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.
Want to build a new home? Forget it. Thinking about a loft extension? The local council will say no. Even chopping down a tree risks becoming a bureaucratic task.
Heat Pump Intallation Sicamous BC
Want to build a new home? Forget it. Thinking about a loft extension? The local council will say no. Even chopping down a tree risks becoming a bureaucratic task.
The UK has created one of the most restrictive planning systems in the world, and one that has brought a great deal of development to a shuddering halt. The Telegraph has the story.
There are, however, some exceptions. You might soon be able to install a giant heat pump, and an electric car charger the size of a phone box, without requiring planning permission at all. But hold on this is crazy.
At the rate the rules are changing, we might soon have huge heat pumps with a single tiny apartment attached to them. It is getting to the point where it would be better to admit the technology does not work particularly well – and come up with a better way of heating our homes while reducing carbon emissions at the same time.
Michael Gove’s Department of Levelling Up is hardly noted for its relaxed, easy-going approach to building new stuff. It has even blocked the redevelopment of old department stores.
Still, it seems minded to relax the rules in a significant way for “green” products. Why?
It turns out that larger heat pumps can run at lower speeds, and therefore make less noise than models currently allowed.
Most technologies, from smartphones to laptops, get smaller and smaller as they enter the mass market. Heat pumps by contrast get bigger and bigger.
Sure, there may well be some advantages to larger pumps. And for the Government, and Mr Gove in particular, to take a more relaxed approach to planning rules is always welcome.
Yet here’s the problem: it is very hard to see where this is going to stop. If the current pumps are not big enough, perhaps we will soon need even bigger ones. Or perhaps two pumps will be required to generate the necessary level of warmth.
Wild weather has pushed the Aussie State of Victoria’s fragile grid beyond breaking point during the last few days. The last thing Victoria needs is senior academics pushing non-solutions.
Wild weather has pushed the Aussie State of Victoria’s fragile grid beyond breaking point during the last few days. The last thing Victoria needs is senior academics pushing non-solutions.
A major blackout left 500,000 Victorian homes without power – but it shows our energy system is resilient
Published: February 14, 2024 8.10am AEDT Roger Dargaville Director Monash Energy Institute, Monash University
Half a million homes and businesses in Victoria were left without power late on Tuesday following a major power outage. The disruption occurred when severe winds knocked over several high-voltage electricity transmission towers, causing all four units of the Loy Yang A coal-fired power station to trip and go offline.
Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio described the blackout as “one of the largest outage events in the state’s history”.
The event has prompted questions about the reliability of the state’s electricity grid. But it’s important to note these extreme winds would have seriously disrupted any power system. It has little to do with the mix of renewable energy and conventional fossil fuels.
…
According to a statement from AEMO, the storm also damaged hundreds of powerlines and power poles and restoring electricity to all customers “may take days if not weeks”
…
Battery storage may have helped steady the grid. Batteries have ultra-rapid responses to these kinds of disuptions and can add or subtract power from the grid within milliseconds to keep the grid stable.
The immense vulnerability of Australia’s industrial heartland to the severing of a single connection to a distant coal plant is a disgrace.
I don’t know why Professor Dargaville suggested batteries might solve the problem. Batteries could have stabilised the grid – for a few minutes. The suggestion any remotely affordable level of battery capacity could have maintained grid supply in the face of major and prolonged transmission outages is absurd.
More powerlines might have improved the odds of electricity getting to where it is needed – but more powerlines would also have been damaged by the storm. At best this would be a very expensive solution to energy resilience.
A distributed network of modular nuclear power plants could have eliminated the risk of a single point of failure bringing down the system, and could have reduced or even eliminated widespread blackouts.
If a network of modular nuclear plants was established inside Melbourne, Melbourne would not have suffered a major outage after the connection to a distant coal plant was severed.
But nobody is implementing sensible energy solutions in today’s Australia. Australia’s climate obsessed politicians only permit uselessly unreliable green energy solutions which don’t actually solve anyone’s energy problems.
Last month the scandal broke that the Climate Change Committee (CCC) relied on just one year’s wind data when it advised MPs in 2019 that the U.K. would be able to rely on wind and solar power by 2050. This is despite U.K. annual wind varying by 39% from its maximum to its minimum during the period 2009-2022.
Last month the scandal broke that the Climate Change Committee (CCC) relied on just one year’s wind data when it advised MPs in 2019 that the U.K. would be able to rely on wind and solar power by 2050. This is despite U.K. annual wind varying by 39% from its maximum to its minimum during the period 2009-2022.
