Storms, Climate Change & an Economy of Truth.

You've heard the rhetoric. Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency is increasing severe weather events. There will be more storms. More destruction.

Statements like this from my friends in Greenpeace (of whom I have none) Link Here 

[quote]

“The frequency and strength of storms is increasing, leaving destruction in their wake.”

[unquote]

Lurid stuff. Frightening even.

But is it true?

Is the frequency and strength of storms increasing?

The answer to that is No.

The frequency and strength of storms is not increasing. In fact for the last thirty years the average wind speed across large sections of the planet have been in decline, as have severe storm events. You can trace a slowing in global wind speeds right back to the 1960's.

From Antarctica right up to near the North Pole wind speeds have been going down.

I’ll concentrate here on the UK but this really is a global phenomena. (see references later)

Here is the frequency of high wind gusts events across the UK by year which the Met Office states they use as an indicator of "storminess".

Notice all gusts are in decline and that includes the extreme gusts that are supposed to be increasing. (MET office Data taken from Here)

Even though they have adopted a silly storm naming scheme (one suspects in order to add a little drama to otherwise common or garden weather events) the Met Office have come out and made clear that there is no link between Global Warming and UK storm frequency.

But they cannot quite bring themselves to reference their own data showing a slow decline in storminess since the 1990's. The Met Office webpage on Wind Storms is Here

The global slowing of wind speed is emphatic and serious enough to now be a research project for EU. (Here)

Even dear old Wikipedia has a (somewhat rudimentary) page on it Here

The best page is probably This Page from the Institute of Physics. (with caveats – see later)

Here’s a few more links that give useful insight into the phenomena.

ABC News Australia

Cosmo Magazine

Nature Magazine

So, while the panic laden Drama Queens in Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion would like you to think that storms are dangerously increasing, actually the reverse is true.

Bad things always happen. There will always be storms. But today there are less of them and they are less potent.

But you will not hear anyone suggesting that this is a “good thing”.

Even the Phys.org article above struggled hard to find some bad outcomes yet failed to address any of the advantages of lower wind speed and less storms.

Yet when we look to (say) coastal defence, less storms mean coastal defence systems last longer. Less storms mean less storm surges. Less storms mean less wind damage. Less lost work days and less insurance claims.

The list goes on.

Even a merely lower average wind speed must result in less wear and tear on external structures. I am sure you can think a few more advantages of what is in essence more benign weather. 

By the way while the linked reports are all reasonably recent, this is far from new knowledge. Its just appears to have been kept pretty quiet until now.

It is interesting to note that while these reports all mention the possible ill affect on wind-turbines the reports make great efforts to (incorrectly) indicate that little is known about the wind speed at wind-turbine height.

I first blogged on it and how it can affect the wind turbine farce using data from Garrard-Hassan. But that data from 2011 which shows the slowing of wind speed across Northern Europe seems to have been (how should we say…) overlooked.

The full 2011 post is Here: Wind Speed Decline: A Blip or a Trend?

Here's the Garrard Hassan graph (this only goes to 2005)

But whatever the effects on marginal power producers, clearly wind speed is something that is getting more benign. Maybe it is due to Global Warming, maybe not. But whatever, wind speed is not getting worse.

Global Warming may well have deleterious affects. But (like this) there may also be positive outcomes

It’s just nobody wants to tell you about them.

Arrogance Ignorance and Greenpeace

H/T to unknown Peruvian on twitter - I lost their handle

Have you heard about the damage done to the ancient Nazca line monuments in Peru? I did find one article in the Times (on page 17) and the Guardian reported the half hearted Greenpeace apology (Here) but it appears that the BBC have suppressed the story.

Just in case you have not heard the story – here is a brief summary.

In Peru at night a group of Greenpeace activists drove a jeep up to one of the ancient Nasca outlines then trampled over the area laying out a piece of Greenpeace propaganda. 

