The Most Intense Typhoons
By Paul Homewood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Haiyan#Meteorological_history
In his evidence to the Energy & Climate Change Committee in 2014, which I covered earlier, David King claimed:
“The most intense hurricane ever to hit land was Hurricane Haiyan”, the typhoon which hit the Philippines in 2013.
There has been much controversy about such claims, which are based on satellite estimates, that have of course only been widely available since the 1980s. Prior to satellites, monitoring of typhoons in the Western Pacific relied on airplanes, which were not able to cover the full ocean, and which also avoided direct contact with the strongest typhoons, for obvious reasons. Before that we only had land based anemometers, which were rarely located at the point of highest wind speeds, and which in any event would not survive such high wind speeds.
That is why the most important measurement in pre-satellite days was always central pressure. And here we find that Haiyan was a long way from being the most intense typhoon.
How David King Misled To Parliament
By Paul Homewood
I discussed David King yesterday, but it is worth going into greater detail:
King was Chief Scientific Advisor to Tony Blair between 2000 and 2007. His training is as a chemist, but that never stopped him from having strong views on climate change. Unfortunately many of his utterances were so far off the mark that they call into question is credibility.
In 2004, he gave testimony to the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, and made two specific claims:
David King Crawls Back Out Of Woodwork
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian PRSY
Look who has just crawled out of the woodwork!
Several of the world’s leading scientists plan to launch an independent expert group this week to advise, warn and criticise global policymakers about the climate and nature crises.
The new body has been inspired by Independent Sage – the cluster of British scientists who have held UK ministers and civil servants to account for their lack of transparency and mishandling of the Covid pandemic.
The Climate Crisis Advisory Group, comprising 14 experts from 10 nations and every continent, aims to have more of an international reach and provide the global public with regular analysis about efforts to tackle the global heating and biodiversity crises.
Headed by the former UK chief scientific adviser Sir David King, the new group will issue monthly updates about the state of the global environment at meetings that will be open to the media and the public. These online gatherings will be chaired by the BBC presenter Ade Adepitan.
“We are hoping that by putting expertise directly into the public domain we are reaching into policymakers’ decision processes, and into the financial sector and how they invest in our future,” King told the Observer. “We are not just going to say ‘this is the state of the global climate’, but also what should the global response be from governments and companies … What we do in the next five years will determine the future of humanity for the next millennium.”
The experts – who include Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency and Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research – also plan to issue statements and respond to journalists’ inquiries on breaking news, such as declarations by the G7, reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, new targets set by national governments, actions taken by major corporations, and geoengineering proposals, such as refreezing the Arctic.
Contrary to the Guardian’s false assertion, the Independent Sage was nothing more than a joke, which nobody other than the Guardian took seriously (though some news outlets confused their utterings for the real thing, which was doubtless the real objective of King.) As Guido revealed at the time, Independent Sage was made up entirely of actual communists, Labour Party donors, activists, Corbynistas, “anti-Zionists”, Brexit conspiracy theorists and even a former Greek socialist MP. Susan Michie , for example was a member of the British Communist party for 40 yrs, a Corbyn donor, wife of Corbyn SpAd Andrew Murray, and mother of Labour’s Head of Complaints Laura Murray). Their sole intention was to publish anti-government propaganda.
By Paul Homewood
Is there any government anywhere in the world more ludicrous than the SNP?
The leader of the SNP has already sent a warning to Prime Minister Boris Johnson over “picking a fight with the democratic wishes of the Scottish people," stating a second referendum was “a matter of when, not if”. But should she be successful, England could face turmoil, according to Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Government’s former Secretary for Rural Economy. He told the Guardian: “England does require Scotland’s electricity to keep the lights on. The reality is that the supplies of electricity in the UK, especially down south, are parlously tight.
On a security of supply basis, England will require to receive imports of Scotland’s electricity for most of the time.”
Does this dolt actually think Scotland owns this electricity? It belongs to the myriad of generators up and down the country, and it is transmitted around Scotland by companies such as SP Energy Networks, a subsidiary of the Spanish company Iberdrola, who own and maintain the grid and transmit part of this generation to the National Grid in England.
But just suppose Scottish electricity was no longer transmitted to England? That is, if course, the situation we often find ourselves at times of low wind, and we simply turn up the gas fired generators instead. But the effects would be calamitous in Scotland.
