Climate change

How Greenpeace Games the System

This is a summary of a talk by Dr. Willie Soon presented at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness conference on July 20, 2019.

This analysis can be applied to many radical environmental organizations.

You can download the PDF – 75 pages- of the full paper upon which the talk is based. One of the authors of the paper is Dr. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace. Moore has dis-owned Greenpeace because of their policies.

Some excerpts from The Greenpeace Business Model:

Although Greenpeace relies heavily on marketing, advertising, and free market principles, they promote socialist and anti-capitalist ideals in their messaging.

Greenpeace has successfully created a public perception that they are fighting to protect humanity, nature and the environment from the evils of corrupt industries and vested interests. This perception is so popular and wide-spread that whenever Greenpeace speaks out on an issue it is automatically assumed to be true, and anybody who questions Greenpeace’s claims is assumed to be corrupt. However, as we will discuss in this report, the reality is almost exactly the opposite…

Greenpeace is a very successful business. Their business model can be summarized as follows:

1) Invent an “environmental problem” which sounds somewhat plausible. Provide anecdotal evidence to support your claims, with emotionally powerful imagery.

2) Invent a “simple solution” for the problem which sounds somewhat plausible and emotionally appealing, but is physically unlikely to ever be implemented.

3) Pick an “enemy” and blame them for obstructing the implementation of the “solution”. Imply that anybody who disagrees with you is probably working for this enemy.

4) Dismiss any alternative “solutions” to your problem as “completely inadequate”.

At each of the four stages, they campaign to raise awareness of the efforts that they are allegedly making to “fight” this problem. Concerned citizens then either sign up as “members” (with annual fees) or make individual donations (e.g., $25 or more) to help them in “the fight”. This model has been very successful for them, with an annual turnover of about $400 million. Although technically a “not for profit” organization, this has not stopped them from increasing their asset value over the years, and they currently have an asset value of $270 million– with 65% of that in cash, making them a cash-rich business. Several other groups have also adopted this approach, e.g., Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Although their business relies heavily on marketing, advertising, and free market principles, they promote socialist and anti-capitalist ideals in their messaging. As a result, their campaigning efforts appear to resonate strongly with left-leaning parties and liberal media. By draping themselves in “moral clothing”, Greenpeace has been very effective at convincing these progressive organizations that anything Greenpeace says is “good” and “true”, and whatever they criticize is “bad” and “corrupt”. However, as we discuss in this report, Greenpeace is not actually helping to protect the environment, or exposing real problems. Instead, they are:

1) Creating unnecessary feelings of guilt, panic and frustration among the general public. Greenpeace then make money off this moral outrage, guilt and helplessness.

2)Vilifying the innocent as “enemies”. Once you have been tarred by Greenpeace’s brush, any attempts to defend yourself are usually treated with suspicion or even derision.

3) Deliberately fighting honest attempts by other groups to tackle the “environmental problems” that Greenpeace claim need to be tackled.

4) Distorting the science to generate simplistic “environmental crises” that have almost nothing to do with the genuine environmental issues which should be addressed.

Conclusions about Greenpeace from the full paper:

1. They are intentionally fooling the public about the “vested interests” associated with each of their campaigns.

2. In order to create the impression that “the science is settled” on their campaign issues, they oversimplify the often quite-nuanced views of the scientific community, and simultaneously try to shut down any further scientific enquiry into the topic.

3. They are intentionally shutting down genuine discussion on implementing solutions on the environmental “crises” they claim to have identified.

4. They are distracting public attention away from genuine environmental concerns.

Related:

Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé (link) In this book, Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise exposes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a fraud. LaFramboise spent two years investigating the IPCC. She says it acts like a spoiled teenager, hence the title of the book.

Advertisements

Claim: Global warming is increasing the intensity of the North American Monsoon

New research by the Southwest Watershed Research Center and the University of Arizona department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences claims that global warming is causing our monsoon season to be more intense. KGUN9 carried the story (link). You can read the whole paper, published in Geophysical Research Letters: Intensification of the North American Monsoon Rainfall as Observed From a Long-Term High-Density Gauge Network (link).

KGUN9 (a local TV station) characterizes this news as a bad thing (and we all know that global warming produces only bad results): “The higher intensity can also spell trouble for soil, as erosion would happen more often and quicker. Infrastructure, the researchers said, is also at stake. Drains, washes, walls and bridges need to be built to withstand a higher flood capacity.”

I my opinion, the purpose of this paper was to give the authors publishing credits, because it seems to do little else.

The research paper says: “The mean of rainfall intensities exceeding the 95th percentile have been increasing during 1961–2017 period for all durations longer than 1 hr at a rate of 0.50 to 0.03 mm/hr per decade….” Does an increase in the rate of precipitation of half a millimeter per hour per decade sound troublesome? (A millimeter is about the thickness of a penny.)