According to the outraged Peruvian government ( as well as assorted other experts) the group did irreparable damage to the area. As the sun rose on their propaganda outrage it was photographed from an aircraft. (you can see them proudly standing in the middle of their “art” if you look closely below.) 

images from melocoton here

This clearly this was not just a group of disparate uncoordinated nutters. It was an organised coordinated assault on one of the ancient wonders of the world. 

The Greenpeace vandals were I suspect ignorant of the damage that would be caused to the ancient monument area by their actions. They were also too stupid and soaked in their own arrogance to actually check the potential for catastrophe before they set out.

The damage done

images from melocoton here

Due to the nature of the site this is damage that will never heal. It is arguably worse than spraying graffitti on StoneHenge. At least that could possibly be removed - this damage will never change.

Greenpeace have issued an apology (of sorts) It sounds more like a pompous self justification than anything else. Lucky for them, their friends in the MSM (especially the BBC) have shut the story down in the UK. Meanwhile outrage world-wide continues (try twitter hashtag #NascaLines)

Can you imagine the media coverage if this outrage had been perpetrated by anyone else?

Today the fanaticism and doctrinaire obedience of Greenpeace activists to their narrow bigotry knows no bounds. They proudly desecrate ancient and irreplaceable monuments like the Nasca lines. Then toss a few weasel words out to placate the morally offended. All this to promote abysmally ineffective energy production. It becomes clear that to them any means justifies their ill thought out and pseudo-scientific end. Meanwhile they have the MSM in their pocket - or have them too intimidated to take a stand.

Greenpeace gets more like the fledgling Nazi party every day.

Hansen and Nuclear Power

I expect you have heard of Jim Hansen. Until recently he was head of the NASA Goddard Research Institute. It is fair to say he is the leading proponent of of the concept of AGW (Anthropological Global Warming).

Here is a blindingly brief resume of Jim Hansen the scientist (abbreviated from HERE)

Education
BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963
MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965
Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966
Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967

Primary leading roles
Director: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Adjunct Professor: Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University
Manager: GISS Planetary and Climate Programs

Then there are over thirty awards (yes - over thirty!). The particular award which emphasises the track of this post is a 2008 award - Rachel Carson Award for Integrity in Science.

Whether you agree with AGW or not you have to admit Hansen is a highly gifted scientist. I hope you agree that whether you like his scientific stance or not he is undoubtedly someone whose opinions and scientific theories should be thoroughly listened to.

The likes of Green Peace and FOE love Hansen's pro AGW stance because it unintentionally plays perfectly to their luddite anti-technological bigotry.

But things get very tricky when it comes to Hansens forceful support for Nuclear Power. We then see the bizarre and laughable descent into the usual spiteful character assassination and pseudo science that so infects the likes of Green Peace and FOE.

Here's a few quotes from recent Hansen interview (fully in context)
[quote]
it is very unfortunate that a number of nations have indicated that they’re going to phase out nuclear power… The truth is, what we should do is use the more advanced nuclear power. Even the old nuclear power is much safer than the alternatives.
[unquote]

[quote]
The bottom line seems to be that it is not feasible in the foreseeable future to phase out coal unless nuclear power is included in the energy mix.
[unquote]

[quote]
"I think that next-generation, safe nuclear power is an option which we need to develop. 
[unquote]

But for our nuclear denier's there is worse to come.

Hansen being a bright bloke, thought he would calculate just how many people have been SAVED by nuclear power. Read about it (Scientific American - HERE) and (Daily Kos - HERE).

Here's a graph from the paper:

Here's a small section from the paper's abstract:

[quote]
Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning.
[unquote]


Oh BOY - Did that cause the Green luddites to throw their toys out of the pram. See this pathetic diatribe (GreenLeft - HERE)

To the Green luddites Hansen is now a bit of a Janus. On one hand he is a champion of the planet, a hero and an environmental leader. But on the other hand he is a charlatan and incompetent who falsely promotes the demon of nuclear Power. He has even been called a shill (really!)

You have to laugh. Not one of these buffoons shooting at Hansen can hold a candle to his scientific rigour. I would really REALLY be interested (and probably amused) to see them try and disprove his findings using science rather than innuendo and character assasination.

But I won't be holding my breath while I wait.