efforts. These survey results, however, clearly show that young college students at Clemson University don’t want to shut down any coal plants that would threaten grid reliability or affordability.
“Currently, coal power production in South Carolina contributes to cheap and reliable power for its citizens, and using government regulation to force it out will only destabilize our electrical infrastructure,” said Fish Belk, a junior that helped CFACT with the survey.
Another student gives his answer to CFACT’s survey.
“There’s been rumors that the state might shut down coal plants here in South Carolina,” said CFACT National Field Coordinator Greg Neff, who helped lead the effort on the ground. “I hope these results make state bureaucrats realize that not even liberal-leaning college students agree with their bad idea.”
According to the South Carolina Energy Office, the Palmetto State gets 28% of its electricity from coal, while solar and wind only make up 0.1% of South Carolina’s energy. Forcibly closing over a quarter of the state’s energy sources and trying to make that up from sources that don’t exist yet will only spell disaster for South Carolina families, seniors, and businesses.
Over the years, great advancements have been made in emissions and pollution regarding coal plants, and now many coal plants are equipped with emissions controls and scrubbers that stop things like carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide from ever reaching the atmosphere, including those in South Carolina. Carbon capture is also being employed around the nation, defeating the Leftist argument that the switch must be made to solar and wind as soon as possible in the name of the environment or “climate change.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.