Month: January 2022

“Hansen vs. The World” (Richard Kerr on uncertain climate science in 1989)

A historical oddity is how the U.S. government and Exxon “knew” about the ‘greenhouse signal’ and perilous anthropogenic climate change before climate scientists did not. But such is the state of the debate where PR and lawsuits overwhelm a rational view of knowledge. (below)

“In my expert opinion, in the period shortly after President Carter took office in 1977,” state James Gustave Speth, “there was a growing sense of concern and indeed urgency within the federal government that fossil fuel burning was heating the planet and causing the climate to change in many ways that could be catastrophic….” [1]

“Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue,” stated an article in Scientific American. “This knowledge did not prevent the company … from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation.”

But the Science . . .

How did the U.S. government and Exxon know about the “greenhouse signal” and perilous anthropogenic climate change when climate science did not? But such is the state of the debate where PR and lawsuits overwhelm a rational view of knowledge.

In the real world, global cooling was the fear. “Certainly the threat of another ice age was the topic of much scientific and popular discussion in the 1970s, stated Harold Bernard, Jr., in The Greenhouse Effect.

Books and articles entitled ‘The Cooling,’ ‘Blizzard,’ ‘Ice,’ and ‘A Mini Ice Age Could Begin in a Decade,’ abounded. The ‘snow blitz’ theory was popularized on the public television presentation of ‘The Weather Machine’ in 1975. And certainly the winters of the late 1970s were enough to send shivers through our imaginations. [2]

And in the late 1980s and early 1990s (and even today), evidence about the positive and negative effects of carbon dioxide on global climate was (is) controversial. [3]

Enter Richard Kerr, longtime global-warming writer at Science, the flagship publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He chronicled how the mainstream of climate science disputed James Hansen’s assertions of the arrival of global warming and the enhanced greenhouse effect as opinion rather than science.

Kerr wrote in mid-1989:

If many of Hansen’s colleagues find his first point about the warming trend regrettable, they view his second–that the warming could, with “high confidence,” be linked to the greenhouse effect–as unforgivable. None of the select greenhouse researchers at the meeting could agree with him. ‘Taken together, his statements have given people the feeling the greenhouse effect has been detected with certitude,” says Michael Schlesinger, himself a modeler at Oregon State University. “Our current understanding does not support that. Confidence in detection is now down near zero.”


Continuing Uncertainty

There was no settled science about a climate crisis well after James Hansen lit the fires in 1988. In 1998, William K. Stevens, global warming scribe at the New York Times, quoted “a leading expert on the issue of detecting the greenhouse signal, climatologist Thomas Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder:

”They’re making progress, and there is a lot of hard work involved, and I hold them in the highest regard,” Dr. Tom Wigley … said of Dr. Mann and his colleagues. ”But I think there’s a limit to how far you can ever go.” As for using proxy data to detect a man-made greenhouse effect, he said, ”I don’t think we’re ever going to get to the point where we’re going to be totally convincing.”

So again, what did Exxon or the U.S. government (or anyone else) know about the strength of the enhanced greenhouse effect, much as a doom-and-gloom answer to increasing concentrations of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

—————————

[1] Speth, They Knew: The US Federal Government’s Fifty-Year Role in Causing the Climate Crisis (MIT Press: 2021), p. 11.

[2] Harold Bernard, Jr., The Greenhouse Effect (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1980), p. 20.

[3] Given anthropogenic global warming, the qualitative begs the quantitative question of good, benign, and benign. Lower-range warming is generally thought by climate economists as net beneficial, while higher warming scenarios are neutral-to-negative. (Climate models can be calibrated to tell you just about anything).

The post “Hansen vs. The World” (Richard Kerr on uncertain climate science in 1989) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/3FsrdDc

January 13, 2022 at 01:05AM

Furious Fishermen Sue To Stop Offshore Wind Industry Wrecking Fishing Grounds

Always making more enemies than friends, the wind industry is being sued by America’s fishermen to stop it wrecking their fishing grounds and livelihoods.