The study was conducted in the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed which is centered on Tombstone, AZ. Data were collected from 59 rain gauges dispersed over an area of about 58 square miles. (Metropolitan Tucson covers about 237 square miles.) In my opinion, making broad claims from such a small sample base is problematic.

The intensity of monsoon storms is highly variable; so is the amount of rain in individual storms. Let’s see if/how the amount of rain varies with temperature during the monsoon season.

Here is Figure 1 from the scientific paper showing the array of rain gauges and the area temperature and precipitation. If you look at panels “c” and “d” on the right side of the figure, there seems to be no relationship between temperature and the amount of precipitation.

Looking at the broader Southwest, we see there is also no relation between temperature and precipitation during the monsoon season. Note that the region has warmed since 1970 when climate scientists were predicting an imminent return to a glacial epoch.

 

Regarding the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, the researchers say “Average summer rainfall, May through September, over the watershed for the 1961–2017 period has been approximately 293 mm (112 to 370 mm range), which represents approximately 60% of the annual total (Figure 1a).” That amount seems much higher than the amounts shown on the graph of the broader southwestern region. Extrapolation of conclusions from the small study area may not be justified for the region as a whole.

A better title for this paper is “Global warming has almost no influence on the intensity of the North American Monsoon.”

Studies like this should be taken with a grain of salt (and perhaps with a lime wedge and Tequila).

Real-world Evidence that CO2 Emissions and Fossil Energy Enhance the Human Environment

This post is part of a presentation from the Heartland Institute’s 13th International Conference on Climate Change by Dr. Craig D. Idso. (Read paper and see slides here).

Excerpts:

In today’s world it’s almost impossible to avoid the seemingly daily deluge of pessimism surrounding climate change. The intended message and unifying thread of these so-called journalistic reports is that dangerous climate change, caused by rising levels of atmospheric CO2, is presently occurring to the detriment and peril of humanity and the natural world. And because the combustion of fossil fuels is the principal source behind the CO2 rise, society must abandon all use of fossil fuels. In a nutshell, this is the position and objective of climate activists, who seek to enforce government and private sector efforts to restrict fossil fuel use via tax, caps or fiat limits on CO2 emissions.

Reality, however, paints a much different picture. The real story is that there is no upcoming climate catastrophe and CO2 emissions and fossil energy should be celebrated for enhancing life and improving the standard of living for humanity and the natural world, and they will continue to do so as more fossil fuels are used in the future. Consequently, efforts to restrict CO2 emissions or limit fossil energy should be avoided, as such actions will most certainly bring about adverse outcomes and unintended consequences that will harm humanity and nature.

How CO2 emissions and fossil energy improve human prosperity:

1) Countries with lower per capita CO2 emissions have lower values of per capita GDP, whereas countries with higher per capita CO2 emissions have higher per capita GDP. So what does this mean? As countries have embraced and increased their production of fossil energy, their citizens have been amply rewarded with increased economic development and growth.

2) Higher CO2 emissions are associated with lower levels of extreme poverty. Nations enjoying the lowest percentages of their citizens living in extreme poverty are those that use the highest amounts of fossil energy. Consequently, it can confidently be concluded that abundant access to energy is an essential component to improving a nation’s living standards and alleviating its poverty.

3) A third metric documenting the positive relationship between fossil fuel use and human prosperity is found in trends of global literacy. For most of the first hundred years of the record, the vast majority of the population older than 15 was unable to read and write; in 1820 only one out of every ten persons older than 15 years was literate. By 1930 the literate portion of this population jumped to one-third. Fast forward to the present and 4.6 billion out of the 5.4 billion persons on earth today over the age of 15 can read and write. Contrast that to two centuries ago when there were less than 100 million who shared these skills. Thankfully, as nations have utilized fossil energy to industrialize, their populations have spent less time performing labors required of sustenance living and more time in the classroom becoming literate and gaining an education.

4) Plots the two hundred year trend of human life expectancy and fossil fuel consumption, revealing a high degree of correlation among the two records. Two hundred years ago, the average life expectancy of a child born was a mere 29 years. Health care was relatively non-existent and 43% of the world’s newborns died before reaching their 5th birthday. Thereafter, things began to change, though slowly at first. Society began to use fossil fuels on a much larger scale and industrialize. Rising energy production brought economic prosperity and literacy, which helped reduce poverty. Housing and sanitation improved. People ate more and they ate healthier, nutritious foods. A more educated population coupled with fast-developing societies provided fertile ground for key scientific breakthroughs in modern medicine that both saved and prolonged lives.