Now, it turns out that this error, major as it is, is a mere footnote compared with the much bigger problem of the mismatch between the CCC’s advice regarding carbon capture and storage and the Government’s stated intentions.
The U.K.’s ambition to achieve Net Zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 is heavily reliant on carbon capture and storage technology to remove all the CO2 that the country will still be producing.
According to the CCC report (see below), by 2050 the U.K. will need to be able to store 176 Mt of CO2 in order to achieve Net Zero emissions.
However, as things stand the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) states that by 2050 the U.K. will only have capacity to store 50 Mt of CO2, which is just over a quarter (28%) of what the CCC says is needed, falling 126 Mt short:
The U.K. is a first mover; we are aiming to support the establishment of two CCUS [carbon capture, usage and storage] clusters by the mid-2020s and a further two by 2030, through which we aim to capture 20-30 Mt CO2 per year. The long-term ambition is to reach 50 Mt CO2 annually by 2050. [emphasis added]
This massive shortfall guarantees that Net Zero cannot be achieved by 2050. Furthermore, it would in no way be possible to undertake the engineering and groundworks to build all that missing CO2 storage capacity by 2050, even if the U.K. had the money to fund it, which it does not.
There are of course all number of reasons why Net Zero is unachievable, unnecessary and unjustifiably costly. But the chasm between the amount of carbon capture the CCC says is needed to hit the target and the amount the Government actually thinks it will have available at the time means Net Zero is unachievable even on the Government’s own terms. It means that it doesn’t matter how much the Government cripples U.K. industry and drives it overseas, how successful it is in replacing dependable fossil fuels with intermittent renewables, it will never hit Net Zero by 2050 or anywhere close to it and has no credible plan to do so.
Do MPs and ministers realise this? The danger is that once they are alerted to the issue they will see it as a reason to redouble efforts to slash emissions and accelerate the building of carbon storage capacity. Of course, what they should do is add it to the ever-growing list of why Net Zero is a terrible idea that needs replacing with a proper energy policy that prioritises prosperity and security for the long term.
Stop Press: The Executive Chairman of Fortescue Metals, Andrew Forrest has said carbon capture is a “complete falsehood” that will never work. The Australian billionaire told the 50th anniversary meeting of the International Energy Agency: “We’re going to keep burning fossil fuels and somehow magically get rid of the carbon down into the ground where there is no proof that it will stay there, but heaps of proof that it fails. I say for policymakers everywhere, do not be the next idiot waiting for the old lie to be trotted out and say I believe in carbon sequestration. It has only failed for 75 years… It’s a complete falsehood.”
By commissioning expensive and inefficient wind and solar electric generating facilities, India may have dug the grave of its own efforts to save the critically endangered great Indian bustard. Erected to avert a faux climate crisis, the so-called renewable machines and their attendant transmission lines are helping to drive one of Earth’s largest flying birds to the brink of extinction.
By commissioning expensive and inefficient wind and solar electric generating facilities, India may have dug the grave of its own efforts to save the critically endangered great Indian bustard. Erected to avert a faux climate crisis, the so-called renewable machines and their attendant transmission lines are helping to drive one of Earth’s largest flying birds to the brink of extinction.
Avian aficionados such as myself have long bemoaned prioritizing wind and solar technologies at the expense of endangered species. Yet, the relentless push for needless climate solutions seems to ignore this as “green energy” installations and avian fatalities increase in tandem.
Though well documented, the issue of bird fatalities worldwide is frequently downplayed and, at times, even deemed a regrettable but essential consequence of the quasi-religious war against global warming.
As a master’s student at the University of East Anglia, U.K., I did a specialized research thesis on the collision-mortality of endangered bird species in Southern Portugal, which included kestrels, eagles, falcons, harriers and the European great bustard, which is a relative of the Indian bird. Numerous other species were affected as well.
Listed as Critically Endangered on the Red List of Threatened Species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the great Indian bustard stands more than 3 feet high and weighs more than 30 pounds.
The bird is endemic to the Thar desert region of West India. It has now become conclusive that wind and solar transmission lines in this region are driving their numbers very close to extinction in the wild.
In 2008, a survey estimated that there were only around 250 great Indian bustards in existence, limited to the states of Rajasthan and Gujarat. Fast forward to 2018, the count had dropped to 150, with 25 of these magnificent birds housed in the government’s captive breeding centers.