Having ridden roughshod over communities on land for the best part of a generation, the wind industry has been doing so offshore, for more than a decade.

But, when it comes to litigating to enforce their rights, you’ve got to hand it to Americans. Those rights clearly include the right to an economic future, free of interference by a heavily subsidised industry that’s proven rotten to the core, across the globe.

All along the Atlantic coast, fishing communities have been fighting back against the offshore wind onslaught, with fishermen telling the wind industry goons precisely what they can do with their giant industrial turbines.

Now, with assistance from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Rhode Island’s Fisherman community has issued proceedings in the Federal Court seeking to knockout the permits given to Vineyard Wind which, if left in place, will inevitably wreck commercial fisheries worth hundreds of millions of dollars to their communities.

Texas Public Policy Foundation brings fishermen’s lawsuit against Vineyard Wind
National Fisherman
Kirk Moore
21 December 2021

A legal team from the Texas Public Policy Foundation is representing Rhode Island fishermen in a lawsuit seeking to overturn permits for the Vineyard Wind offshore energy project.

The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has so prioritized offshore wind energy development that it is bypassing real environmental review and failing to consider alternative sites that won’t harm the commercial fishing industry, charges a lawsuit brought by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Filed Dec. 15 in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of six fishing businesses in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York, the action challenges BOEM and other federal agencies on their review of the 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project off southern New England.

The lead plaintiff, Seafreeze Shoreside Inc. of North Kingston, R.I., is a homeport and major processor for the Northeast squid fleet. Captains there are adamant they will not be able to fish if Vineyard Wind and other planned turbine arrays are erected in those waters.

Meghan Lapp, fisheries liaison at Seafreeze and a vocal advocate for its fishermen, said she had heard mention of the Texas Public Policy Foundation in conversation, “kind of along the lines of Pacific Legal Foundation which litigated for the fishing industry on the Northeast marine monument” fishing restrictions recently reinstated by the Biden administration.

Lapp said she looked at the group’s website and read about their involvement on economic issues, healthcare including a case now before the Supreme Court, education and local government.

“It looked promising, so I contacted them through their website,” several months ago, she said.

Along with putting a legal team on the case, the TPPF’s media unit traveled to Rhode Island to interview and film fishermen for a short documentary now posted on the foundation’s website and promoted through social media.

In addition to Seafreeze, the foundation is representing the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, the XIII Northeast Fishery Sector Inc. in Dartmouth, Mass., and family fishing businesses Heritage Fisheries Inc. and Nat. W. Inc., both in Westerly, R.I., and Old Squaw Fisheries in Montauk, N.Y. All rely on waters around the Vineyard Wind lease for most of their annual catch, the lawsuit says.

As defendants, the lawsuit names BOEM, the Interior Department, National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which all play a role in the permitting process.

The lawsuit quotes one key observation in the BOEM record of decision, which was based on the Corps of Engineers’ communications with fishermen: “While Vineyard Wind is not authorized to prevent free access to the entire wind development area, due to the placement of the turbines it is likely that the entire 75,614 acre area will be abandoned by commercial fisheries due to difficulties with navigation.”

The BOEM process fails to account for impending conflicts at the start of its offshore leasing process, said Lapp. That was an argument presented in an earlier lawsuit against the Equinor Empire Wind lease off New York by the Fisheries Survival Fund, she recalled.

When that was rejected in court, “we said you guys (BOEM) have to start considering impacts up front…You need to de-conflict up front,” she said.

In the case of Vineyard Wind, the process failed to account for the region’s critical role in the longfin squid fishery, said Lapp. Agencies looked at major Massachusetts-based fleets in those waters, but “there’s hardly any squid unloaded in Massachusetts. It’s all in Rhode Island and New York,” she added.

Based in the state capitol Austin, the foundation calls itself guided by “free enterprise, liberty, personal responsibility” and promotes a range of conservative and pro-business causes. Among its issues the group has opposed renewable energy programs and efforts to move away from fossil fuels, with financial support over the years by ExxonMobil, Chevron and the Charles H. Koch Foundation, whose industrialist founder has underwritten other challenges to climate-related government policies.