Fossil energy has also improved the natural world:

1) Among the most commonly recognized of these CO2-induced benefits to the natural world is an increase in plant productivity and growth. This occurs because carbon dioxide is the primary raw material or “food” utilized by the vast majority of plants to produce the organic matter out of which they construct their tissues, which matter subsequently becomes the ultimate source of food for nearly all animals and humans. And, as has been demonstrated in literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments conducted on hundreds of different plant species, the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants grow. And the better plants grow, the more food there is available to sustain the entire biosphere.

2) A second major biological benefit stemming from the modern rise of atmospheric CO2 is increased plant water use efficiency.

3) A third major benefit of the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 is an amelioration of environmental stresses and resource limitations. Here, atmospheric CO2 has been shown to help reduce the detrimental effects caused by stresses of high soil salinity, high air temperature, low light intensity and low levels of soil fertility. Elevated levels of CO2 have additionally been demonstrated to reduce the severity of low temperature stress, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory (animals eating plants). ☼

Note: Dr. Craig Idso is the chief scientist of the blog: http://www.co2science.org/ an organization which reviews and reports on scientific literature. The folks at CO2Science have just established a non-profit educational organization advocating for the continued development and improvement of society and the natural environment: The Institute for the Human Environment ☼

 

Climate Madness 13 – Climate Emergency Scam and other nonsense

Former EPA scientist and economist Alan Carlin opines, “Climate alarmism is probably the most insidious, largest, and most dangerous scam ever perpetrated on the American public and most of the developed world. Unless brought down by reality, it is now reaching such dimensions that it could even end the position of the current developed countries as the primary engine for economic and technological progress. Instead, the dictates of climate alarmism may eventually consume as much as half of the resources available and yield nothing but climate virtue signaling.” (Source)

The following are news stories concerning global warming and the quest to stop climate change, a natural process that has been happening for about four billion years. There is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide plays a significant role in controlling global temperature. There are several lines of physical evidence showing that it doesn’t, see: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Here are the latest bits of climate madness:

The craziest: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are pushing Congress to declare a “climate emergency.” “The global warming caused by human activities, which increase emissions of greenhouse gases, has resulted in a climate emergency…requiring a national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization of the resources and labor of the United States at a massive-scale.” (Read story in the Washington Times)

But Sanders and AOC are not alone: Universities to declare ‘Climate Emergency’ – Seek ‘drastic societal shift’ to help shape ‘young minds’ [i.e. brainwashing]

As institutions and networks of higher and further education from across the world, we collectively declare a Climate Emergency in recognition of the need for a drastic societal shift to combat the growing threat of climate change. The young minds that are shaped by our institutions must be equipped with the knowledge, skills and capability to respond to the ever-growing challenges of climate change. We all need to work together to nurture a habitable planet for future generations and to play our part in building a greener and cleaner future for all. (Read more at Climate Depot).

AOC’s Green New Deal would boost gas tax $10-$13, ‘destroy economy’

by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner

The socialistic Green New Deal, pushed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and winning broad support from Democratic presidential candidates could lead to a $10 increase on a single gallon of gas, according to a new study of the so-called “carbon tax” and the liberal bid to rid vehicles that burn fossil fuels. (Read moreSee also: AOC’s Top Aide Admits Green New Deal Not About The Climate; it is more about drastically overhauling the American economy.

Prince Charles: 18 Months To Fix Climate Change Or Humans Will Go Extinct

by James Delingpole

The Prince of Wales has warned global leaders that “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.” (Read more)

Pop Star will not have children due to climate anxiety

“Pop star turned Planned Parenthood activist Miley Cyrus will not consider having a child due to global warming-related anxiety, vowing not to reproduce until she is confident her offspring can ‘live on an earth with fish in the water.’” (Fact check: fish currently exist in bodies of water all over the planet). (Source)

Climate Extremists Offering Lessons to Activists on How to Use Super Glue

An Aussie climate activist group is worried that their supporters can’t read the instructions on tubes of super glue, so they are holding training sessions to ensure activists know how to glue themselves to pavements and miscellaneous landmarks. (Read more).

A Debate Over Whether Air Conditioning Should Be Banned Has People Fired Up

The New York Times recently published an op-ed titled “Do Americans Need Air-Conditioning?” which makes the argument that our dependence on air conditioning and intolerance of the heat is a First World learned behavior. Yet, the author also acknowledges that women tend to have more of an aversion to chilly offices than men. It’s not difficult to see things from both perspectives, however the debate took on a whole new life when Atlantic writer Taylor Lorenz weighed in. “Air-conditioning is unhealthy, bad, miserable, and sexist,” she wrote, tweeting the article. “I can’t explain how many times I’ve gotten sick over the summer because of overzealous AC in offices,” adding the hashtag “#BanAC.” (Source)

Predictions are hard, especially about the future:

Coffee Bean Apocalypse Called Off As Surplus Sends Prices Tumbling

For years, the mainstream media was predicting a coffee bean apocalypse caused by climate change. Now we’re drowning in too much coffee (must be all that CO2 that plants love) while demand for anything with caffeine surges. Even in Central America, where pandering Democrats tell us climate change is decimating the area, they’re overproducing too much coffee. (Source)