Prerna Singh Bindra, a wildlife conservationist and former member of the National Board for Wildlife, says, “In recent years, the death blow to the great Indian bustard has come from unexpected quarters — the expanse of wind farms and power transmission lines that crisscross its last remaining habitats … The question that needs to be asked is, how green is renewable energy when it leads to the extinction of a critically endangered species?”
If timely action is not taken, these grassland birds could be soon declared extinct, according to Indian biologists. The bustard’s habitat was greatly restricted by transmission lines belonging to wind turbines. This is a common problem worldwide. Collision mortality, loss of breeding and forage habitats, and impedance of migratory pathways are some of the main impacts of wind turbines.
It is not just the bustards. Over 100,000 birds of diverse species die as a result of electrocution from transmission lines connecting wind and solar to the grid, according to a Wildlife Institute of India report. The Supreme court of India, in a 2021 order, asked utility companies to install underground transmission lines and install markers to lessen hazards to birds. However, the companies continue to violate this order. Government interest in the case seems to be lacking, with insignificant funds allocated toward the issue and no proactive measures to assess bird populations or document changes in habitat.
While the country is very clear about ensuring continued use of fossil fuels to meet energy needs, the government’s delay in dismantling useless renewable energy projects is especially disappointing in light of their devastating effect on birds.
The arguments of “green” advocates that equate green energy infrastructure with house cats that also kill birds trivialize the issue. The feline at home is more likely a target than a predator of raptors and would rarely encounter aquatic species.
In this instance, the color of the climate alarmists’ favored machines is blood red, not green.
We should cite a source for this. Some may argue that hunting and/or loss of habitat is contributing to the bird’s decline.
Who says so?
This commentary was first published in American Thinker on February 11, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
A new paper (like so many before it) shows that the sea started warming half a century before the first coal fired power plant was ever built, demonstrating yet again, the skeptics are right, and CO2 is irrelevant.
A new paper (like so many before it) shows that the sea started warming half a century before the first coal fired power plant was ever built, demonstrating yet again, the skeptics are right, and CO2 is irrelevant. Despite that, the world’s supposedly top science journal lauded it in excitement because it showed the world had warmed “more than we thought”, and somehow, in their brains, ipso delerium, all warming was caused by man-made CO2 even if it occurred when there were no flights, no cars, and no electricity.
Life in 1820 was the ultimate “Net Zero” world: literally every flight was grounded and all petrol stations were closed for 80 years yet the world warmed.
Absurdly, evangelistic headlines decreed the world was “hotter than we thought”, had breached 1.5C earlier than we thought and three hundred year old sea sponges were telling us to hurry up and install solar panels. The point that the geniuses who are 99% certain didn’t know how hot the 1800s were until last week isn’t exactly inspiring. But the political activists at Nature felt that breaching the Paris Agreement (before it was even made) was big news and said so in their first paragraph. All the major nations are failing to meet their Paris targets anyway, and if the targets were expired before they were even set, that only makes the UN look stupid. And to top that off, somehow a thousand thermometers, ship buckets and tree rings have just been superseded by some old Puerto Rican sponges.
As it happens the team at Nature also seem to have forgotten they already announced in 2016 that global warming started 180 years ago. Perhaps they don’t read their own papers? (That was Abram et al).
Really, this new paper makes a great study in just how bad current science communication is — every single person in the chain of nonsense failed to see the bleeding obvious. The academics, the journal, the press release team and the “media” all missed the most important message the corals were shouting from the bottom of the ocean. Humans don’t control the climate.
By the time that official temperature records began, global temperatures had already risen by half a degree. The planet has already passed 1.5 °C of warming, according to a new measuring technique that goes back further in time than current methods. At the 2015 Paris Climate Accords, nations agreed not to exceed 1.5 °C, a guardrail of climate change.
“We have an alternate record of global warming,” says coral-reef geochemist Malcolm McCulloch at the University of West Australia Oceans Institute in Crawley, who is lead author of the study. “It looks like temperatures were underestimated by about half a degree.”
Even though the paper says the warming started in 1860, the data shows it started earlier, more like 1820. Apparently the Sr/Ca ratio is a good proxy for the temperature they say.
But 90% of human emissions have been emitted since World War II.
Absurdities of the modern era — that newspapers all over the world tell us CO2 is even more dangerous than we thought because of some sponges in the Caribbean.