“In approving the Vineyard Wind project, the federal government trampled the rights of Americans to pursue its misguided goal of developing offshore wind energy at any cost,” said Ted Hadzi-Antich, senior attorney for CAF. “In the process, it violated multiple federal statutes that protect the environment, national security, commercial fishing, and the nation’s food supply. Our lawsuit aims to protect the communities that depend on fishing to support their families, as well as ensure the areas do not become wastelands for marine wildlife.”

“The violations of the Federal Laws resulted from the Federal Defendants’ unintelligent pursuit of their overarching governmental goal of increasing the capacity of renewable energy generation on the Outer Continental Shelf at any cost,” the lawsuit asserts. “By indiscriminately pursuing that goal, the Federal Defendants disregarded their legal responsibilities.

“Accordingly, the Court should declare the issuance of the lease and the approval of the Construction and Operations Plan unlawful and enjoin further construction of the Vineyard Wind project.”

A spokesman for Vineyard Wind said the developers do not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit’s charges reach back to earliest years of federal offshore wind policy, criticizing changes to BOEM policy under the Obama administration, including the so-called “Smart From The Start” streamlining of offshore energy permitting.

Under earlier rules, BOEM had to subject lease development to four stages: planning and analysis; lease issuance; site assessment plan approval; and construction and operations plan approval, the lawsuit says.

“With regard to leasing, the ‘Smart From The Start’ policy merged the first three steps, leaving only one opportunity for public comment upon receipt of an unsolicited lease proposal, removing any prebid opportunity for public comment on the lease locations, and torpedoing any on-site evaluation of environmental impacts or existing ‘reasonable uses,’ including fishing, prior to lease issuance.”

Back in 2009 to 2010, then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar talked up that planning process in East Coast public meetings to enable wind development. The lawsuit says that change “purports to authorize BOEM to lease large areas of the Outer Continental Shelf to private companies without adequate process and without consideration of alternative sites.”

The Deepwater Horizon oil platform explosion and spill in April 2010 distracted much of BOEM’s offshore planning back then. Wind power planning remained in the agency’s portfolio, and even gained some resurgence during the Trump administration.

One foundation subsidiary, the Fueling Freedom Project, defined its mission as making “the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels.” It was led by Doug Domenech, who was tapped to lead the Trump administration’s transition team at the Interior Department.

While opening more lands to fossil fuel development was a priority, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke also promoted offshore wind development during his 2017-2019 tenure. Former president Trump himself frequently mocked renewable energy, and as his administration drew to a close in December 2020 top Interior officials moved to derail any approvals for Vineyard Wind.

The developers had asked to withdraw and revise their application to use larger GE Haliade-X turbines, but BOEM announced Dec. 16, 2020 that it was terminating, not just suspending, that review process, the lawsuit notes.

Under the new Biden administration, BOEM in early 2021 then “resumed review of the terminated Vineyard Wind COP without requiring Vineyard Wind to update the agency with details describing studies, surveys, and other project specific information Vineyard Wind gathered during its 13-14 MW Haliade-X review between December 1, 2020 and January 22, 2021,” the lawsuit says.

BOEM violated the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act “by approving the Vineyard Wind COP, which did not demonstrate that its proposed activity was safe by failing to ensure safe travel for commercial fishing boats, safe operation of bottom trawl vessels, or a safe environment for emergency rescue operations,” the lawsuit says. “The project will interfere with marine navigational radar, increasing risks for all vessels in the area…BOEM failed to properly review and analyze Vineyard Wind’s decision to increase its turbine size even though it made the project less safe—a willful lack of due diligence that puts every ship traveling through the Vineyard Wind project area at risk.”
National Fisherman

via STOP THESE THINGS

https://ift.tt/3I1v3ox

January 13, 2022 at 12:31AM

NASA’s New IXPE Mission Begins Science Operations

From NASA

Cassiopeia A supernova remnantCassiopeia A supernova remnant
Cassiopeia A supernova remnant.
Credits: NASA/CXC/SAO

NASA’s newest X-ray eyes are open and ready for discovery!