See some other failed predictions:

Earth Day predictions

Predictions of an ice-free Arctic Ocean

Global temperature continues divergence from model predictions

‘Climate Emergency’: Ireland Set to Ban Private Cars While Planning Mass Third World Migration

Drivers will be forced off the roads in Ireland and the population packed into “higher density” cities under a long-awaited climate plan which will ‘revolutionize’ people’s lifestyle and behaviours, according to local media. “Nudge” policies such as huge tax hikes, as well as bans and red tape outlined in the plan, will pave the way to a “vibrant” Ireland of zero carbon emissions by 2050 according to the government, which last year committed to boost the country’s 4.7 million-strong population by a further million with mass migration. In order to avert a “climate apocalypse”, the government plans to force people “out of private cars because they are the biggest offenders for emissions”, according to transport minister Shane Ross whose proposals — which include banning fossil fuel vehicles from towns and cities nationwide — are posed to cripple ordinary motorists, local media reports. (Read more)

New York Virtue Signaling:

New York’s climate change solution: Harm regular people for no noticeable benefit

By Gregory Wrightstone

Last week, the New York City Council approved a resolution declaring a climate emergency that it hopes will mobilize efforts to forestall the devastation of purported global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. While entirely symbolic and not even needing presidential hopeful Mayor Bill de Blasio’s signature, the council said its action could make America’s largest city a global leader “by organizing a transition to renewable energy and climate emergency mobilization effort.” (Source)

New York to Ban Hot Dogs Because Climate Change

by Eric Worrall

New York’s famous hot dogs could soon be a thing of the past. NYC considering banning hot dogs and other processed meats over climate change. Read more

The Man-Made Natural Gas Shortage Just Hit NYC

Following moves by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy to nix a pipeline that could deliver vital gas supplies to the city and Long Island, National Grid can no longer offer new gas hookups or additional service for current customers. The govs nixed the pipelines in a pander to climate-change radicals. Yet the shortage won’t only hit well-off developers and businesses: It’ll also threaten projects meant for low- and middle-income New Yorkers. (Source)

Back to the Dark Ages: German Greens Look to Ban All Industrial Farming

The Daily Telegraph

The Green party in Germany has said it intends to ban industrial farming as part of a wide-ranging and costly package to combat climate change should they come to power. (Source)

Bad timing:

A new climate modeling study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison claims that ice fishing, hockey, skating and skiing on frozen lakes are endangered by global warming. The study states that such “iconic cold-weather past-times could become a rare winter treat” due to global warming. The report was released in Janurary during an historic cold spell that is shattering low-temperature records across the USA. See: NEARLY 90% OF US BELOW-FREEZING Chicago’s record for coldest temperature ever could fall.

Streaming online pornography produces as much CO2 as Belgium

From The NewScientist

The transmission and viewing of online videos generates 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or nearly 1 per cent of global emissions. On-demand video services such as Netflix account for a third of this, with online pornographic videos generating another third. This means the watching of pornographic videos generates as much CO2 per year as is emitted by countries such as Belgium, Bangladesh and Nigeria. That’s the conclusion of a French think tank called The Shift Project. (Source)

 

See also: Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

 

Previous Climate Madness posts:

 

Climate Madness 1

Climate Madness 2

Climate Madness 3

Climate Madness 4  

Climate Madness 5

Climate Madness 6

Climate Madness 7

Climate Madness 8

Climate Madness 9

Climate Madness 10

Climate Craziness, Politics, and Hypocrisy

Climate madness 12 – California is the craziest

A New Look at the Physics of Earth’s Atmosphere

Irish researchers Michael Connolly and Ronan Connolly present three papers based on radiosonde data that may change our understanding of how the atmosphere works.

 

Traditionally, the temperature of the atmosphere has been estimated from measurements at the bottom of the atmosphere (surface temperatures) and from the top – satellite measurements. The Connolly’s use balloon-borne radiosondes to look within the atmosphere from the surface to 25 miles up.

Their findings contradict the predictions of current atmospheric models, which assume the temperature profiles are strongly influenced by greenhouse gas concentrations. This suggests that the greenhouse effect plays a much smaller role in barometric temperature profiles than previously assumed.

The Connolly’s discovered a phase change associated with the troposphere-tropopause transition, which also occurs in the lower troposphere under cold, polar winter conditions. They found that when this phase change is considered, the changes in temperature with atmospheric pressure (the barometric temperature profiles) can be described in relatively simple terms. These descriptions do not match the radiative physics-based infra-red cooling/radiative heating explanations used by current models.