REFERENCES
McCulloch, M.T., Winter, A., Sherman, C.E. et al. 300 years of sclerosponge thermometry shows global warming has exceeded 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Chang.14, 171–177 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01919-7
Abram, et al (2016) Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents, Nature, VOL 536, p 415
Christiansen, B. and Ljungqvist F. C. (2012). The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Climate of the Past, 8(2):765–786, 2012. [abstract] [PDF] [NASA copy] [Discussion on CA noted a lack of complete archives and code]
Jevrejeva, S., A. Grinsted, J. C. Moore, and S. Holgate (2006), Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records, J. Geophys. Res., 111,
Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth (2008), Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611. [PDF]
Ljungqvist, F. C., Krusic, P. J., Brattström, G., and Sundqvist, H. S (2012).: Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries, Clim. Past, 8, 227-249, doi:10.5194/cp-8-227-2012, 2012. [abstract] [PDF] or try this [PDF] [CO2science discussion]
Quansheng Ge et al, Characteristics of temperature change in China over the last 2000 years and spatial patterns of dryness/wetness during cold and warm periods, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s00376-017-6238-8
Britain already has more than enough climate obsessed children and adults, China pouring fuel on the fire of Western climate fanaticism is not an action which will benefit the nations which receive such interventions.
Why would the nation which has benefited the most from green de-industrialisation pay for training the next generation of global eco-warriors?
Students learn life lessons in climate change debate
By XING YI in London | chinadaily.com.cn | Updated: 2024-02-13 00:55
Students from 23 schools around the world took part in the third Model United Nations Conference ‘Good COP Bad COP’, organized by British educational charity Engage with China, or EWC, on Feb 2.
Themed around climate change and the COP, or Conference of the Parties, the Model UN saw more than 200 student negotiators using their skills to find consensus on dealing with issues such as single-use plastics, fast fashion, and food waste.
The event, running for the third year, gave pupils from different countries, including China, the United Kingdom and Brazil, an opportunity to come face to face with students their own age from different backgrounds and life experiences.
…
Zhang Jin, minister counselor for education at the Chinese Embassy in the UK, said: “Facing global challenges, no country can solve it alone or remain unaffected; countries and peoples need to transcend borders and ideologies, work together to find common ground.
“I’m delighted to see you, young students from various countries, are trying to understand your peers from different backgrounds, respect these differences, and find solutions agreed and accepted by all.”
I’m not saying everything China pays for is automatically bad. China has splashed a lot of money over the last few years, winning hearts and minds, and perhaps this climate outreach effort is simply another Chinese effort to build bridges.
But regardless of China’s motivation, I don’t believe China’s sponsorship of these kinds of events will benefit Britain, or any other Western nations which participate. Britain already has more than enough climate obsessed children and adults, China pouring fuel on the fire of Western climate fanaticism is not an action which will benefit the nations which receive such interventions.
It is little wonder that so many have little confidence in the Met Office anymore.
Even Richard Betts would have difficulty defending this latest disgraceful episode!
I sent the Met Office an FOI, asking for evidence supporting this claim.
They have now replied, saying they have none.
OUCH!!!!
The rest of their reply waffles on about model projections of stronger storms in future, which of course has no relevance to the claim at all. They even sent a link to this report to clarify the background:
So Claire Nasir clearly lied when she claimed that storms were more intense. Her exact words according to the Met Office were:
She should be reprimanded, and the Met Office should publish a full correction.
It is little wonder that so many have little confidence in the Met Office anymore.
Even Richard Betts would have difficulty defending this latest disgraceful episode!
UPDATE
I have now emailed this complaint to the Met Office:
I would like to draw your attention to a false claim made by one of your senior meteorologists recently.
On 22nd January, the day after Storm Isha, your senior meteorologist, Claire Nasir stated on BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast that “when we see these storms they are more intense and that’s down to climate change”.
However, following a FOI asking for evidence of this claim, you have admitted that you have no such evidence. Your reply also referred to your own recent reports, which also confirm there has been no trend in maximum wind speeds since 1969.
Your State of the UK Climate 2022 report goes further, emphasising that several storms during the 1980s and 90s were much more severe than anything seen in the last ten years.
The public has been seriously misled by this untrue claim.
I request that you publish a full retraction and provide the public with the correct information.
Would you please acknowledge receipt of this complaint and confirm that it is being dealt with.
World leaders promote hydrogen as a possible low-emissions fuel for transportation and industry. Nations have announced hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to support development and supply of hydrogen. But will governments be able to create a new green hydrogen fuel industry?
World leaders promote hydrogen as a possible low-emissions fuel for transportation and industry. Nations have announced hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to support development and supply of hydrogen. But will governments be able to create a new green hydrogen fuel industry?
