Month: February 2020

Daily News 27 Feb 2020

Are Britain’s pollution levels really a public health emergency?

By Paul Homewood

Following on from the latest air pollution data, it is worth going back to this Telegraph article in 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”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/doctors-diary/britains-pollution-levels-really-public-health-emergency/

Maybe it is time the Telegraph found the guts again to challenge this nonsense!

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/387B9RQ

February 27, 2020 at 08:24AM

Daily News 27 Feb 2020

New Heathrow Runway Thrown Out By Judges

By Paul Homewood

As had been trailed, the Court of Appeal have thrown out plans for Heathrow’s third runway:

Campaigners have won a Court of Appeal ruling over controversial plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport on environmental grounds.

A group of councils in London affected by the expansion, environmental charities including Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth and Plan B, and Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, brought legal action over the Government’s approval of the plans.

Judges singled out the former transport secretary Chris Grayling in their ruling, agreeing with lawyers for the campaign groups that he had not enough consideration was given to the environment in his plans.

The UN’s Paris Agreement, which came into force in November 2016, commits signatories to tackling climate change by taking measures to limit global warming to well below 2C.

But giving their ruling on Thursday, Lords Justice Lindblom, Singh and Haddon-Cave said the Government did not take enough account of its commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change when setting out its support for the proposals in its National Policy Statement (NPS).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/27/heathrow-airport-third-runway-plans-blocked-court-appeal/

Significantly the Court rejected all of the other appeals, notably concerning noise and air quality issues. The only one they allowed was the climate issue.

The reference to the Paris Agreement seems to be a spurious one, as none of its signatories actually committed to any actions that would keep warming below 2C. Indeed, the specific plans in total would lead to a large increase in emissions by 2030.

The UK, as part of the EU commitment, agreed to reductions in emissions, which are built into its carbon budgets and are on track. It is difficult to see what legal right three judges have in dictating to the government how these reductions should be managed. Particularly when the Heathrow expansion was overwhelmingly approved by Parliament.

What this judgement does do is open the floodgates to challenges to any and every infrastructure development the green loons don’t like.

Meanwhile China is planning to double its number of airports, according to CNN last year:

China currently has around 235 airports, but with many lacking the capacity to sustain the coming increase in passenger numbers and flights, government officials estimate around 450 airports will be needed across the country by 2035.

That’s the same year aviation analysts predict China will be handling a quarter of all the world’s air passengers.

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/china-new-airports/index.html

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/3a6ODyP

February 27, 2020 at 08:06AM

Daily News 27 Feb 202027 Feb 2020

Why Should the U.S. Be the Leader in Numerical Weather Prediction?

Reposted from The Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

During the past several years, I have written a number of blogs bemoaning the third or fourth place status of U.S. numerical weather prediction, with suggestions on how we could regain leadership.
But I am often asked: why should we worry that the European Center is way ahead? Why don’t we simply acquire their forecasts and forget about the whole business?

Well, I believe there are powerful, compelling reasons why the U.S. should regain its status as the best in the world in operational numerical weather prediction.   Let me give you a few:
1.   There is no reason to expect that forecasts made by the European Center (ECMWF) and the UKMET office, the current world leaders, are the best that can be achieved. Properly using its huge resources, U.S. numerical weather prediction can be much better.

I am not saying this as a speculation. This is an area with which I have great familiarity–and there are a number of ways that we can improve upon the ECMWF and UKMET approaches, including not repeating a few of their mistakes or missed opportunities. We could produce far superior forecasts.

2. The U.S. has the largest weather research community in the world– no nation or groups of nations is even close. Thus, we have the scientific infrastructure and expertise to be the best.

The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder

Numerical weather prediction also leans on expertise in computer sciences and access to advanced computer technologies. The U.S. is far ahead in these areas.
3. Many Nations And Companies Depend on U.S. Numerical Weather Prediction and Cannot Afford the ECMWF or UKMET Forecast Products. Same with U.S. universities.
The ECMWF and UKMET office charge big bucks for access to the forecast output. Like hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for private sectors firms wishing access. Many nations and companies cannot afford to pay the high fees. In contrast, U.S. agencies have a policy of making our model forecasts available at no charge-— greatly helping poorer countries, in what can considered a form of foreign aid. The free access also helps new weather start-ups and companies who can’t afford expensive European forecast products.

University research, such as at the University of Washington, depend on the free model grids from the National Weather Service for research and to develop next-generation local prediction systems. ECWMF grids…at 100,000 a year or more..are beyond our financial reach. Thus, the quality of U.S. academic research depends on the quality of NOAA/NWS models.

4. Only U.S. Numerical Weather Prediction Can Service All U.S. Needs
International centers, like the European Center, do global prediction, but they aren’t interested in running high-resolution and specialty weather prediction models over the U.S. Only U.S. weather entities (mainly NOAA/National Weather Service) will do that. We need to be the best for our own good.
Virtually all weather modeling centers are moving towards or using Unified Modeling Systems, in which the same forecasting model works on all scales. So if you are going to have the best model, it will serve both global and local uses.
5. U.S. Numerical Weather Prediction Research and Operation is Spending More Money Than Any Other Nation or Groups of Nation.
I mean spending five to ten times as much as the Europe or the UK. For that price we should be the best. Unfortunately, we are currently wasting huge amounts of resource with large number of redundant efforts. That needs to change. The U.S. taxpayer is already paying to be the best, they might as well get their money’s worth.

6. Global Weather and Climate Prediction are Converging
Global weather prediction and climate prediction are converging towards virtually identical modeling systems: coupled global atmosphere/ocean/crysphere (ice/snow)/land surface models. Furthermore, weather and climate systems are moving together to higher resolution. Such modeling systems are obviously most easily tested for weather and seasonal forecasts. So if the U.S. gives up leadership in the weather domain, it will inevitably do the same in the climate domain. Not good.

7. Operational Weather Prediction is a Key Testbed for Evaluating Physical Understanding of the Atmosphere.
The best way to test physical understanding of the atmosphere is to “stress test” the science by including it in operational models that are run several times each day. Thus, operational modeling can greatly foster science discovery and understanding. If the U.S. gives up global modeling to the ECMWF or others, we would inevitably weaken the scientific infrastructure of the nation.

The Bottom Line: The U.S. can and should be the leader in numerical weather prediction. Giving up such leadership inevitably leads to poorer forecasting for the nation, the undermining of the U.S. scientific infrastructure, and would be damaging to the private sector and lower-income nations dependent on U.S. forecast models.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3cffLxu

February 27, 2020 at 08:03AM

Daily News 27 Feb 2020

Climate campaigners win Heathrow expansion case

Climate paranoia has hit the UK courts big-time. It now seems illegal not to obsess over trace gases in the atmosphere, due to the Paris climate agreement.