The phase change is due to partial multimerization (weak bonding) of the main atmospheric gases, and therefore is a phase change which has not been considered by the current climate models. If this theory is correct, then this offers new insight into the formation of jet streams, tropical cyclones, polar vortices, and more generally, cyclonic and anti-cyclonic conditions. It also offers a new mechanism for the formation of ozone in the ozone layer, and a mechanism for radiative loss from the atmosphere which has been neglected until now.

In the third paper, they identify a mechanism for mechanical energy transmission that is not considered by current atmospheric models, which they call pervection. They carry out laboratory experiments which reveal that pervection can be several orders of magnitude faster than the three conventional heat transmission mechanisms of conduction, convection and radiation. This could be fast enough to keep the atmosphere in thermodynamic equilibrium over the distances from the troposphere to the stratosphere, thereby contradicting the conventional assumption that the lower atmosphere is only in local thermodynamic equilibrium.

Download the papers:

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere I. Phase Change Associated With Tropopause

The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere II. Multimerization of atmospheric gases above the

troposphere

The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere III. Pervective power

The Connolly’s work seems consistent with that of Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell who proposed in his 1871 book “Theory of Heat” that the temperature of a planet depends only on gravity, mass of the atmosphere, and heat capacity of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it. (see my post)

 

Related:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

This post consolidates the main points of many of my articles on wind and solar generation of electricity. The [ir]rationale behind the renewable energy campaign is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions which are alleged to be the main cause of global warming despite the lack of any supporting physical evidence. We will see that replacing electricity generation from fossil fuels with wind or solar will have no significant effect on global warming; that it significantly raises the cost of electricity; that it destroys wildlife and wildlife habitat; that wind generation has deleterious effects on human health; and that because wind and solar generation is intermittent and unpredictable, fossil fuel generation or nuclear generation will still be necessary. At the end of this post are links to some of my articles on the subject.

1. Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by switching to wind and solar will have almost no effect on global warming.

Carbon dioxide (which makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere) is continually being emitted into the atmosphere and absorbed by the oceans, plants, formation of limestone, etc. According to the U.S. Department of Energy annual emission reports, humans are responsible for about 3% of total CO2 emissions; the rest is from natural sources. Carbon dioxide constitutes about 3% to 4% of total greenhouse gases by volume (water vapor is the main greenhouse gas); therefore anthropogenic CO2 represents just over one-tenth of one percent (0.12%) of total greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere each year. The U.S. is responsible for about 18% of global emissions, so elimination of U.S. emissions will make a difference of about 0.02% of total emissions.

The American Enterprise Institute estimates that eliminating all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel generation of electricity would cut the global increase in temperature by 0.083 to 0.173 degrees Celsius, by 2100.

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg (president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of the book: The Skeptical Environmentalist) estimates that U.S. climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100. (Source)

2. Cost of transition to 100% renewables

An analysis from Scottish consulting firm Wood Mackenzie estimates the cost of transitioning the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, as recommended by the “Green New Deal” and other overzealous climate change plans, would cost at least $4.5 trillion over that time period. The American Action Forum estimates the costs of moving the entire country to 100 percent renewable sources would be $5.7 trillion, or $42,000 per household. The several states that have imposed Renewable Energy Mandates (requiring a certain percent of electricity be produced from wind and solar) have already raised electricity prices by 11percent, which has cost us $125.2 billion. (Source)

Experience from Europe shows that the more installed solar and wind capacity per capita a country has, the higher the price people pay for electricity. In the graph below the vertical scale is Euro cents per kilowatt-hour, the horizontal scale is the installed capacity of renewables (solar and wind) per capita. (For reference, the U.S. average residential cost is 12 cents/kwh which is about 9.6 euro cents/kwh, lower than all European countries on the graph.) (Source)

3. Enormous land footprint of wind and solar destroys wildlife habitat

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, for the contiguous U.S.:

If all electricity were to be supplied by solar generation it would require 11,674 solar farms with a total footprint of 525,312 square miles.

If all electricity were to be supplied by wind generation, it would require 6,954 wind farms with a total footprint of 1,808,166 square miles.

If all electricity was supplied by nuclear generation, it would require 3,553 nuclear stations with a total footprint of 4,619 square miles. (Source)

 

4. Destruction of wildlife:

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and American Bird Conservancy say wind turbines kill 440,000 bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, cranes, egrets, geese and other birds every year in the United States, along with countless insect-eating bats.

“New studies reveal that these appalling estimates are frightfully low and based on misleading or even fraudulent data. The horrific reality is that in the United States alone, ‘eco-friendly’ wind turbines kill an estimated 13 million to 39 million birds and bats every year.” (Source)

Many birds are also killed by concentrating solar installations: see Avian mortality from solar farms.