When hydrogen burns, the only combustion product is water vapor. Net Zero advocates, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), propose that green hydrogen be used as fuel in place of natural gas and coal in industry and transportation. But the problems with existing hydrogen technology are many.
For all practical purposes, a hydrogen fuel industry does not exist today. Ninety-five million tons of hydrogen are produced annually by steam methane reforming using natural gas or by coal gasification methods. But the vast majority of hydrogen is not used as fuel. It is used on-site as feedstock for industrial processes.
Chemical and refining industries, for example, use hydrogen to generate ammonia or methanol. The steel industry uses hydrogen as a reducing agent to produce direct reduced iron. Hydrogen feedstock made from natural gas or coal is inexpensive, with a cost as low as $1 per kilogram.
Instead of using natural gas or coal, hydrogen advocates propose to use wind and solar electricity to produce “green” hydrogen by electrolysis of water. They also propose to create a new hydrogen fuel industry and to ship hydrogen around the world through pipelines or ships. But hydrogen from electrolysis is very expensive to produce and very difficult to transport.
To produce a kilogram of hydrogen by electrolysis, electricity alone costs $3 to $6 per kilogram, resulting in a total cost of at least $5 per kilogram. This makes hydrogen from electrolysis more than five times as expensive as hydrogen made from natural gas or coal.
Nevertheless, nations are rushing to try to establish a leadership position in a new green hydrogen fuel industry. The Biden administration has awarded grants to firms to establish seven regional hubs to produce green hydrogen. Germany, India, and Japan have announced national strategies to produce and export hydrogen. Forty-one countries now have a green hydrogen strategy in place.
More than 280 billion in government subsidies have been announced to try to create a green hydrogen industry that, according to the IEA, totaled only a miniscule $1.4 billion in 2022. Advocates propose to use hydrogen fuel in heavy industry, transportation, and even homes.
Cement, chemicals, plastics, and steel industries are urged to use hydrogen fuel in furnaces and other energy-intensive processes. To date, these efforts have been experimental. Little green hydrogen exists to fuel these industries. In addition, the amount of electricity needed from wind and solar systems to drive electrolyzers to produce green hydrogen for heavy industry is huge.
It has been estimated that the incremental renewable electricity needed to produce hydrogen fuel just for the steel industry is larger than the world’s total current output of renewable electricity. The amount of renewable electricity needed to drive electrolyzers to produce hydrogen for the chemical industry is three times as large as what is needed for steel.
Hydrogen vehicle fleets remain tiny. In 2022, only 70,000 hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles operated across the world, compared to more than 30 million electric vehicles and about 1.5 billion gasoline or diesel light vehicles. Hydrogen fuel use is small but growing in niche markets, such buses, trains, and factory forklifts. But the performance of hydrogen vehicles is spotty.
California has a network of 65 hydrogen fueling stations, the only such network in the US. But after tens of millions of dollars in state subsidies, only about 12,000 hydrogen cars drive on California roads, less than one of every 1,000 vehicles. An ongoing hydrogen fuel shortage in southern California makes it hard to refuel vehicles. Hydrogen vehicle fuel remains more expensive than gasoline and hard to find.
Not only is green hydrogen expensive to produce, but hydrogen is difficult to transport. Hydrogen must be supercooled to -253degrees Celsius to liquify it, or it must be super-pressurized to 700 atmospheres, about 300 times the air pressure in your car tire. Even at 700 atmospheres of pressure, hydrogen at a filling station requires storage tanks with seven times the volume of gasoline to store the same energy.
Hydrogen pipeline networks do not exist and transporting hydrogen by ship is also very expensive. For the world to use hydrogen fuel, production, pipeline, and ship transport industries would all need to be established. This is unlikely to happen in most people’s lifetimes.
Some have even advocated the use of hydrogen for home heating. But hydrogen is nature’s smallest molecule, is prone to leaks, and will ignite with low levels of energy such as static electricity. Some years ago, lighting stuck our house, damaging appliances and causing a leak in our natural gas line. We soon smelled gas and were able to repair the leak without further damage. Had that been a hydrogen line, the leak would likely have exploded or burst into flame, destroying our house. Hydrogen lines to homes and gas stations involve dangerous safety risks.