Air pollution death toll claims just blowing smoke
By Paul Homewood
A few years ago, Ross McKitrick demolished claims that air pollution was killing tens of thousands in Canada.
I covered the story here:
Anyone tossing around allegations that a “crime” has been committed had better be prepared to defend those claims with solid evidence.
Two weeks ago on these pages local entrepreneur Derek Satnik made such a claim. In defending the viability of wind power Satnik, who works in the green energy industry, warned readers that they must consider the deadly impact of other forms of electricity. (“Does any potential health risk from wind power even matter? March 26, 2011)
Satnik writes: “The chief medical officer of Ontario publishes annual reports that talk about the 9,000 Ontarians who die every year from respiratory aliments caused in part by the emissions from coal based electricity plants.” He claims anyone who uses electricity is somehow “involved” in this devastating annual death toll. “It’s a crime that we’ve gone so long thinking it’s OK for anyone to turn on their fridge without thinking of who dies at the other end of the wires.” It seems a damning argument. If true.
So where is the provincial government’s list of coal-fired deaths?
Full story here.
By Paul Homewood
Reposted from Real Clear Energy:
The oldest maxim in politics is “follow the money.” That maxim also applies to electric grids.
Following the billions of dollars that have been spent on the Texas grid explains why the state continues to have electricity shortages. On Monday, ERCOT, the state’s troubled grid operator, asked Texans to reduce their electricity use. That request came exactly four months after Texas residents were asked to conserve electricity due to a massive winter storm.
Before going further, I’ll give you the punchline: As I explained in these pages in April, about $66 billion was spent on wind and solar in Texas in the years before the deadly February storm that left millions of Texans without electricity. In return for that $66 billion, the wind and solar sectors collected about $21.7 billion in local, state, and federal subsidies and incentives. That first figure comes from the wind energy and solar energy lobbies. The latter number comes from a report published last week by veteran Texas energy analyst Bill Peacock of The Energy Alliance.
Full story here.
COP26 heading for the rocks?
By Paul Homewood
Unsurprisingly, the reluctance of Western governments to deliver its pledge of an annual $100 billion transfer fund to more than 100 developing countries is threatening to unravel COP26.
“A major reason for the discord is that rich countries appear to have missed a target of $100bn in annual climate aid by 2020, creating mistrust among the 191 countries that signed the Paris agreement….”
The West’s geopolitical own goal also provides China, India and other emerging nations a rock solid reason to reject Western pressure on any new or binding commitments.
If Biden, Boris and the EU thought emerging and developing nations would simply cave to their unrealistic Net Zero demands they should think again. It’s not going to happen.
The US and EU leaders have tried and failed to square this circle for the last 30 years. It’s unlikely to go away for decades to come.
There is now a growing risk that COP26 will end in yet another COP-flop, throwing the climate campaign back to the 2009 Copenhagen fiasco.
From the FT:
Weeks of negotiations were overshadowed by cost of meeting demands of Paris agreement
Tensions over climate finance threaten to derail this year’s COP26 summit after weeks of preliminary UN deliberations yielded little agreement over how to proceed with core principles of the Paris climate accord
The downbeat conclusion fuels further disappointment about progress on halting global warming, after the G7 leaders summit in Cornwall failed to produce specific plans for new climate funding.
A major reason for the discord is that rich countries appear to have missed a target of $100bn in annual climate aid by 2020, creating mistrust among the 191 countries that signed the Paris agreement.
The shortfall in funding also sets the scene for a series of difficult discussions in November at the COP26 in Glasgow when it comes to agreeing new goals for climate finance.
“It is unlikely that rich countries hit the target of mobilising $100bn per year by 2020,” said Amar Bhattacharya, co-chair of the UN’s Independent Expert Group on Climate Finance and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, although official figures are yet to be tallied formally.
At a time when government coffers have already been emptied by the coronavirus pandemic, reaching agreement on climate finance — public and private funding to help developing countries cut emissions and adapt to climate change — is more contentious than ever.
During three weeks of tense negotiations at the UN Climate Change intersessional meetings, which concluded on Thursday, an undercurrent of discontent over climate finance stymied a number of discussions on topics such as carbon markets and transparency.