5. Human health problems from wind turbines:

Wind turbines produce low-frequency sound, called infra-sound, which may cause many health problems. Infra-sound affects the vestibular system, causing symptoms resembling seasickness, accompanied by headache, dizziness, and “deep nervous fatigue.” It can affect ocular reflexes, causing nystagmus; spinal reflexes, causing tremors; and autonomic reflexes, causing shortness of breath. Infra-sound can lead to well known consequences such as tumor development, cardiac infarcts and/or the need for cardiac bypass surgery.

6. Wind and solar generation makes the electric grid unstable.

Wind and solar generation are unpredictably intermittent. Adding an unpredictable supply to the mix makes grid management very complex and increases the danger that the grid will become unstable and fail. The problem is multiplied as wind and solar generation become a larger percentage of the total power sources.

7. Renewable energy is not as green as advertised

PV solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels. (Source)

8. Wind farms decrease weather radar ability to track storms – puts people in danger

A new report from the National Weather Service says that wind farms have some unfortunate negative impacts on the ability of Doppler radar to track storms.

“Wind farms affect … radars in several ways; first, the turbines can block a significant percentage of the radar beam and decrease the radar signal power down range of the wind farm, particularly if the wind farm is within a few miles of the radar. Second, the wind farm can reflect energy back to the radar system and this appears as clutter or false reflectivity data. This reflectivity can create false precipitation estimates and disrupt precipitation algorithms used by the radar and other software programs. Finally, wind farms can significantly influence velocity and spectrum width data, which can cause bad data sampling of rotating storms and false storm motions, along with impacting algorithms used by the radar to process this data. Since the wind turbines have motion and produce reflectivity, schemes designed to filter out the clutter do not work properly.”

 

Former EPA scientist and economist Alan Carlin opines, “Climate alarmism is probably the most insidious, largest, and most dangerous scam ever perpetrated on the American public and most of the developed world. Unless brought down by reality, it is now reaching such dimensions that it could even end the position of the current developed countries as the primary engine for economic and technological progress. Instead, the dictates of climate alarmism may eventually consume as much as half of the resources available and yield nothing but climate virtue signaling.” (Source)

References on  Wryheat:

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked

The high cost of electricity from wind and solar generation

Avian mortality from solar farms

Big Wind gets “get out of jail free card” from Obama Administration

Wind turbines versus wildlife

Wind turbines killed 600000 bats last year

Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

How infrasound from wind turbines can cause cancer

Why alternative energy is not a viable alternative for electrical generation

Winds farms decrease weather radar ability to track storms

Solar energy cannot economically compete in electricity generation

Vote NO on Arizona proposition 127 the renewable energy mandate

Why you should vote NO on Arizona proposition 127

Winds farms decrease weather radar ability to track storms

 

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

How much global warming is dangerous?

What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

 

Could One Trillion More Trees Stop Global Warming?

The latest panacea to stop global warming is to plant trees, lots of trees. An Associated Press story by Seth Borenstein, printed on the front page of the July 5, 2019, Arizona Daily Star suggests that one trillion new trees will do the job. As an aside, I regard Borenstein as a propagandist rather than a journalist, in part, because he often refers to carbon dioxide emissions as “carbon pollution” even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on earth (See my article: Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth).

The story is based upon a press release from EurekAlert! which summarizes research from The Crowther Lab at ETH Zurich. The researchers estimate that planting enough trees, an amount equivalent to covering the entire United States, would suck up “two thirds of the 300 billion tonnes of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity since the Industrial Revolution.” “The researchers calculated that under the current climate conditions, Earth’s land could support 4.4 billion hectares of continuous tree cover. That is 1.6 billion more than the currently existing 2.8 billion hectares.” “The study also shows which parts of the world are most suited to forest restoration. The greatest potential can be found in just six countries: Russia (151 million hectares); the US (103 million hectares); Canada (78.4 million hectares); Australia (58 million hectares); Brazil (49.7 million hectares); and China (40.2 million hectares).”

I have some questions/reservations about this unnecessary scheme:

1. How much water will be needed to grow one trillion trees, and where will the water come from?

2. Will not large areas of forest decrease the albedo of the planet, i.e., increase the amount of sunlight absorbed rather than reflected, and thereby heat the surface?

3. Through the process of evapotranspiration, trees add water vapor to the air. Water vapor is a much stronger green-house gas than carbon dioxide. Could this itself cause more warming?

These questions are not addressed in the research.

See also:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The Broken Greenhouse – why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Change

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has just published A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Change authored by Marlo Lewis, Jr. The article is relatively short, just six pages with an additional four pages of references to the scientific literature.

The article begins: “Climate change is not a hoax, but as a political matter, it is a persistent pretext for expanding government control over the economy, redistributing wealth, and empowering unaccountable elites at the expense of voters and their elected representatives.”