Today, hydrogen is used on-site, but governments now want to create a new hydrogen fuel industry using market intervention, mandates, and massive subsidies. But physics and economics strongly oppose the development of a green hydrogen fuel industry. Get ready for a spectacular failure of these government-sponsored efforts.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and the author of the new bestselling bookGreen Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
A recent article at The Hill claims that climate change is reversing the multi-decade trend of improving air quality in the United States, due to increased PM2.5 from wildfires and ozone from heatwaves, making it unsafe for children to play outside. This is false, air quality is improving, and the suggestion that kids should avoid outdoor play is hazardous to their health.
Silhouette, group of happy children playing on meadow, sunset, summertime
A recent article at The Hill claims that climate change is reversing the multi-decade trend of improving air quality in the United States, due to increased PM2.5 from wildfires and ozone from heatwaves, making it unsafe for children to play outside. This is false, air quality is improving, and the suggestion that kids should avoid outdoor play is hazardous to their health.
According to The Hill, the study’s authors project that “by midcentury, the increased levels of microscopic soot particles (PM10 and PM2.5) and ozone molecules entering Americans’ lungs will be back to the levels they were at in 2004–before a decades-long federal campaign to clean up the air.”
This is an odd claim, lacking any basis in data. In fact, since the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1963, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency outlined its first official standards for particulate matter and ozone in 1971, measured pollutants, including PM10, PM2.5, and ground level ozone have all declined dramatically.
First Street researchers and The Hill claim PM2.5 is being driven up by increased wildfires, but the fact is, wildfires aren’t getting worse due to climate change.
Currently available data from the National Interagency Fire Center show that while there was an increase in total acres burned between 1983 and the early 2000s, it has since leveled off, and the last two years have had some of the lowest wildfire incidences in the United States in recent years. Older data, much of which was expunged from the NIFC website in 2020, show that wildfires were much worse in the early 20th century than they are today. This trend does not track with the theory that wildfires are driven by fossil fuel use, and global warming. (See figure below)
The increase post-1983 is due almost entirely to a change in forestry practices and management, rather than the modest warming of the past few decades, as described in manyClimate Realism posts.
Additionally, satellites have been keeping track of wildfires for decades now, and that data clearly show that not only are wildfires not becoming more common or intense, they have declined since the early 2000s.
Since there are fewer wildfires, there is less smoke from wildfires, which means wildfires can’t be causing an increase in bad air days necessitating keeping kids indoors for their health. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data confirm this fact. The EPA reports that during the recent period of modest warming, since 1990 PM10 declined by 32 percent. In 2000, the EPA shifted its attention to also monitoring and regulating the emission of smaller particulate matter particles, PM2.5. Since then, PM2.5 has fallen by 37 percent.
With regards to ozone pollution, First Street argues that rising temperatures will increase ground level ozone, especially in major cities. The reality is that the best available temperature data does not show any increase in high temperature anomalies. (See figure below)
Also, the EPA’s air quality index data is available to the public, so we can look at what the air quality trends are for almost any major city. Taking New York City, since it is the largest city in America, we can see that air quality with regards to particulate matter seems to be getting much better in recent years, with only a few bad days last year (2023) due to that summer’s Canadian wildfires, many of which were started by arsonists. (See figure below)
The EPA’s air quality data show that overall, as the Earth has modestly warmed, ground-level ozone has declined 21 percent, since 1990. Once again, if ozone is declining, climate change can’t be making the air less healthy for children.
It is widely believed that many of today’s youths spend too much time indoors, wedded to their computers, video gaming systems, cell phones, and other devices. On this point an MIT study found:
Compared to the 1970s, children now spend 50% less time in unstructured outdoor activities. Children ages 10 to 16 now spend, on average, only 12.6 minutes per day in vigorous physical activity. Yet they spend an average of 10.4 waking hours each day relatively motionless.
Simultaneous to the decline in outdoor play, has been an increase in childhood obesity and associated diseases like diabetes. As a result, advocating keeping kids indoors while air quality is improving endangers their health, rather than protecting them from harm. This is especially true when one realizes that the U.S. EPA has found that indoor air contains two to five times more pollutants than outdoor air on average.
Outdoor air has not become more dangerous for children, but avoiding outdoor play and activities is a proven health hazard. The Hill should cautiously examine studies from organizations like the First Street Foundation with a skeptical eye, and check the hard data and context, before unnecessarily alarming its readers, and encouraging them to take actions that could result in poorer health for themselves and their kids. Climate change attribution is a hammer wielded by climate alarmists with each and every “non-optimal” weather condition or human health threat being nails they can drive their narrative and agenda home with, regardless of what the facts say.
You must be logged in to post a comment.