“The issue of climate finance still remains the most difficult part of all these negotiations,” said Molwyn Joseph, environment minister for Antigua. “I do not believe that particular aspect was dealt with as it should have been.” Rich countries donated around $80bn in 2018, according to UN figures.
Full story (£)
By Paul Homewood
Following yesterday’s piece on air pollution, it is worth revisiting the Telegraph article from 2017 by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick:
As somebody who groped his way to school through winter smogs in Sheffield in the 1950s and 1960s, I have always been sceptical about the claims of environmental campaigners that air pollution in British cities is now reaching critical levels of toxicity. I recall playing football on pitches where neither goal was visible from the halfway line. No doubt any therapeutic benefits of exercise were outweighed by the damage to our youthful lungs.
Yet recent headlines proclaim that our children are being exposed to illegal levels of toxic air, and London mayor Sadiq Khan has declared a public health emergency in the capital. The mayor quotes epidemiological studies claiming that 9,000 Londoners are dying prematurely every year because of poor air quality. Estimates of national fatalities have increased from 40,000 to 60,000 per year.
It is worth recalling that the Great Smog of December 1952, widely regarded as an environmental catastrophe, killed only 4,000 people in London. Can it really be true that air pollution is now killing more than twice that number every year in the capital, and ten to 15 times as many nationwide?
Well, no. On closer inspection, it turns out that these are not actual deaths, but estimates, produced by mathematical modelling, of the number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution
The figures are derived from calculations of the “years of life” lost across the whole population resulting from the increased risks associated with particular pollutants. According to Cambridge statistician professor David Spiegelhalter, another way of presenting the same statistics would be to state that the average loss of life expectancy over the whole adult population is… three days.
It is true that the character of air pollution has changed. Whereas we inhaled soot and sulphur oxides resulting from burning coal, our children are now inhaling particulates and nitrogen oxides, partly because of the last Labour government’s “green” incentive to switch to diesel cars.
But levels of both particulates and nitrogen oxides have been falling steadily for decades – they are now about a quarter of what they were in 1970. It is also worth noting that air pollution in London is about one eighth of that in Delhi, a quarter of that in Beijing, and lower than that in Paris.
In the words of Brighton respiratory physician Anthony Frew, who served on the original Royal College of Physicians working party on air pollution, the claim of 9,000 deaths in London is a “zombie statistic – however much you try to kill it, it comes back and it’s simply not true”.
Is Climate Change Racist?
By Paul Homewood
I want to return to Jeremy Williams’ book, “Climate Change is Racist”:
You will recall it makes the claim:
When we talk about racism, we often mean personal prejudice or institutional biases. Climate change doesn’t work that way. It is structurally racist, disproportionately caused by majority White people in majority White countries, with the damage unleashed overwhelmingly on people of colour. The climate crisis reflects and reinforces racial injustices.
It conjures up images of Africans desperately struggling to survive the effects of climate change.
Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence of such damage, it is simply not possible to disentangle fossil fuels, climate change and economic and social well being. As a direct result of the Industrial Revolution and subsequent economic growth, the developing world is immeasurably better off in any category you can think of.
The charts below show just how lives have been transformed for the better in Africa, in terms of:
EVs & Caravans
By Paul Homewood
What will the future of caravanning holidays look like when our cars are electric?
We are all aware of the severe range restrictions of EVs. Although the stated range of a car may typically be around 200 miles, the practical range will probably be little more than 100, allowing for a sensible safety reserve. Estimates suggest, however, that towing a caravan reduces the range by half, maybe as little therefore as 50 miles.
What then are holidaymakers supposed to do if they want to travel, say, to Cornwall? A 300-mile trip would require six recharging stops, each probably involving at least two to three hours spent in queues. (Just think typical bank holiday traffic!).
In practice, the journey would probably take three or four days, with recharging taking place at overnight camp sites. By the time you got to Cornwall, it would be time to come home!
There are further problems. You cannot automatically assume that your new EV will even be capable of towing. Indeed most EVs are not legally allowed to tow at all. One problem is the weight of the battery, which naturally restricts the weight the car can tow. There is also the problem of the strain put on certain components, such as the brakes and the electric powertrain.
Although you in reality already need a reasonably sized and powerful petrol/diesel to tow your caravan, you would have to upmarket to something like a Tesla to get an electric replacement, something way out of the range of most drivers.
And the future of caravanning?