The article concludes: “The perception of a ‘planetary emergency’ arises from the combination of overheated climate models, inflated emission scenarios, and relentless exaggeration by political interests claiming to speak for ‘the science.’ The very real costs of coercive de-carbonization outweigh the hypothetical benefits. The more “ambitious” the climate policy, the more likely it is to damage economic growth, consumer welfare, and our institutions of self-government.”

The article discusses:

Humans’ Role in Climate Change,

Improving State of the World,

Science—Models vs. Real World Data,

No Planetary Emergency,

National Climate Assessment’s Bogus Headline Grabber,

Perils of Climate Policy,

Official Climate Assessments Need a Reset.

 

We have more to fear from climate alarmism and its resulting policies than from climate change itself. Read the paper online here or download as a PDF file.

Related articles: 

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Recent Tornadoes Are The Result of Cold Air Not Global Warming

Numerous strong tornadoes are wreaking havoc in Central and Southeastern U.S. this spring. Politicians and the media are blaming these storms on global warming. The real cause is that unusually persistent cold air masses are colliding with warm, moist Gulf air to produce wind shear which spawns tornadoes.

Meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer (Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama and former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center) opines: “To claim that global warming is causing more tornadoes is worse than speculative; it is directly opposite to the clear observational evidence.”

Dr. Spencer notes:

Very few thunderstorms produce tornadoes. In the hot and humid tropics, they are virtually unheard of. The reason why is that (unlike hurricanes) tornadoes require strong wind shear, which means wind speed increasing and changing direction with height in the lower atmosphere.

These conditions exist only when a cool air mass collides with a warm air mass. And the perfect conditions for this have existed this year as winter has refused to lose its grip on the western United States. So far for the month of May 2019, the average temperature across the U.S. is close to 2 degrees Fahrenheit below normal. (Source)

This year, the Northern Plains have been averaging 5-10 deg. F below normal due to cold air masses stretching from Michigan, through Colorado to California. It’s weather, not global warming. As Dr. Spencer notes, the number of strong to violent U.S. tornadoes has gone down from 60 in 1954 to 30 in 2018.

See also:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked

Although the Earth’s climate has been changing for more than 4 billion years all by itself, we are now told that we can stop climate change simply by reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Ignorance-based plans such as the Green New Deal propose that we terminate electricity generation by fossil fuels and replace all of it with renewables such as wind and solar. Proponents of such plans have not considered the environmental nor economic implications.

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

1)The Enormous Land Requirements of Wind and Solar Electricity Generation

The enormous land requirements for enough wind and/or solar to replace fossil fuel generation will wreak havoc with agriculture, and will destroy wildlife and their habitats.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, for the contiguous U.S.:

If all electricity was supplied by nuclear generation, it would require 3,553 nuclear stations with a total footprint of 4,619 square miles.

If all electricity were to be supplied by solar generation it would require 11,674 solar farms with a total footprint of 525,312 square miles.

If all electricity were to be supplied by wind generation, it would require 6,954 wind farms with a total footprint of 1,808,166 square miles. (Source)

A minor problem: Because wind and solar generation are unreliable and intermittant, these methods would still require backup generation with is usually natural gas or coal generation. Because those backup units would have to be cycled up and down depending on wind and sunlight conditions, one ironic effect would be greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas–fired backup generation  are 22 percent higher than normal operation according to a study by the American Enterprise Institute.

Carbon dioxide (which makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere) is continually being emitted into the atmosphere and absorbed by the oceans, plants, formation of limestone, etc. According to the U.S. Department of Energy annual emission reports, humans are responsible for about 3% of total CO2 emissions; the rest is from natural sources. Carbon dioxide constitutes about 3% to 4% of total greenhouse gases by volume (water vapor is the main greenhouse gas); therefore anthropogenic CO2 represents just over one-tenth of one percent (0.12%) of total greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere each year. The U.S. is responsible for about 18% of global emissions, so elimination of U.S. emissions will make a difference of about 0.02% of total emissions. Is stopping U.S. emissions worth spending trillions of dollars and disrupting our economy? Will that save the planet?

2) The deadly toll on wildlife from all these additional wind or solar installations:

Wind turbines versus wildlife:

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and American Bird Conservancy say wind turbines kill 440,000 bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, cranes, egrets, geese and other birds every year in the United States, along with countless insect-eating bats. Newer studies reveal that these appalling estimates are frightfully low and based on misleading or even fraudulent data. The horrific reality is that in the United States alone, “eco-friendly” wind turbines kill an estimated 13 million to 39 million birds and bats every year. See also: Avian mortality from solar farms

3) The Green New Deal Would Have ‘No Effect’ On Climate Change

By Emily Zanotti

A new study from the American Enterprise Institute questions whether the Green New Deal would have any real impact on climate change at all — leaving it little more than an effort to dismantle industry.

The AEI report breaks down the GND into bite-sized policy proposals, assessing not simply the cost, but the proposed effectiveness of each legislative item to address the core goal of the GND: reducing American carbon emissions to a “net zero” by 2050.