Having spent just over a month in space, the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) is working and already zeroing in on some of the hottest, most energetic objects in the universe.

A joint effort between NASA and the Italian Space Agency, IXPE is the first space observatory dedicated to studying the polarization of X-rays coming from objects like exploded stars and black holes. Polarization describes how the X-ray light is oriented as it travels through space.

“The start of IXPE’s science observations marks a new chapter for X-ray astronomy,” said Martin Weisskopf, the mission’s principal investigator at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “One thing is certain: we can expect the unexpected.”

IXPE launched Dec. 9 on a Falcon 9 rocket into orbit 370 miles (600 kilometers) above Earth’s equator. The observatory’s boom, which provides the distance needed to focus X-rays onto its detectors, was deployed successfully on Dec. 15. The IXPE team spent the next three weeks checking out the observatory’s maneuvering and pointing abilities and aligning the telescopes.

Over the course of these tests, the team pointed IXPE at two bright calibration targets: 1ES 1959+650, a black-hole-powered galaxy core with jets shooting into space; and SMC X-1, a spinning dead star, or pulsar. The brightness of these two sources made it easy for the IXPE team to see where X-rays are falling on IXPE’s polarization-sensitive detectors and make small adjustments to the telescopes’ alignment.

What’s Next for IXPE?

On Jan. 11, IXPE began observing its first official scientific target – Cassiopeia A, or Cas A – the remains of a massive star that blew itself apart in a supernova around 350 years ago in our own Milky Way galaxy. Supernovae are filled with magnetic energy and accelerate particles to near light-speed, making them laboratories for studying extreme physics in space.

IXPE will provide details about Cas A’s magnetic field structure that can’t be observed in other ways. By studying the X-ray polarization, scientists can work out the detailed structure of its magnetic field and the sites where these particles pick up speed.

IXPE’s observations of Cas A will last about three weeks.

“Measuring X-ray polarization is not easy,” said Weisskopf. “You have to collect a lot of light, and the unpolarized light acts like background noise. It can take a while to detect a polarized signal.”

More about the IXPE Mission

IXPE transmits scientific data several times a day to a ground station operated by the Italian Space Agency in Malindi, Kenya. The data flows from the Malindi station to IXPE’s Mission Operations Center at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) and then to IXPE’s Science Operations Center at NASA Marshall for processing and analysis. IXPE’s scientific data will be publicly available from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Research Center at the NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

The Marshall science operations team also coordinates with mission operations team at LASP to schedule science observations. The mission plans to observe more than 30 planned targets during its first year. The mission will study distant supermassive black holes with energetic particle jets that light up their host galaxies. IXPE will also probe the twisted space-time around stellar-mass black holes and measure their spin. Other planned targets include different types of neutron stars, such as pulsars and magnetars. The science team has also reserved about a month to observe other interesting objects that may appear in the sky or brighten unexpectedly.

IXPE is a collaboration between NASA and the Italian Space Agency with partners and science collaborators in 12 countries. Ball Aerospace, headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado, manages spacecraft operations.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3GoGzK9

January 13, 2022 at 12:08AM

Federal Review of Fire and Biodiversity

The Bushfire Front Inc has produced a submission to the Federal government in relation to their inquiry into the impact of fire regimes on biodiversity in Australia.

The paper the government attached to the call for submissions was terrible. If this represents the level of impartial scholarship and understanding of bushfire science in the Commonwealth public service, then the country is in a worse position than I thought.

Please feel free to circulate this submission as you see fit. We regard it as a public document.

Roger Underwood
Chair, The Bushfire Front Inc

Submission document: https://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/bushfire-front-submission.pdf [PDF, 170 kB]

via The Carbon Sense Coalition

https://ift.tt/31YLN0s

January 12, 2022 at 10:19PM