The researchers’ ultimate conclusion? “It is not to be taken seriously.”

The “net zero” emissions proposal is particularly nonsensical, AEI warns, given that such an effort would require an estimated $490 billion per year investment in “green energy” ( $3,845 per year per household) and a sharp decrease in land available for agriculture. It also fails to address a very specific problem when it comes to U.S.-specific plans for climate change abatement: it fails to consider that the U.S. is only one of several heavy carbon-emitting nations, and that the vast majority of industrial pollution comes from the developing world and from countries like China and India.

In total, completely enacted, funded, and efficiently meeting goals, things AEI does not anticipate the GND would ever do — the full plan would cut the global increase in temperature by 0.083 to 0.173 degrees Celsius, by 2100, a number, the report says, is “barely distinguishable from zero.” (Source) ☼

4) Another part of the Green New Deal is retrofitting all buildings to be more energy efficient.

A study in the UK estimated that retrofitting British homes would cost $5.6 trillion and retrofitting U.S. homes would cost $26 trillion while achieving only a 50-60% CO2 reduction. (Read more)

5) For most of geologic history, there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 content. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, about 25 times more abundant than carbon dioxide.

A major ice age occurred during the Ordovician Period 450 million years ago even thought atmospheric CO2 was 4,000ppm, 10 times higher than it is now. Carbon dioxide dropped during the Carboniferous Period because many of the Earth’s coal deposits formed then. By coincidence, a major ice age occurred at the end of the Carboniferous related to the 145 million year cycle of ice ages. Temperatures rose prior to rise of atmospheric CO2 at the end of the ice age. During the Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods,150 million years ago, CO2 began a long slide from about 2,500ppm to about 350ppm. However, global temperatures remained steamy for 50 million years during the Cretaceous Period at about 13°C warmer than now. The Cretaceous was another period of coal formation.

There is an apparent correlation during the glacial-interglacial cycles of our current ice age. But ice core data shows that temperature changes preceded changes in CO2 by about 800 years (because temperature controls CO2 solubility in the ocean). During the latter part of our current ice age, glacial-interglacial cycles occurred with a periodicity of about 100,000 years which correlates with the changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun as it changes from nearly circular to elliptical with an eccentricity of about 9%. Read more ☼

6) How Infrasound from Wind Turbines Can Cause Cancer

This article from the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions reviews several research studies that show infrasound from wind turbines can cause cancer. Read the full paper at http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Health/LFN_and_Cancer.pdf

Here is an introduction:

Recently, President Trump made a statement about the possibility of wind turbine noise causing cancer. Predictably much of the press scoffed at this claim. Even some Republican legislators objected. But what are the facts?

Since this is a technical matter, let’s clarify some basics… Infrasound is Low Frequency Noise (LFN)… Industrial wind turbines generate substantial LFN… A variety of wind turbine LFN caused human and animal health problems have been well-documented (see this small sample of studies)… But what about cancers?

The medical term genotoxins is separated into three main groups: carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens (i.e. toxins that cause cancer, genetic mutations, or birth defects)… LFN has been identified as a genotoxic agent of disease, capable of inducing blood vessel wall thickening as seen in autopsy, as well as through light and electron microscopy studies. This can lead to well known consequences such as tumor development, cardiac infarcts and/or the need for cardiac bypass surgery. The pathology caused by excessive exposure to LFN is termed vibroacoustic disease (VAD), and has been diagnosed among several occupational and environmentally exposed populations.

See also: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect ☼

UPDATE: Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow takes apart Joe Biden’s “Clean energy revolution”

Read the full article: Reality bites Joe Biden’s “Clean Energy Revolution”

Among his points:

Before we destroy our energy and economic system, we need to see solid, irrefutable proof that we face an actual climate crisis – and be able to debate and cross examine those who make such claims. So far, instead of a debate, climate crisis skeptics just get vilified and threatened with prosecution.

There’s nothing clean, green, renewable or sustainable about wind, solar or battery power. Those technologies require enormous amounts of land, concrete, steel and other raw materials – and many of their most critical materials are extracted and processed using child labor and near-slave wages for adults, with few or no workplace safety rules, and with horrific impacts on land, air and water quality.

The Biden plan would cost many times the “$1.7 trillion in federal funds over ten years” that his talking points use to entice voters: dollars, lost jobs, lower living standards and fewer freedoms.

Modern industrialized societies simply cannot function on expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent electricity. As Germany, Britain, Spain, Australia and other countries have shown, that kind of energy eliminates 3-4 times more jobs than it creates – especially in factories and assembly lines, which cannot operate with repeated electricity interruptions … and cannot compete with foreign companies that get affordable 24/7/365 coal-based electricity and pay their workers far less than $15, $25 or $45 per hour.